Friends of H Street v. City of Sacramento
Decision Date | 21 October 1993 |
Docket Number | No. C013852,C013852 |
Citation | 20 Cal.App.4th 152,24 Cal.Rptr.2d 607 |
Court | California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
Parties | FRIENDS OF H STREET et al., Plaintiffs and Appellants, v. CITY OF SACRAMENTO, Defendant and Respondent. Charles O. Greenlaw et al., Intervenors and Respondents. |
Adamo & Nevares, John B. Adamo, Sacramento, for plaintiffs and appellants.
Sharon Siedorf Cardenas, City Atty., City of Sacramento, William P. Carnazzo, Asst. City Atty., Leslie R. Lopez, Deputy City Atty., for defendant and respondent.
Charles O. Greenlaw and Charles E. Shoemaker, in pro. per.
This is the second of two appeals challenging the manner in which the City of Sacramento (the City) maintains and manages H Street. In Hutchinson v. City of Sacramento (1993) 17 Cal.App.4th 791, 21 Cal.Rptr.2d 779, an appeal resulting from two property owners' successful petition for writ of mandate, we held the City's authority to decide whether and when to reevaluate an established speed limit implicated its legislative power and was not subject to review as a ministerial act. We reversed the order issuing the writ and remanded the matter to the trial court with directions to enter judgment denying the writ. In this appeal, we conclude plaintiffs fail to state a cause of action for nuisance and cannot amend their complaint to allege other claims against the City. We therefore affirm the judgment of dismissal.
Plaintiff Friends of H Street, also known as the H Street Association, is an unincorporated association comprised principally of H Street residents living between Alhambra Boulevard and 56th Street. Plaintiffs Grant L. Hutchinson, F. Eugene Scott, and Maria Nicholas Kelly own real property which fronts upon or abuts H Street.
After years of complaints by H Street residents, in 1989 the City commissioned a study of traffic conditions as part of the H Street (East Sacramento) Neighborhood Preservation Transportation Plan. A draft report was issued on March 29, 1991, followed by a final report on July 28, 1991. In November 1991, the City's Department of Public Works, Transportation Division, recommended that the City Council take no action
In January 1992, plaintiffs filed a complaint for nuisance seeking injunctions to force the City to reduce the traffic speed and volume on H Street. The complaint alleges in part:
Plaintiffs allege "[t]he nuisance created by the actions and inaction of defendants, ... is continuing in nature because it can be discontinued or abated."
Plaintiffs seek injunctive relief to abate the alleged nuisance, requesting "a preliminary and permanent injunction enjoining defendants, ... from: (a) continuing to designate H Street between Alhambra Boulevard and 56th Street as other than a 'minor local' or 'local' street; (b) continuing to designate H Street between Alhambra Boulevard and 56th Street as a so-called 'through street;' (c) operating the street in such a manner as to permit its use by a volume of traffic which exceeds the 'environmental capacity' (as that term is defined in the City-issued Preservation Plan study) of the street; (d) operating the street in such a manner that noise levels exceed 60 decibels as measured 75 feet from the center line of the street; (e) operating the street in such a manner that the concentrations of carbon monoxide and other vehicle emissions exceed those on a properly designated and operated local street; (f) operating the street in such a manner that the injury and fatality accident rate exceeds the state average for similar streets; (g) operating the street in such a manner that abutting residents' ability to enter and exit their driveways is substantially impaired and rendered hazardous; and (h) continuing to facilitate the use of the street by vehicles exceeding 10,000 pounds and by vehicles traveling in excess of 25 miles per hour."
The City demurred to plaintiffs' complaint. Shortly thereafter, on April 6, 1992, Charles O. Greenlaw and Charles E. Shoemaker, owners and residents of property situated north of H Street, filed an amended complaint in intervention. The intervenors allege the relief sought by plaintiffs would interfere with their business and personal use of the H Street arterial. Intervenors joined in the City's demurrer. Mercy General Hospital filed an amicus curiae brief in support of the City's demurrer.
The court sustained the City's demurrer without leave to amend, stating in its tentative decision: At the hearing the court affirmed the tentative ruling "for all of the reasons that were expressed by the demurr[ing] parties." The court indicated it was "convinced that no cause of action for a nuisance will lie in this circumstance when the traffic on a highway becomes a difficult thing to bare [sic] for the residents." This appeal ensued.
The acts alleged by plaintiffs do not state a cause of action against the City under the circumstances of this case. Plaintiffs' pleadings are insufficient because, as argued in the trial court, the City's acts are authorized by statute, and the nuisance claim barred. (Civ.Code, § 3482.) 1 Moreover, as we have stated in the past, courts lack power to compel legislative bodies to perform legislative acts in a particular manner. (Board of Supervisors v. California Highway Commission (1976) 57 Cal.App.3d 952, 961, 129 Cal.Rptr. 504.)
Section 3479 describes the acts which constitute a nuisance as "[a]nything which is injurious to health, or is indecent or offensive to the senses, or an obstruction to the free use of property, so as to interfere with the comfortable enjoyment of life or property, or unlawfully obstructs the free passage or use, in the customary manner, of any ... street, or highway...." 2 Plaintiffs allege the City's maintenance and operation of H Street is a nuisance within the meaning of section 3479 because "it is injurious to plaintiffs' health and safety, and the health and safety of their families, it is offensive to the senses, it interferes with the comfortable enjoyment of plaintiffs' properties, it has diminished the value of plaintiffs' properties, and it substantially interferes with plaintiffs' ability to gain ingress to or egress from their properties."
A private person has no direct remedy to abate a public nuisance unless the public nuisance is a private nuisance as to that person. (11 Witkin, Summary of Cal.Law (9th ed. 1990) Equity, § 144, p. 824.) A public nuisance "affects at the same time an entire community or neighborhood, or any considerable number of persons, although the extent of the annoyance or damage inflicted upon individuals may be unequal." (§ 3480.) A private nuisance is defined as every nuisance not included in the definition of a public nuisance. (§ 3481.) The essence of a private nuisance is an interference with the use and enjoyment of land. (Venuto v. Owens-Corning Fiberglas Corp. (1971) 22 Cal.App.3d 116, 124-125, 99 Cal.Rptr. 350, quoting Prosser on Torts (3d ed.) p. 611 and fn. 91 at p. 611.) Impairment of an owner's right of access to and from an abutting public street constitutes both a private and public nuisance. (Kitzman v. Newman (1964) 230 Cal.App.2d 715, 725-726, 41 Cal.Rptr. 182.) Plaintiffs allege the City's acts, including impairment of ingress and egress, were public and private nuisances.
As we stated, section 3482 bars an action for nuisance against a public entity where the alleged wrongful acts are expressly authorized by statute. The Supreme Court has "consistently applied a narrow...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority v. Continental Development Corp.
...has no legal right that is infringed by changing the flow of traffic past his or her property]; Friends of H Street v. City of Sacramento (1993) 20 Cal.App.4th 152, 166-167, 24 Cal.Rptr.2d 607.) The recovery of neighboring landowners in an inverse condemnation or nuisance action, in contras......
-
Border Business Park v. City of San Diego
...compensable taking. (People v. Ayon (1960) 54 Cal.2d 217, 223-224, 5 Cal.Rptr. 151, 352 P.2d 519; Friends of H Street v. City of Sacramento (1993) 20 Cal.App.4th 152, 167, 24 Cal.Rptr.2d 607.) Here, however, Border does not allege that there was merely an increase of traffic which caused so......
-
Martis Camp Cmty. Ass'n v. Cnty. of Placer
...property abuts and from there, in a reasonable manner, the general system of public streets. ( Friends of H Street v. City of Sacramento (1993) 20 Cal.App.4th 152, 166-167, 24 Cal.Rptr.2d 607.) This right cannot be taken or damaged for a public purpose without the payment of just compensati......
-
City of Lake Forest v. Evergreen Holistic Collective
...§ 3482), the manner in which the activity is performed may constitute a nuisance. ( Friends of H Street v. City of Sacramento (1993) 20 Cal.App.4th 152, 160, 24 Cal.Rptr.2d 607 ( H Street ); Venuto v. Owens–Corning Fiberglas Corp. (1971) 22 Cal.App.3d 116, 129, 99 Cal.Rptr. 350.) For exampl......
-
Real property torts
..., 31 Cal. App. 4th 418, 425, 37 Cal. Rptr. 2d 159, 163 (1995)). • Separation of Powers ( Friends of H Street v. City of Sacramento , 20 Cal. App. 4th 152, 164-66, 24 Cal. Rptr. 2d 607, 614-15 (1993)). • Necessity ( Farmers Ins. Exchange v. State of California , 175 Cal. App. 3d 494, 503, 22......
-
Just Compensation Under California Law for Temporary Severance Damages and Impairment of Access
...143 Cal. App. 2d 264, 265-69 (1956); People v. Romano, 18 Cal. App. 3d 63, 74 (1971); Friends of H Street v. City of Sacramento, 20 Cal. App. 4th 152, 167 (1993); Leonard, 62 Cal. App. 4th at 1300; see Rosenthal v. City of Los Angeles, 193 Cal. App. 2d 29, 30-34 (1961) (no recovery where th......