Tompkins v. Marin County Community Development Agency CA1/4
Filed 4/19/13 Tompkins v. Marin County Community Development Agency CA1/4 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION FOUR
PATRICIA A. TOMPKINS, Plaintiff and Appellant, A135011 v. MARIN COUNTY COMMUNITY (Marin County DEVELOPMENT AGENCY, Super. Ct. No. CIV1101793) Defendant and Respondent.
After an administrative law judge found appellant Patricia A. Tompkins to have committed multiple violations of Marin County’s planning code, she was ordered to abate the underlying nuisances, pay a $20,000 fine and reimburse the county for abatement costs of more than $12,000. She petitioned the trial court for a writ of administrative mandate, but the administrative ruling was upheld and judgment was issued in favor of respondent Marin County Community Development Agency. Tompkins appeals, challenging the trial court’s determination on various grounds. We affirm the judgment. I. FACTS1 In 1983, petitioner Patricia A. Tompkins purchased a residence on Castro Street in unincorporated West Marin County. In 2001, she was involved in a code enforcement matter with respondent Marin County Community Development Agency relating to an
1 We were not assisted in our determination of this matter by the failure of both parties to cite to the record on appeal and the administrative record in their briefs. (See Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.204(a)(1)(C).)
1
illegal second living unit at this site. Tompkins removed the second unit, resolving this matter. A year earlier, she entered into a stipulated judgment with the agency to correct code violations—including two illegal living units—and to pay enforcement costs and civil penalties related to a nearby property. Tompkins made a series of improvements to the Castro Street property after multiple incidents of flooding. All of the improvements were made without county building and creek permits. She constructed or altered a detached accessory structure larger than that exempted from permit review by the county code; she constructed solid perimeter fences taller than allowed without a permit; and constructed a retaining wall in a creek bed that contained protected fish habitat. (Marin County Code, §§ 11.08.050 [creek permit requirement for retaining wall], 11.08.060 [application for creek permit], 11.08.070 [retaining wall built without permit as public nuisance], 19.040.010 [adoption of county building codes], 19.040.060 [work exempt from building permit requirement], 22.20.050 [fencing and screening standards], 22.20.090 [setback requirements and exceptions], 24.04.560 [drainage setbacks].) In February 2007, the agency received a complaint about Tompkins’s construction. Days later, a notice of violation was posted and she was ordered to stop work until she obtained permits. Repeated communications between Tompkins and the agency advised her of the nature of the violations, the need for permits and corrective actions, and the requirements for taking these steps. The agency instituted nuisance abatement proceedings in November 2010. In March 2011, after a hearing, an administrative law judge (ALJ) found that Tompkins had violated multiple county codes. It ordered her to abate the unpermitted structure, fence, and retaining wall. It awarded the agency civil penalties of $20,000. The ALJ ordered Tompkins to pay the agency $12,779.07 for reasonable enforcement and hearing costs, including the cost of the ALJ’s review and decision. In April 2011, Tompkins petitioned for a writ of administrative mandate, challenging the ALJ’s ruling. (Code Civ. Proc., § 1094.5; Pub. Res. Code, § 21168.) She asserted that her structures were prior nonconforming uses, that the agency was estopped
More from California Court of Appeal
- People v. Hill (1998)
- In Re Autumn H. (1994)
- Nwosu v. Uba (2004)
- In Re Casey D. (1999)
- Santisas v. Goodin (1998)
- Cahill v. San Diego Gas & Electric Co. (2011)
- People v. Rivera (2015)
- People v. Barnett (1998)
- People v. Serrano (2012)
- Benach v. County of Los Angeles (2007)