Fear Not Law Articles: Park Lands Ranch v. County of Los Angeles

Park Lands Ranch v

Park Lands Ranch v. County of Los Angeles

Filed 2/15/07 Park Lands Ranch v. County of Los Angeles CA2/5

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.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 FIVE

PARK LANDS RANCH, LLC,

Plaintiff and Appellant,

COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES,

Defendants and Respondents.

B191009

(Los Angeles County

Super. Ct. No. BS 095299)

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Dzintra Janavs, Judge. Affirmed.

Gaines & Stacey, LLP, Fred Gaines and Noelle V. Bensussen for Plaintiff and Appellant Park Lands Ranch, LLC.

Office of the County Counsel, Raymond G. Fortner, Jr. and Elaine M. Lemke; Fox & Sohagi, Deborah J. Fox and Philip A. Seymour for Defendants and Respondents County of Los Angeles and Board of Supervisors of the County of Los Angeles.

INTRODUCTION

Plaintiff and appellant Park Lands Ranch, LLC (Park Lands), owns an undeveloped parcel of real property (the Property) in the Santa Monica Mountains upon which it planned to construct a large, two-story, single family residence and guest house. Several months prior to the effective date of a new ordinance that would restrict development near ridgelines in the area, Park Lands applied to the Regional Planning Department (Planning Department) of defendant and respondent County of Los Angeles (the County) for approval of a plot plan necessary for the development of the Property. Because the original application did not include all the necessary information, Park Lands made subsequent submissions of additional information requested by the County, while the County reviewed the application for completeness. When the ordinance restricting development became effective, the County had not deemed the application complete and therefore processed the application under the more restrictive requirements of that ordinance.

Park Lands sued the County seeking, inter alia, a writ of mandate compelling the County to deem the plot plan application complete prior to the effective date of the ordinance and to process it under the development regulations in effect at the time it was filed. The trial court heard and denied Park Lands's motion for writ of mandate. On appeal from the order denying its motion for writ of mandate, Park Lands argues that the trial court erred in finding that its application was not â€

Description	Plaintiff (Park Lands), owns an undeveloped parcel of real property (the Property) in the Santa Monica Mountains upon which it planned to construct a large, two-story, single family residence and guest house. Several months prior to the effective date of a new ordinance that would restrict development near ridgelines in the area, Park Lands applied to the Regional Planning Department (Planning Department) of defendant and respondent County of Los Angeles (the County) for approval of a plot plan necessary for the development of the Property. Because the original application did not include all the necessary information, Park Lands made subsequent submissions of additional information requested by the County, while the County reviewed the application for completeness. When the ordinance restricting development became effective, the County had not deemed the application complete and therefore processed the application under the more restrictive requirements of that ordinance. Park Lands sued the County seeking, inter alia, a writ of mandate compelling the County to deem the plot plan application complete prior to the effective date of the ordinance and to process it under the development regulations in effect at the time it was filed. The trial court heard and denied Park Lands's motion for writ of mandate. On appeal from the order denying its motion for writ of mandate, Park Lands argues that the trial court erred in finding that its application was not "deemed complete" under state law prior to the effective date of the ordinance, and therefore not subject to the ordinance's "grandfather clause." In the alternative, Park Lands contends that its application should be processed under the less restrictive regulations in effect when it was filed, due to the County's unreasonable or intentional delays in approving it. Park Lands also challenges the trial court's postjudgment order denying its motion to tax costs. Court hold that there is substantial evidence in the record the applicable standard of review to support the findings that Park Lands's application was not "deemed complete" under state law prior to the effective date of the ordinance and that the County did not unreasonably or intentionally delay in processing the application. Court further hold that Park Lands's notice of appeal from the judgment, which awarded costs but left the amount blank, also constitutes an appeal from the trial court's postjudgment order denying Park Lands's motion to tax costs. But court hold that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying that motion. Court therefore affirm the judgment of the trial court.
Rating	0/5 1 2 3 4 5 0/5 based on 0 votes.