Case v. City of Los Angeles

This is an appeal from a judgment which among other things granted defendants’ motions for declaratory judgment on the pleadings and declared the validity and constitutionality of an approval of a conditional use by city authorities to the individual respondents herein.

The complaint filed herein on November 6, 1961, was in seven counts and alleged generally that Bentley, Watts and Hunter, sometimes hereinafter referred to as the individual respondents, were the owners of 47 acres of land zoned Rl-H located on Cahuenga Boulevard in Los Angeles to the immediate west of the Hollywood Freeway; that ordinance number

The municipal and individual defendants filed their demurrers to the complaint on November 27, 1961, urging among other things that the complaint did not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action and that in many respects the complaint was uncertain.

The demurrer was to have been heard in mid-December 1961, and just prior thereto on December 13, 1961, the plaintiffs filed a first amended complaint. The amended complaint is word for word like the original complaint with the exception that a new seventh cause of action is added in the place of the original seventh cause of action.

The municipal defendants filed a demurrer both general and special to the amended complaint and a motion to strike. It was set forth therein that among other things the amended complaint was uncertain in 17 separate respects. The individual defendants resubmitted their demurrer as previously filed with additional points and authorities in support thereof.

The court overruled the demurrers but without prejudice to the filing by defendants of an appropriate motion for a declaratory judgment on the pleadings. The motion of defendants to strike certain parts of the amended complaint went off calendar.

The defendants in April 1962 filed separate notices of motions for a declaratory judgment upon the pleadings which motions were heard and granted on April 26, 1962, and judgment was filed and entered on May 31, 1962. This appeal followed.

The basic questions are whether the Los Angeles Municipal Code provisions which permit the establishment of a housing project in an HI zone are constitutional and whether the allegations of the amended complaint with reference to the con

With reference to the second part of plaintiffs’ allegations, the courts in California have many times held in effect that a diminution of property values, if any, resulting from the proper exercise of governmental functions is no basis for invalidating such proper governmental activities. See

The identical contention was made in Wheeler v. Gregg, 90 Cal.App.2d 348 [ 203 P.2d 37 ], and there the court at page 365 stated:

“The permit granted respondent Gregg does not restrict appellants in the use of their own property. And they have no vested right in the maintenance of restrictions on respondent Gregg’s property. It may be true that to continue the zoning restrictions upon respondent Gregg’s property might have conferred benefit on neighboring owners and enhanced the value of their property, but the existence of benefits does not generate interests protected by the Constitution against diminution by governmental authorities in the proper exercise of the police power. Zoning regulations are not contracts by the city and may therefore be modified by the latter. Property is always held subject to the valid exercise of police power. The theory of vested rights relates only to such rights as an owner of property may possess not to have his property rezoned after he has started construction thereon or was making a use thereof permitted by law, when such construction or use does not constitute a nuisance. [Citations.] The adoption of Zoning Ordinance No. 90500 gave appellants no vested rights which would prevent defendant city from subsequently amending the ordinance or granting a conditional use permit thereunder. The provisions' of the ordinance restricting the uses to which.respondent Gregg’s property could be put did not result in. a contract with .appellants divesting the city of the right to subsequently change the ordinance or to grant a conditional use pewit adversely affecting the property of appellants.”

In the second 'cause of action plaintiffs also attack section 12.24C-1.5 of the' code as being unconstitutional, as being vague and without adequate criteria to guide in the granting of a conditional use and further that the factors

In the third cause of action plaintiffs contend that section 12.24C-1.5 is unconstitutional because it improperly delegates legislative authority, namely that it provides for delegation of legislative power to the zoning administrator when.it permits him to ascertain (1) what constitutes a “housing project” and (2) when the proposed use of a lot is “proper in relation to adjacent uses and the development of the community. ’ ’

It has heretofore been stated that the zoning administrator does not make the determination of what constitutes a housing project. That term is defined in the code. The standard as set forth above in (2) of plaintiffs’ contention is not the standard described in the code in section 12.24C-1.5. The authority to determine whether the standards as set forth in the code have been met and therefore whether a conditional use can be approved has been held not to be an improper delegation of legislative authority. See Wheeler v. Gregg, 90 Cal.App.2d 348 , 362 [ 203 P.2d 37 ], where it is set forth:

“It is next contended that the power vested in the planning commission in the first instance, and in the city council on appeal, to grant a conditional use permit under section 12.24 of Ordinance No. 90500, constitutes an unlawful delegation of legislative power. This claim is without merit. We are persuaded that a finding by the planning commission in the first instance, or, as in the case at bar, by the city council on appeal, of the necessary facts to justify the granting of a conditional use permit under section 12.24 of the ordinance is an exercise of quasi judicial, or perhaps administrative power, and- does not amount to an exercise of legislative power.”

The fifth cause of action asserts that the city officials “acted under a miscomprehension of their duty” in concluding that they had authority to permit a housing project in other than a “slum area” and without federal aid. There is, as heretofore stated, no requirement under the code that a housing project be located in a “slum area” and be aided by federal funds.

Plaintiffs further allege in effect that the council in enacting the legislation in question really intended something other than that which they enacted. In Bertolozzi v. Progressive Concrete Co., 95 Cal.App.2d 332 , 335 [ 212 P.2d 910 ], the court said: “Defendants offered to prove by the city attorney who drafted the ordinance that it was not intended to apply to sidewalks. The court properly refused to admit this evidence. . . . Where a statute or ordinance is clear on its face there is no room for extrinsic evidence of its meaning.” See also Caminetti v. Pacific Mutual Life Ins. Co., 22 Cal.2d 344 , 353 [ 139 P.2d 908 ]; Shorb v. Barkley, 108 Cal.App.2d 873 , 877 [ 240 P.2d 337 ].

In the sixth cause of action appellants assert that they were denied a fair hearing before the various municipal bodies because (1) certain letters were written favoring the applicants “without giving details of their contents to the plaintiffs” and were “improperly considered,” (2) such letters were considered without affording plaintiffs an opportunity to examine the writers of said letters or to adduce evidence in rebuttal and (3) “statements contained in the letters were accepted as factual evidence without production of the writers as witnesses. ’ ’ The identical allegations were contained in the original complaint and a special demurrer was interposed wherein it was pointed out that plaintiffs failed to allege wherein the code requires that persons sending letters to an administrative body or that the administrative body receiving such letters must give “details of their contents” to some indefinite class of persons; that plaintiffs failed to allege the content, materiality or manner of consideration of any such letters; that plaintiffs failed to allege that the evidence apart

In Desert Turf Club v. Board of Supervisors, 141 Cal.App.2d 446 , 456 [ 296 P.2d 882 ], it is held that the fact of whether the writers of letters to an administrative agency are for or against the particular matter under consideration may be considered. For all that appears in this. case it may have been that the letters in question simply .set forth that the writers were for or against the project. • ¡Nowhere is there any assertion that the evidence without the-letters was not sufficient in and of itself to warrant the orders, which were made. In the ease last cited it is further set forth at page 455: “As it appears to us that the board of supervisors based its action on an erroneous conclusion as to its legal rights and duties, and that upon the record legitimately before it the board acted in abuse of its discretion, a writ of mandate ¿should issue. [Citations.] ”

Plaintiffs made no allegation of what evidence they desired to offer or how it might have affected the result. See Tudor v. City of Rialto, 164 Cal.App.2d 807 , 811-812, 814 [ 331 P.2d 122 ],

In the seventh cause of action appellants allege that the conditional use was void because no standards were set forth to guide the administrative bodies in determining the height of the buildings. First of all the appellants have failed to allege properly the portion of the code which they assert is invalid. See section 459, Code of Civil Procedure; Simpson v. City of Los Angeles, 40 Cal.2d 271 [ 253 P.2d

The procedure of the trial court in overruling the demurrers and thereafter upon motion of the defendants granting declaratory relief on the pleadings was approved in Essick v. City of Los Angeles, 34 Cal.2d 614 , 624-625 [ 213 P.2d 492 ], and in Wilson v. Board of Retirement, 156 Cal.App.2d 195 , 201 [ 319 P.2d 426 ],

We have carefully considered the entire record in this ease and we find no merit to any of the appellants’ contentions.

Judgment affirmed.

Wood, P. J., and Lillie, J., concurred.

Appellants’ petition for a hearing by the Supreme Court was denied September 4, 1963.