Elysium Institute, Inc. v. County of Los Angeles

Good Law
1991 Cal. App. LEXIS 829·232 Cal. App. 3d 408·283 Cal. Rptr. 688·91 Daily Journal DAR 8743·91 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 5682
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaJuly 18, 1991B031797California26,949 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Lillie, J.

*417 Opinion

—Elysium Institute, Inc., and Churchill Land Corporation (Elysium) appeal from a judgment denying their petition for writ of mandamus (Code Civ. Proc., § 1094.5) wherein Elysium (1) challenged the April 1, 1986, decision of the County of Los Angeles Board of Supervisors denying Elysium’s application for nonconforming use permit and structure review to continue operation of a nudist camp and (2) challenged the constitutionality of Los Angeles County Zoning Ordinance No. 10,366 pertaining to nudist camps.

Factual and Procedural Background

The following factual and procedural background is gleaned from the pleadings herein, the trial court’s statement of decision, and the findings in the April 1, 1986, revised findings of the board of supervisors and order, which findings the trial court found to be supported by the weight of the evidence.

Since 1968, Elysium, a nonprofit corporation, has operated what it describes as a “private clothing-optional recreational and educational facility,” on about seven acres of gently sloping to hilly land on North Robinson Road in the unincorporated community of Topanga in Los Angeles County. The land, owned by Churchill Land…

Concurrence in Part

Johnson, J.

—I concur in the majority opin ion insofar as it finds the county unconstitutionally barred Elysium from zone A-l. However, I dissent from its speculative conclusion Elysium probably “would” have been denied a conditional use permit (CUP) had its application been considered as a permitted use in zone A-l. Indeed, what we have here is speculation on top of speculation on top of speculation. It is mere speculation Elysium would have been required to apply for a CUP if it had been considered a permitted use. If a CUP could have and would have been required, it is mere speculation the county would have denied Elysium that CUP. Furthermore, it is mere speculation the county’s decisions to require and to deny a CUP to Elysium could have withstood a challenge based on discriminatory treatment of a constitutionally protected activity *440 involving freedom of association. 1 The proper disposition of this case is to reverse and allow Elysium to be considered as a permitted use in zone A-l with whatever consequences that might have in the future under the conditional use permit process. What the trial court did and the majority opinion approves indeed places Elysium in a classic…

Opinion

Elysium Institute, Inc., and Churchill Land Corporation (Elysium) appeal from a judgment denying their petition for writ of mandamus (Code Civ. Proc., § 1094.5) wherein Elysium (1) challenged the April 1, 1986, decision of the County of Los Angeles Board of Supervisors denying Elysium's application for nonconforming use permit and structure review to continue operation of a nudist camp and (2) challenged the constitutionality of Los Angeles County Zoning Ordinance No. 10,366 pertaining to nudist camps.

The following factual and procedural background is gleaned from the pleadings herein, the trial court's statement of decision, and the findings in the April 1, 1986, revised findings of the board of supervisors and order, which findings the trial court found to be supported by the weight of the evidence.

Since 1968, Elysium, a nonprofit corporation, has operated what it describes as a "private clothing-optional recreational and educational facility," on about seven acres of gently sloping to hilly land on North Robinson Road in the unincorporated community of Topanga in Los Angeles County. The land, owned by Churchill Land Corporation, contains two former…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.