Clary v. City of Crescent City
11 Cal. App. 5th 274
Cal. Ct. App.2017Background
- Diehl, a Washington resident, owned eight vacant lots in Crescent City, CA, with overgrown vegetation, invasive species (Himalayan blackberry, Scotch/French broom), trash and evidence of homeless encampments.
- City code and state statutes authorize nuisance declarations and abatement for overgrown/dead/hazardous vegetation and rubbish.
- From May 2010 to early 2012 the City issued multiple notices, the fire chief and county health official warned of fire and health hazards, and the Department of Fish & Game advised removal of invasive species.
- Diehl repeatedly disputed the nuisance findings in writing, did not appear at Council hearings, and filed a writ (Code Civ. Proc. §1094.5) challenging the City’s determinations and later amended to challenge abatement and assessments.
- The City conducted abatement in 2012 (mowing, removal of >1,000 lbs of trash) and recorded an assessment for abatement costs; the superior court denied Diehl’s writ and this appeal followed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether City’s nuisance finding and ordinance application were void for vagueness or beyond municipal power | Diehl: Ordinance terms (e.g., “unsightly appearance”) are vague; municipal standard conflicts with Civil Code §3479 | City: Ordinance and state nuisance statutes are lawful exercise of police power; terms are understandable and supported by evidence | Court: Ordinance and application valid; substantial evidence supports nuisance finding and constitutional vagueness challenge rejected |
| Estoppel / laches defense to City enforcement | Diehl: City’s prior inconsistent enforcement (2002, 2005, 2007) bars current enforcement by estoppel or laches | City: Enforcement of health/safety/aesthetic ordinance serves public interest; no reasonable detrimental reliance shown | Court: Estoppel and laches unavailable — Diehl failed to show reasonable detrimental reliance or prejudice; public policy disfavors barring enforcement |
| Validity of abatement assessment and procedural requirements (competitive bidding; article XIII D assessment rules) | Diehl: City failed competitive bidding, charged excessive costs, and assessment violates article XIII D (requires owner vote/benefit) | City: Procedures complied with statutory discretion; assessment authorized by Gov. Code §39560+; arguments not raised administratively and lack analysis | Court: Claims forfeited for failing to raise before City or brief the constitutional issues; also skeptical that abatement lien is a special benefit assessment under article XIII D |
| Procedural fairness in administrative and superior court proceedings (due process, evidentiary, hearings, statement of decision, judge disqualification) | Diehl: Council relied on hearsay, investigators, didn’t read submissions; superior court failed to hold oral hearing, denied statement of decision, and judge was biased | City: Provided notice, multiple hearings, considered Diehl’s submissions; superior court’s summary review appropriate and Diehl never requested oral argument or timely motions | Court: Due process satisfied (notice and opportunity to be heard); any procedural complaints forfeited or nonprejudicial; superior court’s handling not reversible |
Key Cases Cited
- JKH Enterprises, Inc. v. Department of Industrial Relations, 142 Cal.App.4th 1046 (discusses standards of review under Code Civ. Proc. §1094.5)
- Benetatos v. City of Los Angeles, 235 Cal.App.4th 1270 (distinguishes substantial evidence vs. independent judgment review for administrative actions affecting property/business)
- City of Bakersfield v. Miller, 64 Cal.2d 93 (municipal nuisance power under Gov. Code §38771 not limited by Civil Code §3479)
- Metromedia, Inc. v. City of San Diego, 26 Cal.3d 848 (police power can encompass aesthetic regulation)
- Thain v. City of Palo Alto, 207 Cal.App.2d 173 (upholding weed ordinance against vagueness challenge)
- Golden Gate Water Ski Club v. County of Contra Costa, 165 Cal.App.4th 249 (local land‑use and nuisance regulation authority under state constitutional police power)
- Disney v. City of Concord, 194 Cal.App.4th 1410 (aesthetic concerns and blight as legitimate municipal goals)
- Desmond v. County of Contra Costa, 21 Cal.App.4th 330 (burden of proof on petitioner in administrative mandamus review)