The right of the City to control the use of land within its jurisdiction has been consistently recognized by the California Supreme Court as a right that is a municipal affair. (Ceeed v. California Coastal Zone Conservation Com (1974) 43 Cal.App.3d 306, 323, stating “[a]lthough planning and zoning in the conventional sense have traditionally been deemed municipal affairs, where the ecological and environmental impact of land use affect the people of the entire state, they can no longer remain matters of purely local concern.”.)
While permissive zoning can create presumed prohibitions, that does not automatically create an actionable nuisance. (See Urgent Care Medical Services v. City of Pasadena (2018) 21 Cal.App.5th 1086, 1094-1095.) Section 19.148.030(A) defines what constitutes an actionable nuisance, and states that “violating” a provision of the code constitutes a nuisance. This is not the same as “unauthorized use” constitutes a nuisance. (See City of Monterey v. Carrnshimba (2013) 215 Cal.App.4th 1068, 1095.)
“In general the concept is long-standing that a private person who suffers identifiable harm by reason of a violation of a municipal zoning law may sue the violator for compensatory damages and may also seek injunctive relief when applicable.” (Nestle v. City of Santa Monica (1972) 6 Cal.3d 920, 940 citing Sapiro v. Frisbie (1928) 93 Cal.App. 299, 313; see also McIvor v. Mercer-Fraser Co. (1946) 76 Cal.App.2d 247, 250, 253-254.) “While in the vast majority of zoning cases a private party is the defendant, there appears no valid reason why, under the proper circumstances, an action against a municipal body for violating the zoning ordinances of a neighboring municipality cannot be maintained.” (Id.)
ABCO, LLC v. Eversley (2013) 213 Cal.App.4th 1092, 1100 turned on whether the term “dwelling” as defined in section 12.03 could be made applicable to section 151.02, which also used the word “dwelling.” The Court of Appeal held that it could precisely because section 151.02 states that “[w]ords and phrases not defined herein shall be construed as defined in sections 12.03 and 152.02 of this Code, if defined therein.”
In Carter v. Cohen, supra, 188 Cal.App.4th at page 1047, the Court of Appeal held that a guesthouse was a “rental unit” subject to the RSO because the definition of “rental unit” under the RSO includes a “dwelling unit, as specified in section 12.03.”
“When there is a failure to comply with a zoning ordinance by a failure to comply with a condition of a variance, the city establishing the zoning ordinance must be allowed to bring an action seeking to specifically enforce performance of the condition of the variance.” (City of Santa Clara v. Paris (1977) 76 Cal.App.3d 338, 342.) “The city's right to bring the action depends upon the violation of its zoning scheme, not upon the residency or nonresidency of those parties benefitted, nor whether property outside of the city receives a benefit.” (Id.)
“Although earlier cases discussed zoning violations in terms of nuisance, and justified actions to enforce the zoning regulations by reference to nuisance law (see City of Stockton v. Frisbie Latta (1928) 93 Cal.App. 277, 285-290, and cases cited therein) the courts have more recently interpreted the early cases to stand ‘for the proposition that the violation of a valid zoning ordinance itself constitutes a sufficient showing to permit enforcement.’” (City of Santa Clara v. Paris (1977) 76 Cal.App.3d 338, 341. citing City etc. of San Francisco v. Burton (1962) 201 Cal.App.2d 749, 757, approved in City of Tiburon v. Northwestern Pac. R.R. Co. (1970) 4 Cal.App.3d 160, 178 and City and County of San Francisco v. Padilla (1972) 23 Cal.App.3d 388, 401.)
“In view of the ordinance, and the case law cited above, we hold that the city may bring an action to enjoin or otherwise abate the violation of the condition by respondents.” (City of Santa Clara v. Paris (1977) 76 Cal.App.3d 338, 342 citing City and County of San Francisco v. Padilla, supra; see also Cal. Zoning Practice (Cont.Ed.Bar 1969) at 477-481.)
Nature of Proceedings: Demurrer to Second Amended Petition CASE: Santa Barbara Association of Realtors and Robert D. Hart v. City of Santa Barbara, et al., Case No. 17CV04720 (Judge Sterne) HEARING DATE: August 27, 2018 MATTER: Demurrer to Second Amended Petition for Writ of Mandate and Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief or, Alternatively, Motion to Strike Portions Thereof ATTO...
..ut leave to amend. The alternative motion to strike is denied as moot. BACKGROUND: In this combined petition for writ of mandate and complaint for declaratory and injunctive relief, petitioner/plaintiff Santa Barbara Association of Realtors (“SBAOR”) seeks to compel respondents/defendants City of Santa Barbara and Members of the Santa Barbara City Council (together, “City”) to cease enforcement...
Aug 27, 2018
Santa Barbara County, CA
Before the Court this day is plaintiff’s application for a preliminary injunction, barring defendants’ ongoing use of their home for short-term rentals. Defendants oppose. The general purpose of a preliminary injunction is to preserve the status quo pending a determination on the merits of the action. White v. Davis (2003) 30 Cal.4th 528, 554; Bardasian v. Superior Court (2011) 201 Cal.App.4th 137...
..er the plaintiff's showing on one, the less must be shown on the other to support an injunction. Of course, the scope of available preliminary relief is necessarily limited by the scope of the relief likely to be obtained at trial on the merits. A trial court may not grant a preliminary injunction, regardless of the balance of interim harm, unless there is some possibility that the plaintiff would...
Jun 24, 2019
Orange County, CA
the people of the state of california, Plaintiff, vs. venice suites, llc, et al. Defendants. Case No.: BC 624350 Hearing Date: March 23, 2018 Hearing Time: 8:30 a.m. [TENTATIVE] ORDER RE: PLAINTIFF’S REVISED MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE, SUMMARY ADJUDICATION; and DEFENDANTS’ CROSS-MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT, OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE, SUMMARY ADJUDICATION Background Plain...
..dvertising Practices (Business and Professions Code Section 17500 et seq.) (the “Complaint”) against Defendants Venice Suites, LLC (“Venice Suites”) and Carl Lambert (“Lambert”) (jointly, “Defendants”). The aim of the Complaint is to “bring the apartment building located at 417 Ocean Front Walk (“417 OFW”) into compliance with all applicable regulations and to enjoin Defendants from maintaining...
Mar 23, 2018
Los Angeles County, CA
TENTATIVE RULING: The Motion of Plaintiff City of San Diego for Summary Judgment is GRANTED, in part. As owners of the property, Defendants are strictly liable for all code violations occurring at the property, and all Defendants are "Responsible Persons" pursuant to SDMC § 11.0210 and are liable for any SDMC violations at the property. San Diego, operates under a "permissive" zoning scheme. If...
..MCC provides that marijuana cooperatives may be permitted with a conditional use permit in certain zones in the City. The property at issue is located in Barrio Logan within San Diego's Barrio Logan Planned District Sub-district B (BLPD-SUBD-B) zone. Under the Sub-district B zone, any nonresidential use that is not chrome-plating falls under the Industrial Heavy (IH-2-1) zone in San Diego. Case...
May 25, 2017
San Diego County, CA
The Motion (ROA # 56) of Plaintiff City of San Diego ("Plaintiff" or "City") for summary judgment of its Complaint for violations of the City Municipal Code against Defendants TOP FLIGHT CORVETTE, INC., LAWTON M. FERREIRA and DONNA M. FERREIRA ("Defendants"), pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure sections 437c(a), 437(c) and 437c(p)(1), on the grounds that there is no defense to the Compl...
..estraining Defendants from maintaining or operating an establishment for the sale or distribution of marijuana. See SDMC 12.0202 and 121.0311, and Code Civ. Proc. 526. The party moving for summary judgment bears an initial burden of production to make a prima facie showing of the nonexistence of any triable issue of material fact. Aguilar v. Atlantic Richfield Co. (2001) 25 Cal. 4th 826, 850. If...
Aug 31, 2017
San Diego County, CA
The motion for judgment on the pleadings, filed by respondent City of Del Mar, is granted, without leave to amend. Preliminary Matters The City's unopposed request for judicial notice is granted. Background The Del Mar Municipal Code ("DMMC") provides a process for the City to render an administrative interpretation of the Zoning Code, including whether a particular use is permitted. DMMC, § 3...
.., which it calls an "STR ban." The sole cause of action for "Illegal Approval and Adoption of STR Ban" alleges the Resolution violates the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA"), the Coastal Act, and the federal and state constitutions. The City moves for judgment on the pleadings. Discussion A motion for judgment on the pleadings may be granted where the complaint does not state suffic...
Dec 13, 2018
San Diego County, CA
1-3 of 3 results
Mar 03, 2020
San Francisco County, CA
Jan 30, 2012
Sacramento County, CA
Please wait a moment while we load this page.