Takeuchi v. City of Los Angeles

Filed 1/22/07  Takeuchi v. City of Los Angeles CA2/1

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS

California Rules of Court, rule 977(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 977(b).  This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION ONE

            APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Dzintra Janavs, Judge.  Affirmed.

            John B. Murdock for Plaintiffs and Appellants.

            Rockard J. Delgadillo, City Attorney, Susan P. Pfann, Managing Assistant City Attorney, and Mary J. Decker, Deputy City Attorney, for Defendants and Respondents.

            Gary D. Olive for Real Party In Interest and Respondent.

_______________________

INTRODUCTION

            Plaintiffs Ritsuo Takeuchi, Michi Takeuchi, Ralph Takamoto and Janice Takamoto appeal from the trial court's denial of attorney's fees which they sought as private attorneys general pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 1021.5 (section 1021.5).[1]  They were successful parties against defendant City of Los Angeles (City), with New Paradise Church of God in Christ as real party in interest (Church), in a writ of mandate proceeding brought under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).  We affirm.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

            Plaintiffs are family members who owned three parcels of property adjacent to a site upon which Church sought approval from City to construct a church with 415 fixed seats and 83 on-site parking spaces (project).  An alleged easement to the site ran across one of plaintiffs' parcels.  On or about July 13, 2004, plaintiffs initiated suit to quiet title to the easement.  Plaintiffs filed the instant case October 28, 2004 as a separate and independent action seeking a writ of mandate for enforcement of CEQA in the approval process for the project.

            The project site was located mid-block on a parcel zoned low density single family residential, with a horse-keeping overlay, in the Sylmar area of Los Angeles.  The frontage street was not completely improved, in that it was of substandard width.  The residential neighborhood had severe traffic congestion and parking problems because of existing uses, including a middle school across the street from the project, and nearby, an elementary school, a high school, a public library, a fire station, a public park with a Head Start program, and a senior citizen's center.

The approval process for the project began with a CEQA environmental review by City which resulted in the issuance of a mitigated negative declaration (MND).  The zoning administrator then held publicly noticed hearings and denied Church's application for a conditional use permit (CUP) in a 31-page ruling containing his findings.  The zoning administrator found, inter alia, that â€