Correspondence - Item 20 (3) - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Jennifer L. Hall June 17, 2025 Page 9 However, this type of restriction has been specifically disavowed by the California Supreme Court. (Hansen Brothers Enterprises, Inc. v. Board of Supervisors (1996) 12 Ca1.4th 533, 560-561 [recognizing that the vested rights are tied to the property, not the specific owner that first developed and/or improve the property].) Accordingly,the Proposed Ordinance should be amended to protect each property owners' right to continue to lease and utilize their properties in accordance with each such owners' vested rights. By purporting to disallow a change in tenancy and/or occupancy,regardless of the potential change in use, the Proposed Ordinance goes too far, and is subject to challenge if enforced. (d) The City Cannot Comb}el the Immediate Closure of Alleged Nonconforming_Use Proposed Section 41-2002(a)(6)(a)(4) states that the City can unilaterally order the cessation or removal of a nonconfofiming use or structure simply by issuing an "order." This is improper. As explained above, property owners are entitled to a certain level of due process to protect their vested rights, and the City's Proposed Ordinance fails to mee this constitutional minimum. As such,the Proposed Ordinance should be revised to delete this section. (e) The City Cannot Terminate an Established Vested RiLIits based Solely on the Occurrence of Service Calls and/or the Failure to timer: renew a Business License. Proposed Section 41-2009(a)(4) unlawfully attempts to give the City the ability to terminate a nonconforming use simply because there are numerous police calls or loitering complaints, or due to a property owners' failure to renew a business license. Likewise, the same section states that the proposed use could be,terminated simply because the City determines that the property is not in"good standing with the City," which is an undefined term. Again, each of these regulations are unlawful. As an initial matter,the existence of police calls or loitering complaints does not mean that there was, in fact, any nuisance or other public health hazard caused by the property owner that could support an enforcement action to terminate a nonconforming use. Indeed, under this Proposed Ordinance, if a motivated neighbor simply wants to compel the removal of the use, they could just call in complaints regardless of the merits of those calls. This is categorically improper. Similarly, the City's attempt to impose an amorphous "good standing"requirement on the City does not provide any standard by which the City,property owners,or the public can determine if a particular nonconforming use can be terminated. Because the proposed standard is so amorphous as to be unenforceable, this section must be revised to delete reference to this requirement.