Jones v. City Council
| Decision Date | 19 May 1971 |
| Citation | 94 Cal.Rptr. 897,17 Cal.App.3d 724 |
| Court | California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
| Parties | L. B. JONES et al., Petitioners and Appellants, v. CITY COUNCIL, CITY OF OAKDALE, et al., Respondents, David SONDENO, Respondent and Real Party in Interest. Civ. 1272. |
This is an appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of Stanislaus County denying appellants' petition for a writ of mandate to compel respondents to vacate an order granting real party in interest a special use permit to operate a mobilehome park in an R--A (residential-agricultural) zone or use district as established by the City of Oakdale's land use ordinance. Under this ordinance certain defined uses are permitted in all but a few zones or use districts on the procurement of a use permit from the planning commission. But, because of the peculiar characteristics of such permitted uses, before issuing the permit the planning commission, after conducting a public hearing, must determine that the use will not 'be detrimental to the health, safety, peace, morals, comfort and general welfare of persons residing or working in the neighborhood of such proposed use or be detrimental or injurious to property and improvements in the neighborhood or to the general welfare of the City.'
A brief review of the facts is helpful.
In 1968 David Sondeno filed an application (his third) with the planning commission of the City of Oakdale for a special use permit to construct a mobilehome park on a parcel of land fronting on Old Stockton Road near a point where the road deadends into the Stanislaus River. The land is located in an R--A use district about 1,780 feet north of the intersection of Old Stockton Road and 'A' Street. Because a mobilehome park is a permitted use in such a district upon the procurement of a use permit, the planning commission set Sondeno's application for hearing as required by the city ordinance.
At the hearing the planning commission considered written reports from the planning director, the director of public works, the superintendent of streets, the fire chief and chief of police, as well as protests and testimony from property owners who were opposed to the proposed use. The commission approved Sondeno's application, subject to several protective conditions and upon the further condition that he comply with all requirements imposed by the city's responsible officials. The property owners appealed to the city council, and their appeal was denied. This litigation followed.
We rule out appellants' first contention that there was no substantial evidence to sustain the planning commission's implied finding that the operation and maintenance of a mobilehome park on the proposed site would not be unreasonably incompatible with or injurious to surrounding properties or detrimental to the health and general welfare of persons residing or working in the neighborhood or to the general welfare of the city. The site is located within the proximity of a concrete pipe yard and the Southern Pacific Railroad tracks, and there was evidence that the proposed use would enhance property values in this relatively undeveloped area; a land planning engineer testified that the mobilehome park plan called for 'an environment of good living' with trees, shrubs, a playground area and a recreation center and would attract permanent type mobilehomes.
Furthermore, under the city's land use ordinance, in determining whether the proposed use was unreasonably incompatible with the area or detrimental to the general welfare of persons residing or working in the neighborhood and injurious to surrounding properties, the planning commission was required to consider such factors as '(1) damage or nuisance from noise, smoke, odor, dust, vibration, etc.; (2) hazard from explosion, contamination or fire; (3) hazard occasioned by unusual volume or character of traffic or the congregating of a large number of people or vehicles.' Significantly, as to these vital factors, the reports of the responsible city officials were all favorable. The planning director reported that the area was being planned for residential usage, and that a mobilehome park was more compatible with that use than the existing non-conforming concrete pipe yard. The director of public works...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
California Earth Corps v. State Lands Com.
...Friends of Lake Arrowhead v. Board of Supervisors (1974) 38 Cal.App.3d 497, 518, fn. 18, 113 Cal.Rptr. 539; Jones v. City Council (1971) 17 Cal.App.3d 724, 728-729, 94 Cal.Rptr. 897.) In support of its argument for independent judgment review, Earth Corps asserts: "The public trust is a fun......
-
Mountain Defense League v. Board of Supervisors
...v. Board of Supervisors, 38 Cal.App.3d 497, 518, fn. 18, 113 Cal.Rptr. 539); or a special use permit (Jones v. City Council, 17 Cal.App.3d 724, 728--729, 94 Cal.Rptr. 897); the owners of Bay Bridge bonds have no fundamental vested right in preventing the construction of a second toll crossi......
-
Bakman v. Department of Transportation
...Scenic Community v. County of Los Angeles, supra, 11 Cal.3d 506, 510, fn. 1, 113 Cal.Rptr. 836, 522 P.2d 12; Jones v. City Council (1971) 17 Cal.App.3d 724, 728, 94 Cal.Rptr. 897.) The denial or grant of a zoning variance has been held not to affect a vested right of the applicant. (Siller ......
-
Markley v. City Council
...(1972) 65 Cal.App.3d 723, 730, 135 Cal.Rptr. 588) or in his neighbors receiving a special use permit. (Jones v. City Council (1971) 17 Cal.App.3d 724, 728-729, 94 Cal.Rptr. 897.) In Friends of Lake Arrowhead v. Board of Supervisors (1974) 38 Cal.App.3d 497, 113 Cal.Rptr. 539 the court said ......