Omicini v. City of Eureka

California Court of Appeal Nov 21, 1966 No. Civ. No. 23241Published

Before: Shoemaker

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that plaintiffs waived their right to challenge the city's parking district proceedings by failing to file written protests stating specific grounds of objection as required by sections 35271 and 35275 of the Streets and Highways Code.

Issues

Whether plaintiffs waived their right to challenge city parking district proceedings by failing to file written protests as required by the Streets and Highways Code.
Whether the procedural requirements of Chapter 2 of the Parking District Law of 1951 apply to supplemental proceedings for additional parking facilities.

Disposition. affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“The trial court, in granting this motion, held that plaintiffs had waived their right to attack the proceedings of the city council by court action because they had failed to state proper grounds of protest in writing”

“Any objections or protests not made at the time and in the manner provided in this chapter are deemed waived voluntarily.”

“Since plaintiffs’ failure to comply with sections 35271 and 35275 constituted a waiver of their right to challenge the proceedings before the city council, the court was correct in granting defendants’ motion for summary judgment.”

SHOEMAKER, P. J. Plaintiffs Peter Omicini and Omicini Investment Company, a corporation, appeal from a summary judgment entered against them in an action brought [567]by them and others against the City of Eureka and city officials thereof, challenging the legality of an ordinance providing for the issuance of bonds for the acquisition and improvement of public parking facilities.

On August 18, 1964, the Parking Place Commission of the City of Eureka filed with the city council a resolution adopted by it on August 11, 1964, requesting the council to take proceedings for the acquisition and improvement of public parking facilities for Parking District No. 1, which had been formed 10 years before by ordinance of the council under the Parking District Law of 1951 (Sts. & Hy. Code, §§ 35100-35707), and which since its creation had been operating parking facilities within the city.

On the same day, the council, by resolution, approved the commission resolution and determined that the public good required the continued use of parking meters on streets in the district as set forth in said resolution, and directed the Director of Public Works to make and file a report pursuant to Streets and Highways Code, section 35257.

On September 1, 1964, the council, by Ordinance No. 24-C.S., declared that certain city-owned lands then being used for public parking should be further improved and continued in such use and that additional facilities should be acquired for public parking, said acquisitions and improvements to be paid for by funds obtained by the issuance of bonds, and that the Director of Public Works had made and filed the report theretofore ordered.

Likewise on September 1, 1964, the council adopted Resolution No. 5533, wherein it declared its intention to acquire and improve additional parking facilities for the district, and gave notice that on October 6, 1964, it would hold a hearing on the proposal. The resolution stated that “Any person interested in and objecting to said proposed acquisitions and improvements, the issuance of said additional bonds, or to any other proposal set forth in this resolution of intention, may file a written protest with the City Clerk at any time prior to said time fixed for said hearing at the office of the City Clerk in said City Hall.” The notice was published and mailed to property owners as required by law.

On October 6, 13 and 20, 1964, public hearings were held, during which all timely written protests1 were heard and

Omicini v. City of Eureka

AI Brief

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief