Correspondence - Item 20 (3) - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Jennifer L. Hall June 17, 2025 Page 6 In Goat Hill Tavern v. City of Costa Mesa,the Court held, that"interference with the right to continue an established business is far more serious than the interference a property owner experiences when denied a [...] permit in the first instance. Certainly, this right is sufficiently personal,vested and important to preclude its extinction by a nonjudicial body." (Goat Hill Tavern v. City of Costa Mesa, 6 Cal. App. 4th 1519 (1992) (emphasis added).) Goat Hill Tavern had been operating legally for its entire existence. (Id.) It was only after their permit expired that the use as a tavern became an issue. (Id.) The Court concluded that by now denying Goat Hill Tavern a conditional use permit, the city destroyed a business which had operated legally for years. Ultimately, this action implicated"a fundamental vested right of a property owner" and when that happens the court must exercise its independent judgment on the evidence to find an abuse of discretion by the City. (Id.) Likewise, here, the City issued the requisite approvals to Ware and the other industrial property owners throughout the TZC Zone and validly approved permits, which resulted in the development of those same properties. As such, their continued use of their properties is dictated by the rights that were granted to each of those property owners by the version of the City's code, and the resulting entitlements, that existed at the time of their respective projects' approval. (a) The City's Deletion of the Industrial Overlays and Insertion of New O Lerational Requirements Does not Alter Property Owners' Vested Rights Ignoring the established vested rights of those entities that own industrial properties throughout the City, the City now appears to assert that the City's zoning code modifications can alter those rights without limitation. This is not the case. Instead, California recognizes that the property owner that has secured a vested right can continue to use that property in accordance with that prior right, irrespective of future regulatory restrictions. As one Court succinctly stated: A property owner has a vested right to continue lawful uses of property and is not required to obtain a special use permit in order to continue lawful preexisting uses. (City of Ukiah v. County of Mendocino (1987) 196 Cal.App.3d 47, 56 [emphasis added].) The case of City of Ukiah v. County of Mendocino is instructive. There,a mining company had conducted mining operations within a river for years before the relevant zoning code was amended to require new users to acquire a use permit for mining operations. When the mining company applied for the necessary approvals under California's Surface Mining and Reclamation Act ( "SMARA"), the county ultimately found that the company had a preexisting vested right to conduct its mining operations, and thus no new use permit would be required. Therefore, with no