AgdaPkt 2002-11-04 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

would be in compliance with the OBR distri~; and thereupon entered into a lease agreement for the property. As one proponent of the appeal stated, '~/Ve looked at the code and zoning regulations and asked the simple question, "Do you do retair?.~ The answer was 'yes.' And, I said no 'problem'." Thus by its own actions, appellant has obligated itself to pay an average monthly rental payment of $3,488.11 for five years, for a total of $209,286.60. No evidence has been brought forward that the City had any involvement in consummating this lease transaction. (b) Appellant Promotes Pedestrian Activity · The legal argument presented in this subheading is that as the City has allowed a uniform shop to exist but is prohibiting a store serving persons with cosmetology credentials, such prohibition is arbitrary and even discriminatory. As a general matter, zoning designations are intended to discriminate among land uses, allowing some and disallowing others, in Jon-Mar Company v. City of Anaheim (1962) 201 CaI.App.2d 832 the lessee of a storeroom sought to declare invalid the provisions of a zoning ordinance which prohibited its use as a beer parlor. One of the arguments made by the plaintiff was that the ordinance, as applied to him, was unreasonable and arbitrary. Among other findings, the court stated at p. 839, '~/Vhether, by appropriate zoning regulation, a beer parlor type of business should be excluded from an area designed to cater to prospective customers of ordinary neighborhood retail sales stores, at least, is a matter about which reasonable persons may differ and, under such circumstances, a decision in favor of exclusion may not be deemed unreasonable or arbitrary. Where the reasonableness of a zoning classification 'is fairly debatable, the legislative determination will not be disturbed' by the courts." (Citations omitted.) Similarly in the case of Magruder v. Redwood City (1928) 203 Cal. 665, the plaintiff sought to enjoin the City from proceeding witha criminal code enforcement action for maintaining and operating a lumber yard in a residential zone. In 1921, the board of trustees for the city adopted an ordinance dividing the city into four districts: residence, industrial, business and restricted business. The residence district (which included plaintiffs property) prohibited certain types of uses including lumber yards. Plaintiff had received city permits to construct and erect a frame shed on his property from which he operated his lumber yard PRIVILEGED & CONFIDENTIAL Council. Innovations 4