City of San Marino v. Roman Catholic Archbishop of Los Angeles

• Decision Date: 05 May 1960
• Court: California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
• Parties: CITY OF SAN MARINO, a municipal corporation, and Sophus J. Press, as Bullding Inspector of the City of San Marino, Plaintiffs and Cross-Defendants; Appellants and Cross-Respondents, v. ROMAN CATHOLIC ARCHBISHOP OF LOS ANGELES, California, a corporation sole; Reverend Wm. Fox, Pastor of Saints Felicitas & Perpetua Church, for and on behalf of The Roman Catholic Archbishop of Los Angeles, a corporation sole, and Archdiocese of Los Angeles Education & Welfare Corporation, a corporation, defendants and Cross-Complainants; Respondents and Cross-Appellants. PEOPLE of the State of California on the relation of the CITY OF SAN MARINO; and the City of San Marino, Plaintiffs and Respondents, v. ROMAN CATHOLIC ARCHBISHOP OF LOS ANGELES, California, a corporation sole; etc., et al., Defendants and Appellants. Civ. 24244, 23660.

Page 547

4 Cal.Rptr. 547

180 Cal.App.2d 657

CITY OF SAN MARINO, a municipal corporation, and Sophus J. Press, as Bullding Inspector of the City of San Marino, Plaintiffs and Cross-Defendants; Appellants and Cross-Respondents, v. ROMAN CATHOLIC ARCHBISHOP OF LOS ANGELES, California, a corporation sole; Reverend Wm. Fox, Pastor of Saints Felicitas & Perpetua Church, for and on behalf of The Roman Catholic Archbishop of Los Angeles, a corporation sole, and Archdiocese of Los Angeles Education & Welfare Corporation, a corporation, defendants and Cross-Complainants; Respondents and Cross-Appellants.

PEOPLE of the State of California on the relation of the CITY OF SAN MARINO; and the City of San Marino, Plaintiffs and Respondents, v. ROMAN CATHOLIC ARCHBISHOP OF LOS ANGELES, California, a corporation sole; etc., et al., Defendants and Appellants.

Civ. 24244, 23660.

District Court of Appeal, Second District, Division 2, California.

May 5, 1960.

As Modified on Denial of Rehearing June 1, 1960.

Hearing Denied June 29, 1960.

Charles R. Martin, City Atty., San Marino, Dunlap, Holmes, Ross & Woodson, Special Counsel, Pasadena, for City of San Marino and others.

C. M. Castruccio, San Marino, Paul P. Selvin, Nimmer & Selvin, Beverly Hills, for Roman Catholic Archbishop of Los Angeles and others.

FOX, Presiding Justice.

These two cases have been consolidated for hearing on appeal. The controversy, broadly speaking, centers around the uses defendants desire to make of their property located in the City of San Marino. One of these actions was brought by the City for declaratory relief. In that action defendants filed a cross-complaint for a writ of mandate. Both sides have appealed from different portions of the judgment. In the other suit, the City sought and obtained an injunction. Defendants have appealed.

The first action (No. 24244) was instituted on September 13, 1956, by the City, seeking a construction of its off-street parking ordinance and a declaration of rights under certain building permits which had been issued to defendants. Defendants filed a cross-complaint and petition in this action by which they sought a writ of mandate to compel the granting of a zoning variance and the re-issuance of the building permits mentioned above. A supplemental complaint was filed on December 20, 1957, by the City alleging that an ordinance passed since the filing of the original complaint had made the controversy regarding the building permits moot. Judgment was entered on June 19, 1959, ordering reinstatement of the building permits as prayed for in the cross-complaint. The City has appealed from this portion of the judgment. The judgment also denied defendants' petition for a writ of mandate to compel the issuance of a zoning variance, and from that portion of the judgment defendants appeal.

The injunction suit was brought by the City on May 3, 1957, to abate an alleged nuisance. Judgment on the pleadings was entered September 4, 1958, in favor of the City. Defendants have appealed.

In order to understand the location of the various parcels of property which are here involved, a perusal of the tract map reproduced herein is recommended. There are two omissions from the map as reproduced: (1) A nuns' residence situated on the north one-half of parcel 4; and (2) the 'Old Adobe' rectory situated on parcels 1 and 2 north of the Church building and the school. Parcels 1, 2 and 3 are zoned C-1, and parcel 4 is zoned R-1. The southern portion of parcel 4 (below the horizontal line) is the property for which defendants seek a variance and will be hereinafter referred to as the 'variance lot.' This lot has no structures on it and is unpaved. Parcels 1, 2 and 3 will hereinafter be referred to as the 'C-1 property.'

NOTE: OPINION CONTAINS TABLE OR OTHER DATA THAT IS NOT VIEWABLE

The pertinent facts as found by the court in the first case and as pleaded by defendants in the injunction suit (which we must accept as true since judgment was rendered on the pleadings) are as follows: Defendants purchased the C-1 property totaling 2 acres in 1939. The variance lot was acquired in 1947, and the northern portion of parcel 4 (nuns' residence) in 1954. In 1948, defendants built a new church as indicated on the map, and in 1950 they built the school. The variance lot has been used since its acquisition in 1947 as a parking lot on Sundays and Holy Days of Obligation, and has been used since 1950 as a playground for the children attending the school. There has been no attempt to conceal these activities. Defendants' monetary investment in the entire property exceeds $300,000. The membership of the Church has grown from 150 in 1939, to approximately 3,000 at the time of these actions. The school attendance has increased from 200 to 450. Without the use of the variance lot for the purposes of parking and recreation, there is insufficient space for these activities.

The background and chronology of the suits here involved are as follows: Soon after acquisition of the northern portion of parcel 4 in 1954, defendants developed plans to improve their property by the construction of a new rectory on the C-1 property. Pursuant to this expansion program, on March 2, 1956, defendants applied for a zoning variance for the variance lot to allow its use as a parking lot and for recreational purposes. The City Planning Commission denied the application and the defendants appealed to the City Council. After a hearing on July 11, 1956, the Council sustained the ruling of the commission. Prior to the application for the variance, defendants had applied for a building permit for their proposed rectory. While this application was pending a conference was held between the city officials and representatives of the Church, and a memorandum was prepared and signed by the parties embodying the results of said conference and stating the conditions upon which a permit for the rectory would be issued, one of which was that defendants dedicate a portion of their property as a parking area. In compliance with this requirement, defendants dedicated a major portion of parcel 3, labeled 'Parking Lot' (see map), as a parking area. This dedication was by way of deed which limited in perpetuity the use of the dedicated area to off-street parking. The deed, which was filed by the City on August 9, 1956, recites that it is given in consideration of the issuance to the defendants by the City of a building permit for the construction of the rectory. Such dedication is required by an ordinance of the City and was made on a form provided by the City. Prior to the issuance of any permits, defendants let a building contract for the rectory. On August 10, 1956, the City issued two building permits to defendants. Permit No. 10495 was for the construction of a five foot high concrete block wall to separate parcels 3 and 4 in accordance with the City's Ordinance 521 which requires a solid wall separating any parking lot from adjacent R-1 property (all of parcel 4 is R-1). Permit No. 10496 was for the construction of the rectory building on parcel 1 of the C-1 property. This permit contains the following condition: 'Parish Rectory--Final inspection & permit to occupy this building is withheld until the wall permit No. 10495 is satisfactorily completed and accepted by the building inspector.' (Emphasis added.) Following the issuance of these permits, and following the denial of the variance on the variance lot, a second conference was held between representatives of the parties. As a result of this conference, the building inspector determined that defendants did not intend to construct the required separation wall on the boundary between parcels 3 and 4 and, therefore, the building inspector purportedly revoked the rectory permit (No. 10496) pending completion of the wall on or before October 1, 1956. The notice of revocation was in the form of a letter dated September 10, 1956, and the revocation was made without notice or hearing. The letter provided, inter alia, that '* * * until such wall is completed in full, your permit to construct a rectory will stand revoked, in a suspense file, to be reinstated only upon the order of the Building Inspector.'

On September 13, 1956, the City filed the action for declaratory relief. The complaint alleged that the City had interpreted its off-street parking ordinance (Art. IX, San Marino zoning ordinance) to require that defendants construct the entire parking lot including the wall before a permit for the rectory could be issued. The defendants were alleged to have contended that completion of the parking lot and wall is not a condition precedent to the issuance of the rectory permit and the issue for determination was thus presented. The City added a new cause of action by way of supplemental complaint on December 20, 1957, in which it was alleged that on November 20, 1957, the City Council adopted ordinance number 601 amending the provisions of the zoning ordinance defining C-1 uses and reading in part: 'No residential or other use permitted in an R-1 Zone, and no dwelling house, dwelling unit, living quarters, or housekeeping use shall be permitted in any C-1 Zone except upon a variance granted pursuant to Sections 23.31 et seq. of this Chapter.' The City further alleged that the adoption of this ordinance made the permit controversy moot.

On January 4, 1957, defendants filed a cross-complaint and petition for writ of mandate. They alleged that an agreement was entered into between the parties on January 24, 1956, whereby the City agreed to issue permits for the rectory and auditorium and for the parking lot on the performance by defendants of certain prerequisites. It was further alleged that defendants had fully complied with all the conditions, including an application for a variance on the variance lot, and in reliance upon the agreement, had contracted with a construction firm for the construction of the rectory and...