Levi Family Partnership v. City of Los Angeles CA2/4

Good Law
193 Cal. Rptr. 3d 584·2015 Cal. App. LEXIS 893·241 Cal. App. 4th 123
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaSeptember 16, 2015B257764California5,963 words

Opinion

Opinion

Manella, J.

After the South Valley Area Planning Commission (Commission) declined to approve an eldercare facility proposed by appellant Levi Family Partnership, L.P, appellant sought administrative mandamus against respondent City of Los Angeles (City). In denying mandamus, the trial court concluded that the Commission’s findings were adequate to support its decision. We affirm the judgment entered by the court.

RELEVANT FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

A. Los Angeles Municipal Code Section 14.3.

The principal issues concern the application of Los Angeles Municipal Code section 14.3.1, which the Los Angeles City Council enacted in 2006. Prior to the enactment of that provision, developers seeking to build eldercare facilities often had to obtain several permits or variances. (Walnut Acres Neighborhood Assn. v. City of Los Angeles (2015) 235 Cal.App.4th 1303, 1306 [ 185 Cal.Rptr.3d 871 ] (Walnut Acres).) In 2003, the Los Angeles City Planning Department recommended that the City adopt section 14.3.1 to “expedite the review process for these much-needed [e]ldercare [facilities.”

That goal is reflected in section 14.3.l.A, which states: “The purpose of this article is to provide…

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.