Franklin v. City of Sacramento

California Court of Appeal Jun 6, 1962 No. Civ. 10249Published

Before: Peek

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that it lacked jurisdiction to hear a constitutional challenge to a zoning ordinance because the plaintiffs failed to exhaust administrative remedies by seeking a variance. It further held that a municipality may properly enjoin the use of a residential property for professional practice.

Issues

Whether a property owner may challenge the constitutionality of a zoning ordinance without first seeking a variance or exception.
Whether a municipal corporation may enjoin the use of a residential property for the practice of osteopathy.

Disposition. Reversed and remanded in part; affirmed in part.

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“The rule is well settled that before one can attack a zoning ordinance as unconstitutional when applied to a particular property, he must first apply to the proper authority for an exception or variance under the ordinance.”

“Since the trial court was without jurisdiction to proceed, it could not determine the case on its merits”

“The right of a municipal corporation to seek enforcement of a zoning ordinance by injunction is too well established to warrant further discussion.”

PEEK, P. J.

These appeals arise out of two separate actions which were consolidated for trial. In the first (superior court number 124155), James E. and Marvelene Franklin, husband and wife, appeal from an adverse judgment in an action in which they sought a declaration that certain provisions of the zoning ordinance of the City of Sacramento were unconstitutional as to them and to compel the defendants to rezone plaintiffs' property. In the second action (superior court number 124261), James E. Franklin and Lester L. Crane appeal from a judgment restraining them from maintaining a doctor’s office and practicing osteopathy in the Franklin home.

Pursuant to a suggestion of the trial court, counsel for both parties stipulated that the case could be submitted on the record on file and that in arriving at its conclusion, the court might also consider the zoning ordinances in question and certain other evidence including affidavits and photographs of the property involved.

The factual background, as appears from plaintiffs’ complaint, is common to both actions. The pertinent allegations show that the Franklins are the owners of a house and lot located in an R-l zone (that is, single-family residential) maintained by Franklin and Crane as a doctor’s office.

The Franklins presented an application to the Sacramento Planning Commission to rezone their property in order to permit the construction of an office building. Their application was denied. They then requested the commission to initiate proceedings to rezone the property. Following a hearing, this request was likewise denied. This decision was appealed to the city council and at the same time a written request was filed asking the council to initiate rezoning proceedings. After hearing, both the appeal and request for rezoning were denied.

[452]

The Franklins then instituted the present proceeding in declaratory relief.

It was neither alleged nor suggested that the Franklins ever requested a variance or special use permit. It further appears that neither defendants’ demurrer, which was overruled, nor their motion for summary judgment, which likewise was denied, nor their answer, raised any question in this regard. The primary question posed and argued by both parties concerns the constitutionality of the ordinance as it related to the Franklins.

Franklin v. City of Sacramento

AI Brief

PEEK, P. J.

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief