Neat Auto Detail & Supply v. City of Maywood CA2/2

Good Law
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaMay 5, 2015B258375California1,621 words

Opinion

Opinion

FACTS

The Operative Pleading The operative pleading, the First Amended Complaint (FAC), alleged: Neat Auto owns commercially zoned property (property) in the city and leases the property to Xpress Fleet, which uses it as a car wash. Since 2006, Xpress Fleet has washed truck tractors.1 On August 18, 2009, the City’s Planning Commission passed Resolution No. PC- 554, which granted the Neat Auto Parties a conditional use permit (CUP) to “expand an existing auto detail [facility].” The CUP impliedly permits the washing of truck tractors. Moreover, the building plans for the expansion show a heightened clearance for truck tractors in the wash bays. Thus, the washing of truck tractors is permitted. Nonetheless, the City advised Neat Auto that no truck wash or truck related business would be permitted on the property. In addition, Neat Auto was directed to remove any truck wash related signs, banners, etc. or risk having the CUP revoked.

1 The FAC also alleges that Xpress Fleet has been washing bobtails since 2007. The parties do not suggest that there is a meaningful distinction between bobtails and truck tractors for purposes of the issues on appeal. Consequently, any reference to…

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.