A Third Sand Canyon Wedding Venue Is Under City Zoning Investigation — and It Is Still Taking Bookings
Rolling Hills Ranch Venues advertises events for up to 300 guests on a rural parcel at 27634 Rolling Hills Avenue. The City of Santa Clarita opened code enforcement case CE-26-1844 on the property in early October. Sheriff’s deputies have been called there twice this month.
The City of Santa Clarita is investigating a third Sand Canyon property marketed online as a commercial wedding and event venue, according to public records obtained by Good Shepherd Media. The property, at 27634 Rolling Hills Avenue, operates publicly as Rolling Hills Ranch Venues.
In an October 5 response to a California Public Records Act request, the City Clerk’s office wrote that Community Preservation “currently has three open code enforcement cases associated with the properties: Case CE-26-1754 for 27351 Triumph Avenue, Case CE-26-1755 for 26505 Josel Drive, and Case CE-26-1844 for 27634 Rolling Hills Avenue.” The City added: “All three involve zoning violations.”
The City declined to release the case files, citing Government Code section 7923.600(a), which exempts investigatory records compiled for law enforcement or licensing purposes while an investigation remains open. It referred further questions to Senior Officer Daniel Ramirez of the Community Preservation Division.
The venue’s website remained live and accepting inquiries as of October 18.
- CE-26-1844 — 27634 Rolling Hills Ave. (“Rolling Hills Ranch Venues”). Open. Zoning violation.
- CE-26-1754 — 27351 Triumph Ave. (“Oasis Ranch House”). Open. Zoning violation.
- CE-26-1755 — 26505 Josel Dr. (“Villa de Palma”). Open. Zoning violation.
- Case files: withheld under Gov. Code § 7923.600(a) while the investigations remain open.
The venue’s own hours are 9 a.m. to 11 p.m. Deputies were called at 11:45.
The Rolling Hills Ranch Venues website lists what it calls “Our Venue’s General Information.” Among the items: “Parking included for up to 300 guests,” “4 different spaces to host guests,” “In House event planning,” a “Preferred Vendor List,” and — stated plainly — “Venues access from 9 AM to 11 PM.” The site carries a 2023 copyright notice. Good Shepherd Media captured every page of the site on October 18.
Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department records reflect two noise complaints at the address this month.
The first, complaint number SCT26275-0274, was filed during the early hours of October 3 by a neighboring household. The disturbance continued until approximately 1 a.m.
The second, complaint number SCT26283-0176, was filed on the night of October 10. According to the resident who placed the call, deputies responded to the address at approximately 11:45 p.m. The noise continued after that response at a reduced level, and stopped only after a second call, at 12:26 a.m.
Residents report the amplified sound is audible roughly a mile away. The affected residence is 1.1 miles from the venue by road.
Santa Clarita Municipal Code § 11.44.050 makes it unlawful to “willfully make or continue… any loud, unnecessary and unusual noise which disturbs the peace or quiet of any neighborhood.” Penal Code § 415(2) reaches anyone who “maliciously and willfully disturbs another person by loud and unreasonable noise.” Both provisions turn on the same word: willfully. A venue that publishes its own 11 p.m. closing time, and sells that to paying customers, cannot easily argue it did not know what time it was.
What the zoning code says
Publicly available property records list the parcel’s land-use designation as Non-Urban 4 (NU4). Under Santa Clarita Municipal Code Chapter 17.32, the NU4 zone exists to preserve large-lot rural communities characterized by agricultural and equestrian uses and an absence of urban services. The chapter provides that permitted uses are those listed in Division 5 of Title 17, and that any use not listed is a prohibited use in the zone.
Good Shepherd Media has asked the City to confirm the parcel’s zoning designation and to identify any conditional use permit, minor use permit, temporary use permit or special-event permit issued for the address. The City has not yet provided that confirmation. Its October 5 response stated that apart from a permit previously disclosed and the open enforcement case, it located no additional responsive records for the property.
Business licenses in Santa Clarita are administered by Los Angeles County, not the City. In September, the County Treasurer and Tax Collector told Good Shepherd Media in writing that it held no business-license records for the Triumph Avenue or Josel Drive properties, and clarified that the County “don’t license home-based businesses,” licensing event venues only where they occupy a commercial building. A separate records request covering the Rolling Hills Avenue address is pending.
A pattern across three parcels
The three properties under investigation sit within a few miles of one another in Sand Canyon, on rural parcels served by two-lane roads without curb, gutter, sidewalk or street lighting, inside a Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone that burned in the 2016 Sand Fire and the 2019 Tick Fire.
Their advertised capacities are substantial. Rolling Hills Ranch Venues markets events for up to 300 guests on just over 10 acres. Villa de Palma, on Josel Drive, is listed on the wedding platform WeddingWire for up to 200 guests, with a starting price of $9,000 and typical spending of $20,000, offering open bar and premium liquor service, valet parking, and on-site lodging for “16-18 people.” Oasis Ranch House, on Triumph Avenue, is listed on the directory VenueReport at 200 seated and 300 standing, with a “20 person bar,” surround sound, a “stage for entertainment” — and a stated “Curfew: 10 PM.”
On Sunday, October 18, a wedding with an estimated 200 or more guests was held at 27415 Triumph Avenue, the property marketed as Oasis Ranch House. Several hundred vehicles were staged on a vacant lot at 16350 Valley Ranch Road; overflow was parked on a neighbor’s lawn. A resident recorded the event from the public right-of-way and filed Sheriff’s complaint SCT 26291-0156.
That same day, the Oasis Ranch House website displayed only the words “COMING SOON.” Its Yelp listing carried the notice “Yelpers report this location has closed.” MapQuest listed it as “Permanently closed.”
Its booking listings remained live. On Giggster, the property was offered at $120 per hour with a five-hour minimum, under host “David D.,” with “Reserve” and “Instant Book” functions present. On VenueReport, the listing was active and not marked closed.
Internet Archive snapshots show what the Oasis Ranch House website said before the City opened its case: in December 2023, “a 20-person bar with surround sound speakers and a fire pit… a raised platform in the backyard, perfect for that DJ or wedding band”; in December 2024, “WEDDINGS – EVENTS – BABY SHOWERS – ENGAGEMENTS – FILMING… We can accommodate up to 250 guests”; and by July 2026, the same text with capacity revised down to “up to 150 guests.”
Thirty-three days after the City said it was working on it
On September 16, City Manager Ken Striplin wrote to Good Shepherd Media that “the City has an active code enforcement case with regard to both referenced properties,” and that “Code Enforcement staff are actively working with the property owners to address the outstanding issues and bring the properties into compliance.”
Thirty-two days later, a 200-guest wedding was held at one of those properties. Eight days before that, deputies responded to a third property at 11:45 p.m. and the noise continued after they left.
Good Shepherd Media has asked the City what “working with the property owners” consists of, whether it includes permitting events to continue during an open case, and whether any operator has represented to the City that it has ceased operations. Those questions are outstanding.
Good Shepherd Media is not a law firm and this is not legal advice. What follows is a general description of California law, published because couples and families who have paid deposits may not know these provisions exist.
Contracts to do an unlawful thing. Civil Code § 1667 defines as unlawful anything “contrary to an express provision of law.” Civil Code § 1598 provides that where a contract’s object is unlawful, the entire contract is void. Whether a particular venue contract is affected depends on facts a court would have to determine.
Concealment. Civil Code §§ 1709 and 1710 address deceit, including the suppression of a fact by someone bound to disclose it. Civil Code § 1572 covers actual fraud in the making of a contract.
Unfair competition. Business and Professions Code § 17200 defines unfair competition to include “any unlawful, unfair or fraudulent business act or practice.” Under § 17204, a private person may sue only if they have “suffered injury in fact and has lost money or property.” The remedy is generally restitution and injunctive relief, not damages.
False advertising. Business and Professions Code § 17500 prohibits untrue or misleading statements made to induce the purchase of services.
Consumers Legal Remedies Act. Civil Code § 1750 et seq. covers deceptive practices in consumer transactions for services. Civil Code § 1782 requires written notice to the business thirty days before filing a damages claim.
Where to file. California small claims court handles individual claims up to $12,500 (Code Civ. Proc. § 116.220) and does not require a lawyer. Larger claims go to limited or unlimited civil court. The statute of limitations for written contracts is four years (Code Civ. Proc. § 337); for fraud, three years from discovery (§ 338(d)).
What the law provides for neighbors
Civil Code § 3479 defines a nuisance to include anything “offensive to the senses, or an obstruction to the free use of property, so as to interfere with the comfortable enjoyment of life or property.” Section 3481 makes such a condition a private nuisance as to an affected owner; § 3480 makes it a public nuisance where it affects “an entire community or neighborhood, or any considerable number of persons.”
Section 3493 permits a private person to sue on a public nuisance where it is “specially injurious” to that person. Code of Civil Procedure § 731 allows any person whose property is injuriously affected, or whose personal enjoyment is lessened, to bring an action in which “the nuisance may be enjoined or abated as well as damages recovered therefor.”
Where a disturbance recurs rather than persists, the California Supreme Court held in Baker v. Burbank-Glendale-Pasadena Airport Authority (1985) 39 Cal.3d 862 that it is a continuing nuisance, giving rise to successive causes of action — each recurrence independently actionable until abated. The Court identified recurring noise as the classic example. Civil Code § 3490 adds that “no lapse of time can legalize a public nuisance.”
Residents should be aware of what the law does not provide. Government Code § 818.2 states that “a public entity is not liable for an injury caused by adopting or failing to adopt an enactment or by failing to enforce any law.” Section 821 extends the same immunity to public employees. California courts have applied these provisions broadly. A claim against the City of Santa Clarita for the pace or outcome of a code enforcement case faces that statutory bar at the threshold. The accountable path runs through public records, the City Council, and the enforcement process itself — not through a lawsuit against the City.
On alcohol
Business and Professions Code § 23300 provides that “no person shall exercise the privilege or perform any act which a licensee may exercise or perform under the authority of a license unless the person is authorized to do so by a license issued pursuant to this division.” Section 23301 makes it unlawful to sell alcoholic beverages without a license. Section 25658 addresses furnishing alcohol to persons under 21.
The Villa de Palma listing on WeddingWire advertises bartenders, open bar, house and premium liquor. The Oasis Ranch House listing on VenueReport describes a “20 person bar” and states that a “Licensed Server Is Required.” The Rolling Hills Ranch Venues website makes no reference to alcohol or bar service.
Good Shepherd Media has filed a records request with the California Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control covering all three addresses. The ABC maintains a public license lookup at abc.ca.gov. This publication makes no finding as to whether alcohol has been sold at any of these properties or whether any license exists; that record is pending.
Where to report
Santa Clarita Community Preservation — (661) 286-4076, or online at santa-clarita.com/RSC. Senior Officer Daniel Ramirez is assigned to all three cases: (661) 286-4064.
Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department, Santa Clarita Valley Station — non-emergency (661) 255-1121. Every call creates a dated dispatch record.
California Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control — complaints and license lookup at abc.ca.gov.
Los Angeles County Treasurer and Tax Collector, Business License Program — (213) 974-2555.
Good Shepherd Media contacted the operators of all three properties for comment before publication. Any operator, owner, or representative who wishes to respond, correct a fact, or identify an entitlement this publication has been unable to locate is invited to do so, and any response will be published in full.