Zoning Violations and Permissive Zoning in California

When a city seeks to enforce a valid local zoning ordinance by injunction, the court's inquiry is limited to whether a zoning violation exists. (City and County of San Francisco v. Burton (1962) 201 Cal.App.2d 749, 756-757.) The City has met its burden to show that Defendants violated the SDMC from sometime in February of 2016, until November 30, 2016. However, Defendants have raised a triable issue of fact as to whether a there is a current violation.

In other words, Plaintiff contends that the HSO demonstrates that the Court “misapplied the LAMC’s permissive zoning scheme.”[1] (Mot., p. 7:8-9.) Defendants dispute whether the remaining UCL and false advertising causes of action even require a determination of whether allowing short-term rental use at 417 OFW is illegal.

Collateral Attack The City argues that the instant action is an impermissible collateral attack on the City’s system of permissive zoning. Under the City’s permissive zoning code, the City has always prohibited STRs as a use in residential zones. AR 547. Petitioner’s recasting of Ordinance 19-0007 as an STR ban is contradicted by the facts.

The four citations were issued for the same violation, which is PMC section 14.50.040(28) and (35), which are public nuisance and violation of city ordinance, respectively. AR 129. Each also refers to PMC section 17.78.060, which states that the use of land contrary to the Zoning Code is a per se public nuisance. AR 129, 146. The first citation was February 23, 2017, the second citation was March 2, 2017, and the third citation was issued March 9, 2017. AR 130.

In response to Boggs’s arguments that neither he nor the Business constituted a public nuisance and were not in violation of the PMC, the City responded it was not asserting that Boggs as an individual was a public nuisance, but that the operation and presence of an illegal marijuana dispensary constituted a public nuisance pursuant to PMC section 14.50.020 and the Zoning Code of the City. AR 38-9.

Zoning Code Violation —VPL20-0095 — occupied travel trailers (2/28/2020-8/6/2020, 160 days X $40.00 per day = $6,400.00). 1. Zoning Code Violation -VPL20-0096 - occupied travel trailers (2/28/2020-8/6/2020, 160 days X $40.00 per day = $6,400.00). m. Zoning Code Violation -VPL20~0097 - occupied travel trailers (2/28/2020—8/6/2020, 160 days X $40.00 per day = $6,400.00). n. Zoning Code Violation —VPL20-0098 - contractors' storage yard (2/28/2020- 8/6/2020, 160 days X $40.00 per day = $6,400.00). o.

With regard to the alleged zoning ordinance violation, the SAC does not allege particularized facts that if proven, amount to a violation of the zoning ordinance. Instead, the SAC alleges that Defendant did not "exercise reasonable diligence" in connection with obtaining permits under the ordinance.

The Complaint fails to identify the zoning ordinance at issue, and (more importantly) fails to allege that any law expressly states that a violation of the zoning ordinance is a nuisance. Overrule the demurrer as to the other causes of action; 2nd, 3rd, 4th, and 5th.

The City persuasively argues Petitioner has failed to state a claim for a violation of the HAA.

The Notice states petitioner is in violation of "section 6976 of the San Diego County Code of Regulatory Ordinances and/or Zoning Ordinance - Prohibition of Marijuana Facilities - Medical or non-Medical." Petitioner argues that it was deprived of due process because Section 6976 is part of the Zoning Ordinance, not the Regulatory Ordinances. Petitioner cites no authority that such a defect renders an abatement notice void.

Violation of CEQA—ElR Does not Comply 2. Violation of CEQA—Failure to Substantially Support Findings 3. Violation of CEQA—Failure to Revise and Recirculate 4. Violation of State Planning & Zoning Law 5. [sic, mislabeled as "fourth cause of action”] Violation of Subdivision Map 6.

Former subdivision (a)(2) required that the administrative procedures set forth by such an ordinance provide for a reasonable period of time, as specified in the ordinance, for a person responsible for a continuing violation to correct or otherwise remedy the violation prior to the imposition of administrative fines or penalties, when the violation pertains to building, plumbing, electrical, or other similar structural or zoning issues, that do not create an immediate danger to health or safety.

Code §53069.4(a)(2)(B) authorizes the “immediate imposition of administrative fines or penalties for the violation of building, plumbing, electrical, or other similar structural, health and safety, or zoning requirement if the violation exists as a result of, or to facilitate, the illegal cultivation of cannabis.” Therefore, Gov.

Code §53069.4(a)(2)(B) authorizes the “immediate imposition of administrative fines or penalties for the violation of building, plumbing, electrical, or other similar structural, health and safety, or zoning requirement if the violation exists as a result of, or to facilitate, the illegal cultivation of cannabis.” Therefore, Gov.

Code §53069.4(a)(2)(B) authorizes the “immediate imposition of administrative fines or penalties for the violation of building, plumbing, electrical, or other similar structural, health and safety, or zoning requirement if the violation exists as a result of, or to facilitate, the illegal cultivation of cannabis.” Therefore, Gov.

Code §53069.4(a)(2)(B) authorizes the “immediate imposition of administrative fines or penalties for the violation of building, plumbing, electrical, or other similar structural, health and safety, or zoning requirement if the violation exists as a result of, or to facilitate, the illegal cultivation of cannabis.” Therefore, Gov.

Code §53069.4(a)(2)(B) authorizes the “immediate imposition of administrative fines or penalties for the violation of building, plumbing, electrical, or other similar structural, health and safety, or zoning requirement if the violation exists as a result of, or to facilitate, the illegal cultivation of cannabis.” Therefore, Gov.

Code §53069.4(a)(2)(B) authorizes the “immediate imposition of administrative fines or penalties for the violation of building, plumbing, electrical, or other similar structural, health and safety, or zoning requirement if the violation exists as a result of, or to facilitate, the illegal cultivation of cannabis.” Therefore, Gov.

Code §53069.4(a)(2)(B) authorizes the “immediate imposition of administrative fines or penalties for the violation of building, plumbing, electrical, or other similar structural, health and safety, or zoning requirement if the violation exists as a result of, or to facilitate, the illegal cultivation of cannabis.” Therefore, Gov.

The violation of a valid zoning ordinance constitutes a sufficient showing to permit for enforcement through injunctive relief. City of Santa Clara v. Paris (1977) 76 Cal. App. 3d 338, 342. A city may bring an action to enjoin or otherwise abate the violation of a zoning ordinance. Id. Although injunctive relief is a remedy and not a cause of action (Shell Oil Co. v. Richter (1942) 52 Cal.

The purpose of the Zoning Code is to “consolidate and coordinate all existing zoning regulations and provisions into one comprehensive zoning plan in order to designate, regulate and restrict the location and use of buildings, structures and land, for...residence, commerce, trade, industry or other purposes.”

MOTION TO CONSOLIDATE County argues that the cases involve overlapping parties, including GEC and County, and arise out of the same transaction or occurrence discussed above; namely, Defendants wrongfully operating a medical marijuana dispensary in violation of County’s ban on marijuana dispensaries and of County’s permissive zoning code. County argues that the case in YC071962 is for declaratory and injunctive relief as to GEC’s rights under those and other marijuana laws.

County's request for judicial notice: 1) portions of the Ventura County Non-Coastal Zoning Ordinance; 2) Notice of Violation in case # PV13-00016; 3) Administrative Appeal Form regarding case # PV13-00016; and 4) Construction/Demolition Zoning Clearance No,. ZC12-1050. No objection. These are all official act. Grant.

From March 2022 to present, the City of Diamond Bar (the City) alleges Zhong and Li have been utilizing the Diamond Bar property for short-term rentals in violation of Diamond Bar Municipal Code section 22.08.030. The City alleges that despite multiple notices of violation, Zhong and Li have failed to comply. On July 14, 2023, the City filed a complaint against Zhong, Li, and Does 1-50, alleging (1) public nuisance and (2) public nuisance per se.

The sample required someone from the local entity’s zoning authority sign and acknowledge: (1) sex offender treatment services will be provided to CDCR parolees at the proposed facility; and (2) the “facility is not in violation of any city/county zoning requirements or the city/county does not object to these services being provided at the specified address.” (Sample Zoning Letter.) Center submitted a bid to provide sex offender treatment services for San Diego and Imperial Counties.

Liability in this case is not supported by the plain language of the FHA because RHNA zoning does not “make” housing “unavailable” in any material sense, or “deny” housing. Zoning can change, and a developer can always request a zoning change.

City of Fresno (1973) 34 Cal.App.3d 813, 820 [[T]he public and community interest in preserving the community patterns established by zoning laws outweighs the injustice that may be incurred by the individual in relying upon an Invalid permit to build issued in violation of zoning laws].) The demurrer to the first and only cause of action is SUSTAINED. Because plaintiff fails to state a cause of action despite having an opportunity to amend, leave to amend is DENIED.

LADBS issued the 2017 Order to clarify this violation by noting that the Shed was an accessory building which was not allowed in the setback area. Id. These orders concern violations of the City’s zoning code. LADBS has the power and duty to enforce the zoning ordinances of the City. RJN Ex. D (LAMC §12.26A). The Planning Director is authorized to investigate and decide alleged error or abuse of discretion by LADBS. RJN Ex. D (LAMC §12.21K).

Petitioners alleged that a Notice of Violation was issued by Starkweather. Additionally, after they filed a written complaint against Starkweather, Starkweather thereafter issued five (5) additional notices of violation, all of which were dismissed except for one notice of violation issued in October 2022 (the “NOV”), which is the subject of this action. Petitioners allege the NOV required corrective action to “reduce the number of goats and roosters to meet zoning requirements.”

Petitioners alleged that a Notice of Violation was issued by Starkweather. Additionally, after they filed a written complaint against Starkweather, Starkweather thereafter issued five (5) additional notices of violation, all of which were dismissed except for one notice of violation issued in October 2022 (the “NOV”), which is the subject of this action. Petitioners allege the NOV required corrective action to “reduce the number of goats and roosters to meet zoning requirements.”

Petitioners alleged that a Notice of Violation was issued by Starkweather. Additionally, after they filed a written complaint against Starkweather, Starkweather thereafter issued five (5) additional notices of violation, all of which were dismissed except for one notice of violation issued in October 2022 (the “NOV”), which is the subject of this action. Petitioners allege the NOV required corrective action to “reduce the number of goats and roosters to meet zoning requirements.”

On March 21, 2014, the County issued a Notice of Violation, which allowed Petitioner 30 days within which to cure the zoning violations.

On November 14, 2017, the City issued a Notice of Violation concerning the ADU. (See First Amended Petition, paragraph 18.) Plaintiff subsequently submitted an application to bring the ADU into compliance with all applicable City laws. (See First Amended Petition, paragraph 29.)

procedural history Forat filed a Verified Petition for Writ of Mandate and Complaint on June 28, 2016 alleging six causes of action: Writ of Mandate Inverse Condemnation Promissory Estoppel Declaratory Relief Violation of Civil Rights Violation of Brown Act On September 15, 2016, the City filed a Demurrer to the Petition on all causes of action. On October 6, 2016, the Court in Dept. 85 severed the First, Fourth, and Sixth Causes of Action.

Defendants do not present evidence disputing the violation of zoning ordinances or that the wall abuts Plaintiff’s house. The violation of setback requirement that would prohibit a wall being built immediately next to the neighboring house would cause the owner of that house a special injury to the property different in kind from that suffered by the general public.

The issue of whether City can establish Intervenors’ violation of a zoning ordinance so as to establish nuisance per se has been dealt with the Motion for Summary Adjudication and Summary Judgment by MHAOC and BT.

That ordinance shall specify the kinds of variances which may be granted by the board of zoning adjustment or zoning administrator, and the extent which the board of zoning adjustment or zoning administrator may allow. (Government Code § 65901 (emphasis added).) In the instant case, Petitioner argues that the City Manager is not the "board of zoning adjustment" and is not the "zoning administrator," such that Government Code § 65009(c)(1)(E) cannot apply to a decision made by him.

Given that Defendant was either required to eliminate the zoning violation, or show substantial compliance with the Notice of Violation in order to obtain an extension, Defendant had a clear right to enter the Zen House and prepare for the demolition of the portion of the house that fell on his property.

In April 2016, Judge Taylor issued an order enjoining All-Star and Johnson from maintaining a marijuana dispensary in violation of local zoning laws. UMF 23. Around the same time, the owner served Johnson an eviction notice for operating an illegal dispensary. UMF 22. The dispensary vacated the property on June 30, 2016. UMF 31. On September 13, 2016, Johnson pled guilty to maintaining a marijuana dispensary at the property in violation of the zoning law. UMF 33.

City of White Plains, 117 F.3d 37 (2d Cir.1997),8 and hold that these statutes do apply to zoning.” Bay Area Addiction Research and Treatment, Inc. v. City of Antioch (9th Cir. 1999) 179 F.3d 725, 730 (reversing order denying preliminary injunction to methadone clinic and some individual patients). Accordingly, the Court finds that Cross-Complainants – if they are aggrieved by discrimination to disabled persons – may maintain a claim for violation of the ADA.

On November 1, 1993, Pomona adopted Proposition L, which added a provision to the Pomona Zoning Code (the Zoning Code) prohibiting new or structurally altered offsite billboards within the City. (6AC ¶ 19.) The current Zoning Code also prohibits offsite advertising signs (billboards). (6AC ¶ 18.) Upon the end of the first term in 2004, the Development Agreement automatically extended into a second term, which was due to expire on June 24, 2014. (6AC ¶ 21.)

Code §17.10.050(C) provides that the violation of any city municipal code, zoning code, or ordinance is a nuisance. And, §204.18 prohibits operating, or permitting the operation of, a medical marijuana business. “C. Medical Marijuana Businesses, Collectives, Cooperatives or Dispensaries. A Medical Marijuana Business, Collective, Cooperative or Dispensary or any other such business, no matter how so named, is not a permitted use in any zoning district or specific plan in the City.

The sample zoning letter that is provided with the IFB contains a space for someone from the relevant zoning authority to sign and acknowledge: (1) sex offender treatment services will be provided to CDCR parolees at the identified facility; and (2) the “facility is not in violation of any city/county zoning requirements or the city/county does not object to these services being provided at the specified address.” (Sample Zoning Letter.) A copy of the zoning letter had to be submitted with the bid.

CONTENTS OF ZONING INFORMATION REPORT. “The Community Development Director shall review the applicable City records and provide the applicant the following information on the Zoning Information Report: “1. Street address and parcel number of the property. “2. The zone classification and permitted uses as set forth in the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Santa Barbara. “3. Occupancy and use permitted as indicated and established by records. “4.

Madrigal and Does 1-100 for: Public Nuisance for Violation of the Pomona Zoning Code Public Nuisance for Violation of the Pomona Municipal Code On 9/1/17, City obtained a TRO; an OSC re Preliminary Injunction is set for 9/21/17. A Case Management Conference is set for 12/11/17.

Thus, if the City is correct about what those zoning requirements are, Petitioners are left with no real argument as to why the August 2 letter was an incorrect inconsistency determination. But conversely, the City has apparently hung its inconsistency hat entirely on the peg of the PD-36 zoning requirements.

That ordinance shall specify the kinds of variances which may be granted by the board of zoning adjustment or zoning administrator, and the extent which the board of zoning adjustment or zoning administrator may allow. (Government Code § 65901 (emphasis added).) In the instant case, Petitioner argues that the City Manager is not the "board of zoning adjustment" and is not the "zoning administrator," such that Government Code § 65009(c)(1)(E) cannot apply to a decision made by him.

Leavitt (1991) 229 Cal.App.3d 1236, 1243. ) (d) Violation of LA County Zoning Ordinance Defendants argue that Plaintiffs’ claim for violations of the LA County zoning ordinance fails because the FAC seems to imply that such violations have not yet occurred. The Demurrer is overruled as to the fourth cause of action because the FAC affirmatively pleads violations. (See, e.g., FAC ¶¶ 47-48.)

Operating a marijuana cooperative is not a permitted use within this zoning area. (UMF ¶¶1-3.) Defendants also argue they are not a responsible party for the alleged SDMC violation. Defendants assert that the term "Responsible Person" is only defined in SDMC §11.0210 and is not used by other sections referenced by the City. This is not an accurate assessment of the SDMC. The same definition is used within the SDMC regarding medical marijuana cooperatives. (SDMC §42.1502.)

Further, the Court is not convinced there is a zoning or permit violation, because the nature of the defendants operation is extensively conflicting. The opposition brief did not address an undertaking, and it is not an issue for the motion being denied, but otherwise a very large undertaking amount might have been justified to cover defendants potential losses.

That ordinance shall specify the kinds of variances which may be granted by the board of zoning adjustment or zoning administrator, and the extent of variation which the board of zoning adjustment or zoning administrator may allow.”

"[T] the violation of a valid zoning ordinance itself constitutes a sufficient showing to permit enforcement by an injunctive proceeding." (City and County of San Francisco v. Padilla (1972) 23 Cal.App.3d 388, 401 citing City and County of San Francisco v. Burton (1962) 201 Cal.App.2d 749, 756. See also, City of Stockton v. Frisbie & Latta (1928) 93 Cal.App. 277.)

However, the requirement of a hearing only applies if the City is considering a “proposed zoning ordinance or amendment to a zoning ordinance.” (Gov. Code, § 65854.)

However, the requirement of a hearing only applies if the City is considering a “proposed zoning ordinance or amendment to a zoning ordinance.” (Gov. Code, § 65854.)

However, the requirement of a hearing only applies if the City is considering a “proposed zoning ordinance or amendment to a zoning ordinance.” (Gov. Code, § 65854.)

Petitioners have failed to show that they are entitled under section Code of Civil Procedure section 1085 to zoning clearances. The Court will not issue a writ of mandate directing the County to rescind violation 11. This violation was never appealed. Regardless, this violation was properly issued.

Here, the City's agreement not to pass a zoning ordinance or create a boundary line does not change the existing law. Whatever is allowed or not allowed under the existing zoning regulations will continue to be allowed or not allowed. Because plaintiff has not alleged any change in the environment as a result of the Agreement, plaintiff has not stated a basis for relief under CEQA. For these reasons, the demurrers are sustained.

Again, however, the second cause of action challenges the City's land use decision to approve the Project despite its inconsistency with the General Plan in violation of the State Planning and Zoning Law, and not the Urgency Ordinance and certification in 2021.

to comply with the mandatory requirement in Section 8114-3.6.1 of the Ventura County Non-Coastal Zoning Ordinance that a Notice of Violation "state how the violation(s) may be corrected."

"[T] the violation of a valid zoning ordinance itself constitutes a sufficient showing to permit enforcement by an injunctive proceeding." (City and County of San Francisco v. Padilla (1972) 23 Cal.App.3d 388, 401 citing City and County of San Francisco v. Burton (1962) 201 Cal.App.2d 749, 756. See also, City of Stockton v. Frisbie & Latta (1928) 93 Cal.App. 277.)

[FAC ¶2, p. 2:1-9] Plaintiff then adds: “Defendant’s wrongful acts include the breaking of doors, windows, and other portions of the dwelling house by use of heavy equipment and the removal of the prior legal non-conforming dwelling house constructed in the 1940’s in violation of Santa Barbara County Code and Inland Zoning Ordinance Article III of Chapter §35-313.2 for Zoning Clearance, and §35-314.2 for Land Use Permits.”

Violation of CEQA 2. Improper Zoning Variance and CUP 3. Violation of Procedural Due Process Local Rule 3.232 mandates that “CEQA actions must be filed in the Central District where they will be assigned to Department 1, as master calendar, for reassignment for all purposes... to judges designated by the Presiding Judge pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21167.1.”

In reply, Plaintiff cites the purpose of the Zoning Article, Los Angeles Municipal Code section 12.02.

Code §17.10.050 (C) which provides that the violation of any city municipal code, zoning code, or ordinance is a nuisance. And, §204.18 prohibits operating, or permitting the operation of, a medical marijuana business as follows: “C. Medical Marijuana Businesses, Collectives, Cooperatives or Dispensaries. A Medical Marijuana Business, Collective, Cooperative or Dispensary or any other such business, no matter how so named, is not a permitted use in any zoning district or specific plan in the City.

Code §17.10.050 (C) which provides that the violation of any city municipal code, zoning code, or ordinance is a nuisance. And, §204.18 prohibits operating, or permitting the operation of, a medical marijuana business as follows: “C. Medical Marijuana Businesses, Collectives, Cooperatives or Dispensaries. A Medical Marijuana Business, Collective, Cooperative or Dispensary or any other such business, no matter how so named, is not a permitted use in any zoning district or specific plan in the City.

Petitioner alleges Respondent issued a COO for the Project even though the Project was in standing violation of the Zoning Ordinance, specifically BMC section 10-1-1810(3). (SAP, ¶ 24.)

"[T]he violation of a valid zoning ordinance itself constitutes a sufficient showing to permit enforcement by an injunctive proceeding." City and County of San Francisco v. Padilla (1972) 23 Cal.App.3d 388, 401 citing City and County of San Francisco v. Burton (1962) 201 Cal.App.2d 749, 756. See also, City of Stockton v. Frisbie & Latta (1928) 93 Cal.App. 277.

DRP subsequently inspected the premises; issued a notice of violation; and informed Petitioner that it needed a CUP to operate its business on the Property. (AR 28-33 [inspection history]; 59-60 [notice of violation]; 112-163 [inspection photos]; 283-292 [inspector testimony].) On June 11, 2020, DRP mailed to Petitioner a Final Zoning Enforcement Order (FZEO), which listed the following two violations applicable to Petitioner: 2.

(b) For County code or ordinance violations, up to $1,000 per day per violation against each responsible person, but no more than $50,000 in civil penalties for any one violation against a responsible person in any 12 month period. (c) For State code violations, up to $2,500 per day per violation against each responsible person, but no more than $125,000 in civil penalties for any one violation against a responsible person in any 12 month period.

In response to the DRCs 2022 Report, Petitioners prepared an application (Zoning Application) for a change of zone and General Plan amendment to change the Propertys zoning from CC back to BP. Pet., ¶31. The Zoning Application did not seek review of any specific site plan and/or development. Pet., ¶31. The requested zoning change would reverse the Citys spot zoning and restored the zoning that existed for the Property when Petitioners purchased it. Pet., ¶31.

This Petition for Writ of Mandate, filed 8/10/16, asserts causes of action for: Violation of CEQA Improper Zoning Variance and CUP Violation of Procedural Due Process Petitioners move to compel required settlement conference per Pub. Res. Code 21167.8(d) and to augment the administrative record pursuant to Pub. Res. Code 21167.6(e). The court is in receipt of declaration signed by Defendants’ counsel, Norman A.

The evidence demonstrates that the City of Santa Ana has exercised its authority to declare any violation of the City’s municipal and/or zoning codes a nuisance, and the subject property is being used to operate an illegal marijuana dispensary in violation of the Santa Ana Municipal Codes. The application is not opposed. A public entity such as Plaintiffs need not post a bond for injunctive relief. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 529(b)(3), 995.220(b).) Plaintiffs to give notice.

The only remaining matter is civil penalties, which is a remedy in the context of zoning violation. See, People v. Superior Court of Los Angeles County (2015) 234 Cal.App.4th 1360, 378-1379.

The SAP asserts causes of action for: Violation of Los Angeles Municipal Code Violation of Government Code Violation of CC&Rs On 11/8/17, this court dismissed the CC&Rs claim. What remains are the claims for violation of the LAMC and Government Codes.

Violation of Ordinance 4096, 4202, and the PZO constitute a public nuisance. (RJN, Ex. E.) The power to enact and enforce comprehensive zoning regulations lies squarely within the “police powers” granted to municipalities by the California Constitution. (Cal. Const. art. XI, Sec. 7; Vill. of Euclid v. Ambler Realty Co. (1926) 272 US 365, 388.) Gov. Code 38771 empowers cities to declare specified conditions of land a public nuisance.

Code §17.10.050(C) provides that the violation of any city municipal code, zoning code, or ordinance is a nuisance. Mun. Code §5.08.010 makes it unlawful to operate any business within the city without first procuring a business license. There is no dispute that defendant Nguyen has not obtained a license from the City. The operation of the dispensary thus appears to constitute a nuisance per se. And, when a nuisance per se is established, no showing of harm is required. (City of Claremont v.

"[T] the violation of a valid zoning ordinance itself constitutes a sufficient showing to permit enforcement by an injunctive proceeding." (City and County of San Francisco v. Padilla (1972) 23 Cal.App.3d 388, 401 citing City and County of San Francisco v. Burton (1962) 201 Cal.App.2d 749, 756. See also, City of Stockton v. Frisbie & Latta (1928) 93 Cal.App. 277.)

[1] Petitioner failed to lodge a courtesy copy of its opposition brief in violation of the Presiding Judge’s General Order Re: Mandatory Electronic Filing. Petitioner’s counsel is admonished to provide courtesy copies in all future filings. [2] Proposed Intervenors failed to lodge a courtesy copy of their reply brief in violation of the Presiding Judge’s General Order Re: Mandatory Electronic Filing. Their counsel is admonished to provide courtesy copies in all future cases in Los Angeles Superior Court.

AB 101 requires HCD to notify a city or county and authorizes HCD to notify the office of the Attorney General, that the city or county is in violation of state law if the local government has taken action in violation of specified provisions of law.

City pleads defendants’ obligation to comply with the zoning ordinance, and injury to the public based thereon. Defendants’ cross-complaint asserts that City has an obligation to avoid improper interference with defendant’s property rights, and to avoid overbroad application of the zoning ordinance. In failing to comply with those obligations, City’s actions amount to an unauthorized regulatory taking.

Discussion In this case, the City argues Zhong and Li are operating a short-term rental in violation of Diamond Bar Municipal Code (DBMC). Pursuant to DBMC section 22.04.020, subdivision (h), [i]f a proposed use of land is not specifically listed in article II (Zoning Districts and Allowable Land Uses), the use shall not be allowed unless it involves similar or equivalent use.

This was a misrepresentation because the room was in violation of zoning and building codes, and therefore, could not lawfully be used as a bedroom. (Ibid.) Implicit in Plaintiff’s allegations is that Defendant represented that she was offering a bedroom that is compliant with all zoning and building codes.

The problem for the Agency is that the governing ordinances use the term "last known address" for the service of documents on violators of the "Non-Coastal Zoning Ordinance" ("NCZO"). Specifically, any notice of violation or non-compliance is to "be sent by first class mail to the last known address of the violator." (Sec. 8114-3.6, Ex A to P's Request for Judicial Notice submitted on 3/24/11).

Accordingly, the only issues to be adjudicated administratively at what is now the 9/30/10 public hearing are seven notices of violation of P's CUP and the non-coastal zoning ordinance. "A decision attains the requisite administrative finality when the agency has exhausted its jurisdiction and possesses 'no further power to reconsider or rehear the claim.' " [Citation.]... Until a public agency makes a final decision, the matter is not ripe for judicial review. [Citation.]..."

First, the local density bonus ordinance is built in to the zoning law, such that a project approved in compliance with the density bonus provisions is by definition “consistent” with the zoning code, even where it exceeds otherwise applicable density requirements. Moreover, a density “bonus” necessarily implies an allotment that exceeds the density that ordinarily would be allowed by the otherwise applicable General Plan and Zoning Code requirements.

There are three means in which a property owner may seek relief from a zoning restriction: seek a change in the zoning map or zoning ordinance; apply for a conditional use permit; apply for a variance. (Neighbors in Support of Appropriate Land Use v. County of Tuoloumne (2007) 157 Cal.App.4th 997, 1006-1007.) “[A] conditional use permit grants an owner permission to devote a parcel to a use that the applicable zoning ordinance allows not as a matter of right but only upon issuance of the permit.

There are three means in which a property owner may seek relief from a zoning restriction: seek a change in the zoning map or zoning ordinance; apply for a conditional use permit; apply for a variance. (Neighbors in Support of Appropriate Land Use v. County of Tuoloumne (2007) 157 Cal.App.4th 997, 1006-1007.) “[A] conditional use permit grants an owner permission to devote a parcel to a use that the applicable zoning ordinance allows not as a matter of right but only upon issuance of the permit.

There are three means in which a property owner may seek relief from a zoning restriction: seek a change in the zoning map or zoning ordinance; apply for a conditional use permit; apply for a variance. (Neighbors in Support of Appropriate Land Use v. County of Tuoloumne (2007) 157 Cal.App.4th 997, 1006-1007.) “[A] conditional use permit grants an owner permission to devote a parcel to a use that the applicable zoning ordinance allows not as a matter of right but only upon issuance of the permit.

Government Code, section 65901, subdivision (a) states: The board of zoning adjustment or zoning administrator shall hear and decide applications for conditional uses or other permits when the zoning ordinance provides therefor and establishes criteria for determining those matters, and applications for variances from the terms of the zoning ordinance.

Jungle contends that it has submitted a Change of Zone application and Plot Plan to change the zoning on the property from R-5 to N-A, which would allow the operation of a commercial tiger menagerie. (Declaration of Robert P. Curtis (“Curtis Dec.”), ¶ 15.)

Jungle contends that it has submitted a Change of Zone application and Plot Plan to change the zoning on the property from R-5 to N-A, which would allow the operation of a commercial tiger menagerie. (Declaration of Robert P. Curtis (“Curtis Dec.”), ¶ 15.)

Jungle contends that it has submitted a Change of Zone application and Plot Plan to change the zoning on the property from R-5 to N-A, which would allow the operation of a commercial tiger menagerie. (Declaration of Robert P. Curtis (“Curtis Dec.”), ¶ 15.)

Plaintiffs suggest that they need to know the appropriate zoning for future possible projects, but that issue is not currently alleged in the complaint. The motion for judgment on the pleadings is granted with leave to amend for Plaintiffs to allege a present controversy regarding the zoning for the Project Site.

Atkinson (1963) 212 Cal.App.2d 499, 508–509 (“It is clear that a city may enjoin a violation or threatened violation of its zoning ordinances. . . . No vested right to violate a city ordinance may be acquired by continued violations. The mere fact that, without more, city officials fail to enforce a zoning ordinance against a violator will not estop the city from subsequently enforcing it against him.”); Caminetti v. State Mut. Life Ins. Co. (1942) 52 Cal.App.2d 321, 326.)

In the first cause of action, the Foundation alleges that the Ordinance and zoning amendment violated CEQA. The CEQA cause of action is not a subject of the City's demurrer. In its second cause of action, the Foundation alleges that the Ordinance and zoning amendment run afoul of Section 34173(1) and must be set aside.

On August 29, 2019, the City's Zoning Officer approved the application and ordered a use permit issued. (FAP ¶ 25.) Petitioners' neighbors appealed the discretionary approval to the Zoning Adjustments Board, automatically staying the issuance of the use permit. (FAP ¶ 28.) A hearing on the appeal was scheduled for January 9, 2020, but that hearing was taken off calendar and has never rescheduled. (FAP ¶¶ 30-31.)

Roth does not cite to any municipal code section that expressly establishes that a violation of the zoning codes at issue inherently constitute a nuisance. Even so, Tran argues, the City concluded that the project complies with the zoning laws and no violation exists.

Petitioner argues that this was a Brown Act violation, however, her papers do not sufficiently discuss the Brown Act or explain how this memorandum was a violation. Petitioner includes an unsigned declaration from attorney Bradley Sullivan. This declaration states that the memorandum is a violation of the Brown Act. Assuming this declaration was signed, it would be insufficient to convince the Court that there was in fact a Brown Act violation.