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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.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
THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT
(Placer)
SHERYL HAYDEN,
Plaintiff and Appellant,
v.
CITY OF ROSEVILLE,
Defendant and Respondent.
C050135
(Super. Ct. No. SCV14297)
Plaintiff Sheryl Hayden was assessed administrative penalties and costs at an administrative compliance hearing held pursuant to the Roseville Municipal Code (the Code) for the failure to obtain an encroachment permit for concrete strips and sod she installed within the City's 100-year flood drainage easement on her property. Sections 13.28.010 and 13.28.020 of the Code make it unlawful to perform â€
Description
Plaintiff was assessed administrative penalties and costs at an administrative compliance hearing held pursuant to the Roseville Municipal Code (the Code) for the failure to obtain an encroachment permit for concrete strips and sod she installed within the City's 100-year flood drainage easement on her property. Sections 13.28.010 and 13.28.020 of the Code make it unlawful to perform "any type of construction or work, or the placing of any object or thing, whether permanent or temporary" within the drainage easement without having obtained a permit from the Public Works Director of the City.
The Placer County Superior Court denied Hayden's petition for a writ of mandate, and she appealed. On appeal she argues: (1) City presented insufficient evidence to support the imposition of penalties and costs, (2) City is estopped from asserting she violated the Municipal Code, (3) her application for a permit was timely, and (4) she was in substantial compliance with the order of the City's Board of Appeals directing her to apply for a permit. Court affirm the judgment of the trial court.
