1999 -NMCA- 43, Hart v. City of Albuquerque

• Decision Date: 21 January 1999
• Docket Number: No. 19026,19026
• Citation: 1999 NMCA 43,126 N.M. 753,975 P.2d 366
• Parties: 1999 -NMCA- 43 Charles HART, Petitioner-Appellee, v. CITY OF ALBUQUERQUE, a New Mexico Municipal Corporation, Respondent-Appellant.
• Court: Court of Appeals of New Mexico

Page 366

975 P.2d 366

1999 -NMCA- 43

Charles HART, Petitioner-Appellee, v. CITY OF ALBUQUERQUE, a New Mexico Municipal Corporation,

Respondent-Appellant.

No. 19026.

Court of Appeals of New Mexico.

Jan. 21, 1999.

Susan K. Barger, Rodey, Dickason, Sloan, Akin & Robb, P.A., Albuquerque, for Appellee.

Robert M. White, City Attorney, David Suffling, Ass't City Attorney, Albuquerque, for Appellant.

OPINION

WECHSLER, Judge.

¶1 The City of Albuquerque (City) appeals the decision of the district court ordering the City Council to grant Mark Yancey's¹ requested zoning change from residential to commercial and finding that the City Council's decision is not supported by substantial evidence. The City contends that the district court exceeded its scope of review for a zoning appeal and that substantial evidence supports the City Council's decision. We reverse.

Facts

¶2 This case involves three vacant lots located on the northwest corner of Candelaria Road NE and Arno Street NE in the City of Albuquerque. The City annexed the lots in 1967 and zoned them single family residential (R-1). Some of the land surrounding the lots is outside City limits and zoned by Bernalillo County, and some of the land is within City limits. The general area contains mixed-use zoning--manufacturing, commercial, and residential. The lot immediately to the north is within City limits. It is zoned residential and contains a single-family home. On both sides of Arno Street farther to the north is land outside City limits and zoned commercial, but which contains some single-family residences. The land directly to the east is also outside City limits and is zoned for manufacturing. Directly to the south, within city limits and across Candelaria Road, lies the Stronghurst Addition, which consists entirely of single-family residential homes.

¶3 In October 1995, Yancey filed an application for zone map amendment with the Albuquerque City Planning Department requesting that the zoning of the lots be changed from R-1 to general commercial (C-2). The Environmental Planning Commission (EPC) held a public hearing on December 21, 1995 at which Bessie Romero, owner of the single-family residence on the R-1 lot immediately to the north of the lots, spoke in opposition of the proposed change. Walter Gelb, assistant planner with the City Planning Department, prepared a staff report for the hearing which recommended against the proposed change because it was contrary to City Resolution 270-1980. Resolution 270-1980 allows for zoning changes only if the applicant demonstrates an error in the zone map or changed conditions, or that the proposed zone is more advantageous to the community. See Resolution 270-1980, Albuquerque, N.M.Code of Ordinances, § 1-1-2 (1994). The EPC essentially denied the proposed change, voting to "indefinitely defer [the requested] zone map amendment from R-1 to C-2 in order to allow the applicant the opportunity to pursue uses which would be more compatible with the adjacent uses."

¶4 On March 21, 1996 the EPC held a second hearing on the proposed zone map amendment. The EPC voted to deny the proposed zone map amendment and made findings that the proposed change did not meet the requirements of Resolution 270-1980, had "no substantial community benefit[,] could negatively affect the abutting residential neighborhood, [and] would create a spot zone of the remaining R-1 [lot]."

¶5 Yancey appealed this decision to the City Council's Land Use, Planning and Zoning Committee (LUPZC) which held a public hearing on May 29, 1996. The LUPZC heard testimony from Yancey's counsel supporting the change. Gelb spoke on behalf of the City Planning Department, stating that the proposed zone map amendment did not meet the requirements of Resolution 270-1980. Romero and her husband spoke against the proposed change. The EPC representative, Jane Brown, explained that the EPC found that the proposed change failed to comply with the requirements of Resolution 270-1980. The LUPZC upheld the EPC's decision and voted that the appeal should not be heard by the full City Council. The LUPZC adopted findings that the proposed change did not meet the requirements of Resolution 270-1980 and that some of the uses of the proposed change "would be harmful to adjacent R-1 property." On June 3, 1996, the City Council upheld the denial of the zone map amendment, adopting the recommendation of the LUPZC.

¶6 Yancey appealed the denial of the zone map amendment to the district court. The district court determined that the City Council's decision to deny the zoning change was not supported by substantial evidence and was contrary to law. The district court also made findings that Yancey had met his burden and presented sufficient evidence to support the zone map amendment. Upon its review, the district court reversed and remanded the City Council's denial of Yancey's requested zone change.

¶7 The LUPZC heard the matter again on March 12, 1997 and voted to hear new evidence to determine whether the zoning change should be granted. Yancey then returned to the district court and obtained a writ of mandamus. This writ precluded the City Council from taking additional evidence or testimony and from conducting a de novo review. The writ also stated that Yancey had presented substantial evidence to support a zoning change and ordered the City Council to determine a "new zoning category" for the lots based "on the evidence contained in the original record."

¶8 On May 5, 1997, the full City Council heard the matter and voted to deny Yancey's requested zone map amendment. The City Council found that the proposed "zone change is not supported" by Resolution 270-1980, that some permissive uses of C-2 zoning would be harmful to adjacent property and that it would consider a change other than C-2. Yancey again appealed the City Council's decision to the district court. On October 22, 1997, the district court found that Yancey "met his burden, as a matter of law, under City of Albuquerque Resolution 270-1980 by presenting sufficient evidence to support the requested zone map amendment." The court also found that the City Council's denial was not supported by substantial evidence and was contrary to law. It ordered: "The decision of the Albuquerque City Council denying [Yancey's] requested zone change be reversed [and][t]he City of Albuquerque is hereby directed to grant [Yancey's] requested zone change from R-1 to C-2 immediately, without additional hearing or evidence." The City appeals the district court's October 22, 1997 order.

The Scope of the District Court's Review

¶9 A district court conducts a whole-record review to determine if the municipality acted fraudulently, arbitrarily, or capriciously by determining if the municipality's decision was supported by substantial evidence, was outside the scope of the agency's authority, or was contrary to law. See NMSA 1978, § 3-21-9 (1965);² Rule 1-074(Q) NMRA 1999. The court examines all evidence, both favorable and unfavorable, to determine if the municipality's decision is supported by substantial evidence. See Huning Castle Neighborhood Ass'n v. City of Albuquerque, 1998-NMCA-123, p 8, 125 N.M. 631, 964 P.2d 192. If a district court concludes that the municipality acted fraudulently, arbitrarily, or capriciously, it is required to reverse the municipality's decision. See id. The district court does not determine if the opposite result is supported by substantial evidence because it may not substitute its judgment for that of the administrative body. See Siesta Hills Neighborhood Ass'n v. City of Albuquerque, 1998-NMCA-028, p 6, 124 N.M. 670, 954 P.2d 102.

¶10 In this case the district court determined not only that the City of Albuquerque's decision was not supported by substantial evidence, but also that substantial evidence supported Yancey's request for a zone map amendment. This latter finding apparently led the court to issue a writ of mandamus against the City Council, and in its October 22, 1997 decision, order the City to change the zoning of the lots from R-1 to C-2. This finding exceeded the district court's scope of authority because the court substituted its judgment for that of the City Council. See id. A "court cannot prescribe what zoning shall be applied to a particular property." 8A Eugene McQuillin, The Law of Municipal Corporations § 25.278, at 426 (Julie Rozwadowski & James Solheim eds., rev.3d ed.1994); see Renick v. City of Md. Heights, 767 S.W.2d 339, 342 (Mo.Ct.App.1989).

¶11 On appeal, the City argues that the district court improperly relied on Section 3-21-9(D) to order the change in zoning. Section 3-21-9(D) states:

If, at the hearing [to review the municipality's decision], it appears to the court that testimony is necessary for the proper disposition of the matter, it may take evidence or appoint a referee to take such evidence as it may direct and report the same to the court with his findings of fact and conclusions of law, which shall constitute a part of the proceedings upon which the determination of the court shall be made. The court may reverse, affirm or modify the decision brought up for review.

¶12 This section appears to allow greater judicial activity in zoning cases than in other administrative agency decisions. However, in Coe v. City of Albuquerque, 76 N.M. 771, 774, 418 P.2d 545, 547 (1966), our Supreme Court expressly determined the zoning statute to be unconstitutional to the extent that it purports to allow a district court to zone land. The Coe case involved a request to rezone a parcel from residential to commercial. See id. at 772, 418 P.2d at 546. The city commission denied the request and the petitioners filed a writ of certiorari to the district court. See id. at 773, 418 P.2d at 547. The district court rezoned the property from residential to commercial and the city commission appealed to the Supreme Court. See id. The Court interpreted the subsection not as...