Justia California Court of Appeals Opinion Summaries

The Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court's denial of a petition for writ of mandate in an action challenging the Department's citation of Lamar for violating County zoning ordinances. After a billboard owned by Lamar was blown over in a windstorm, Lamar argued that it was authorized to rebuild the billboard without interference by local authorities. The court held that the billboard's reconstruction was properly subject to the County's permitting requirements and Los Angeles County Code section 22.56.1510 did not exempt the billboard from the County's permitting requirements. View "Lamar Advertising Co. v. County of Los Angeles" on Justia Law

Before San Francisco Ordinance 286-13 was adopted in 2013, the Planning Code generally prohibited the enlargement, alteration or reconstruction of “nonconforming units,” which are legal residential housing units that exceed the currently-permitted density for the zoning district in which they are located. The 2013 amendment permits the enlargement, alteration or reconstruction of nonconforming residential units in zoning districts where residential use is principally permitted, if the changes do not extend beyond the “building envelope” as it existed on January 1, 2013. A waiting period of five to 10 years applies for changes to units where a tenant has been evicted employing Administrative Code grounds for evicting a non-faulting tenant, including section 37.9(a)(13), which allows an owner to evict tenants to remove residential units from the rental market in accordance with the Ellis Act. The Ellis Act prohibits local governments from “compel[ling] the owner of any residential real property to offer, or to continue to offer accommodations in the property for rent or lease.” Gov. Code 7060(a). The trial court upheld the amendment. The court of appeal reversed, concluding that the ordinance is preempted by the Ellis Act because it requires an owner who exercises Ellis Act rights to wait years before being eligible for a permit to make alterations. View "Small Property Owners of San Francisco Institute v. City and County of San Francisco" on Justia Law

Before San Francisco Ordinance 286-13 was adopted in 2013, the Planning Code generally prohibited the enlargement, alteration or reconstruction of “nonconforming units,” which are legal residential housing units that exceed the currently-permitted density for the zoning district in which they are located. The 2013 amendment permits the enlargement, alteration or reconstruction of nonconforming residential units in zoning districts where residential use is principally permitted, if the changes do not extend beyond the “building envelope” as it existed on January 1, 2013. A waiting period of five to 10 years applies for changes to units where a tenant has been evicted employing Administrative Code grounds for evicting a non-faulting tenant, including section 37.9(a)(13), which allows an owner to evict tenants to remove residential units from the rental market in accordance with the Ellis Act. The Ellis Act prohibits local governments from “compel[ling] the owner of any residential real property to offer, or to continue to offer accommodations in the property for rent or lease.” Gov. Code 7060(a). The trial court upheld the amendment. The court of appeal reversed, concluding that the ordinance is preempted by the Ellis Act because it requires an owner who exercises Ellis Act rights to wait years before being eligible for a permit to make alterations. View "Small Property Owners of San Francisco Institute v. City and County of San Francisco" on Justia Law

The City filed a nuisance abatement action against several businesses and individuals related to medical marijuana dispensaries, which were prohibited by the Pasadena Municipal Code (PMC). Defendants in that action then filed suit against the City, and these two cases were deemed related. The trial court granted the City's request for injunctions, prohibiting defendants from operating their medical marijuana dispensaries in the City. The Court of Appeal affirmed, holding that the PMC states that medical marijuana dispensaries were not permitted, and that non-permitted uses were a nuisance; because defendants operated medical marijuana dispensaries, which was prohibited, and the PMC stated that the operation of a prohibited use was a nuisance, the trial court did not abuse its discretion by finding that the dispensaries were nuisances per se under the PMC; because defendants did not challenge ordinance 7018 within the 90-day period allowed by Government Code section 65009, subdivision (c)(1)(B), their procedural challenge was time-barred; and defendants have not set forth any persuasive arguments that the legal actions here were not authorized by the City Council. View "Urgent Care Medical Services v. City of Pasadena" on Justia Law

The City filed a nuisance abatement action against several businesses and individuals related to medical marijuana dispensaries, which were prohibited by the Pasadena Municipal Code (PMC). Defendants in that action then filed suit against the City, and these two cases were deemed related. The trial court granted the City's request for injunctions, prohibiting defendants from operating their medical marijuana dispensaries in the City. The Court of Appeal affirmed, holding that the PMC states that medical marijuana dispensaries were not permitted, and that non-permitted uses were a nuisance; because defendants operated medical marijuana dispensaries, which was prohibited, and the PMC stated that the operation of a prohibited use was a nuisance, the trial court did not abuse its discretion by finding that the dispensaries were nuisances per se under the PMC; because defendants did not challenge ordinance 7018 within the 90-day period allowed by Government Code section 65009, subdivision (c)(1)(B), their procedural challenge was time-barred; and defendants have not set forth any persuasive arguments that the legal actions here were not authorized by the City Council. View "Urgent Care Medical Services v. City of Pasadena" on Justia Law

While a public entity may be liable for injuries caused by dangerous conditions of public property, the entity may avoid liability through the affirmative defense of design immunity. The Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court's judgment, holding that Caltrans established, as a matter of law, the affirmative defense of design immunity. The court rejected plaintiff's contention that a public official’s approval of a design does not constitute an exercise of discretionary authority under Government Code section 830.6 if the official admits that he or she never actually considered whether to utilize the safety feature the plaintiff asserts would have prevented his or her injuries. Rather, the court held that the evidence established the shoulder that was actually constructed was the result of or conformed to a design approved by the employee vested with discretionary authority, which provided a basis for concluding any liability for injuries caused by the absence of rumble strips was immunized by section 830.6. View "Rodriguez v. Department of Transportation" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs appealed the denial of their motion for a preliminary injunction to stay the enforcement of a homeowner's association resolution banning short term rentals (STR ban) in Oxnard Shores. Plaintiffs alleged that the STR ban violates the California Coastal Act, which requires a coastal development permit for any "development" that results in a change in the intensity of use of or access to land in a coastal zone. The Act provides that any person may maintain an action for declaratory and equitable relief to restrain any violation of this division. The Act further states that, on a prima facie showing of a violation of this division, preliminary equitable relief shall be issued to restrain any further violation of this division. The Court of Appeal reversed the trial court's judgment and held that a prima facie showing has been made to issue a preliminary injunction staying enforcement of the STR ban until trial. The court explained that the decision to ban or regulate STRs must be made by the City and Coastal Commission, not a homeowner's association. View "Greenfield v. Mandalay Shores Community Assn." on Justia Law

CRRD appealed the trial court's denial of its petition for writ of mandate seeking to overturn the City of Covina's approval of an infill project located a quarter-mile from the Covina Metrolink commuter rail station. The Court of Appeal held that Public Resources Code section 21099, subdivision (d)(1), which took effect three months before the City approved the project, exempts the project's parking impacts, as alleged by CRRD, from review under the California Environmental Quality Act. Furthermore, the court rejected CRRD's contentions that the City's approval of the project violated the Subdivision Map Act and affirmed the judgment. View "Covina Residents for Responsible Development v. City of Covina" on Justia Law

SV Care has operated a medical marijuana collective in a San Jose commercial zoning district since 2010. The municipal code did not then list marijuana-specific uses in its table of permitted uses. That table stated that all uses not listed were not permitted, but listed “medical offices” as permitted. After the collective opened, voters passed a local measure adding a marijuana business tax, which is described as “solely for the purpose of obtaining revenue.” The tax certificate specifies that it does not indicate zoning compliance. In 2014, the city determined that a medical marijuana collective was not an authorized use and ordered the collective to close. SV appealed the denial of its petition for writ of administrative mandate, arguing that the collective was a legal nonconforming use and that the city should be equitably estopped from forcing it to close. The court of appeal affirmed. Giving due deference to the city’s interpretation of its code, the medical office category does not include medical marijuana collectives. Because plaintiffs’ collective was not permitted when it opened, it cannot be a legal nonconforming use. In light of the express disclaimers, reliance on paying required business taxes as authorization to operate a medical marijuana collective is unreasonable as a matter of law. View "J. Arthur Properties, II, LLC v. City of San Jose" on Justia Law

Verizon Wireless obtained approval from the City of San Diego (the City, together respondents) to construct a wireless telecommunications facility (WCF, the Project) in Ridgewood Neighborhood Park (the Park), a dedicated park. Don't Cell Our Parks (DCOP), a not-for-profit entity, filed a petition for writ of mandate challenging the City's determination. The trial court denied the petition, concluding that under San Diego City Charter section 55 (Charter 55), the City had control and management of dedicated parks and the discretion to determine whether a particular park use would change the use or purpose of the Park and thus require a public vote. The Court of Appeal concluded the Project did not constitute a changed use or purpose that required voter approval. DCOP also claimed the Project did not qualify under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) for a categorical exemption under CEQA Guidelines section 153031 which pertained to the construction of new small facilities. The Court rejected this argument too, and thus affirmed the trial court in full. View "Don't Cell Our Parks v. City of San Diego" on Justia Law