Park Lands Ranch v. County of Los Angeles
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.
Comments on Park Lands Ranch v. County of Los Angeles