Payne v. City of Claremont
Filed 4/17/06 Payne v. City of Claremont CA2/2
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS
California Rules of Court, rule 977(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 977(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION TWO
| JOHN PAYNE et al., Plaintiffs and Appellants, v. CITY OF CLAREMONT, Defendant and Respondent KURT ROTHWEILER et al., Real Parties in Interest. | B181508 (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. Nos. KS009086, KS009441) |
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County.
Dan T. Oki, Judge. Affirmed.
Mahoney & Soll, Paul M. Mahoney, Richard A. Soll for Plaintiffs and Appellants.
Best Best & Krieger, Sonia R. Carvalho, Jeffrey V. Dunn, Marc S. Ehrlich, Anna W. Wang for Defendant and Respondent.
Law Office of Herbert Hafif, Greg K. Hafif for Real Parties in Interest.
___________________________________________________
A couple who owns real property in the City of Claremont (the City) is challenging (a) a zoning amendment and (b) the City's issuance of a special use and development permit to their neighbors. The trial court denied two writ petitions brought by the couple for traditional mandamus and administrative mandamus, in which they sought to set aside the City's actions. We affirm.
FACTS
The Administrative Proceedings
Appellants John and Michelle Payne are homeowners in the City's Blaisdell Ranch neighborhood. Blaisdell Ranch is zoned Rural Residential (RR), with a minimum lot size of 35,000 square feet. Municipal zoning law imposes setback requirements on RR lot owners who wish to develop their property.
Kurt and Margaret Rothweiler own undeveloped property that adjoins the rear of appellants' parcel. In early 2004, the Rothweilers submitted an application to the City to construct a 9,869-square-foot house on their land. Under the zoning law in place at the time the Rothweilers submitted their application, they were required to have a front setback of 83 feet and a rear setback of 41.5 feet. The development permit the Rothweilers applied for did not conform with the then-existing ordinance in that their proposed front setback was 65 feet and their proposed rear setback was 14 feet.
Shortly before the Rothweilers submitted their building application, the City advised the public of some proposed zoning amendments. A notice, published in the local newspaper on January 21, 2004, indicated that one of the proposed amendments addressed â€
