Sounhein

Sounhein v. City of San Dimas

Good Law
11 Cal. App. 4th 1255·14 Cal. Rptr. 2d 656·1992 Cal. App. LEXIS 1468·92 Daily Journal DAR 17153·92 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 10252
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaDecember 21, 1992B063720California2,026 words

Opinion

Opinion

Boren, J.

The City of San Dimas (hereinafter, the city) appeals following a judgment granting a peremptory writ of mandate which ordered the city to set aside and vacate its Ordinance No. 941, which banned any second independent residential unit on any lot in the city, and to process the application by Earl and Alana Sounhein (hereinafter, the Sounheins) for a conditional use permit, and reasonable modifications and amendments thereto. We find that the city failed to give the requisite public notice and to hold required public.hearings before adopting Ordinance No. 941 and failed to adopt the ordinance within the required 120-day period after receiving its first application for a conditional use permit, and that the trial court properly granted the writ of mandate.

Facts

The Sounheins own a home in the city and wanted to build on their property a second unit, an accessory rental apartment. The Sounheins’ property is in an area of the city zoned for duplexes. The city advised the Sounheins that they would not grant approval for them to build a second unit but suggested that they apply for a conditional use permit pursuant to the provisions of Government Code section 658S2.2.

The…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.