Harris v. City of Costa Mesa, G012846

• Decision Date: 10 May 1994
• Docket Number: No. G012846,G012846
• Citation: 31 Cal.Rptr.2d 1,25 Cal.App.4th 963
• Court: California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
• Parties: Jeffrey HARRIS, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. CITY OF COSTA MESA, Defendant and Appellant.

Page 1

31 Cal.Rptr.2d 1

25 Cal.App.4th 963

Jeffrey HARRIS, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. CITY OF COSTA MESA, Defendant and Appellant.

No. G012846.

Court of Appeal, Fourth District, Division 3, California.

May 10, 1994.

[25 Cal.App.4th 965] David A. Delman, Irvine, for plaintiff and appellant.

Thomas Kathe, City Atty. for the City of Costa Mesa, Burke, Williams & Sorensen, Michele R. Vadon-Rivera and Scott F. Field, Los Angeles, for defendant and appellant.

John L. Dodd, Tustin, as amicus curiae on behalf of defendant and appellant.

OPINION

SONENSHINE, Associate Justice.

The City of Costa Mesa (the City) appeals a judgment setting aside its administrative decision to deny Jeffrey Harris a conditional use permit for an accessory apartment. The City contends the trial court ignored the substantial evidence supporting the city council's discretionary decision and, in the alternative, should have remanded the matter to the council for a new hearing.

I

Harris owned a small 869-square-foot home on Flower Street in Costa Mesa, a residential area dating back to 1947 which is designated on the City's General Plan as low density residential. In 1991, Harris contacted the City for permission to raze his detached garage, facing on an alley, and erect a two-story building--a three-car garage with carport below and an apartment above. The 1199-square-foot living area was to contain one bedroom, a study, living room, dining room and two bathrooms. A balcony overlooked the alley.

The City's zoning administrator approved the plan. However, a coalition of neighbors appealed his decision to the planning commission which conducted a public hearing. Despite a report from the senior planner, ¹ the commission denied the conditional use permit (CUP), finding the proposed apartment was incompatible with the existing neighborhood.

Harris appealed to the city council. The report from the city staff again recommended approval of the CUP, stating applicable state law deemed accessory apartments consistent with underlying general plans and, in any event, The Harris property was a part of the east side of Costa Mesa which already contained some accessory apartments. The neighbors strongly disagreed, maintaining the "neighborhood" was merely the 140-home area around the Harris residence and the proposed project was too large for that area (30 percent larger than the existing home), and would impede the view and infringe on the neighbors' privacy.

Following the public hearing, the council voted 5-0 to affirm denial of the CUP. The clerk's memorandum of the council action stated, "The Planning Commission denial of Zoning Action AZ-91-06 was upheld, based on the finding that the project would have an adverse impact on the public health, safety and welfare, and therefore would be inconsistent with the General Plan."

Harris filed a writ of mandate in superior court. The trial court concluded "the City Council's findings of fact adopted orally at the City Council hearing and formally confirmed in writing, that the project was injurious to the health, safety and welfare of the City, was not supported by substantial evidence in light of the whole record." It issued the writ, setting aside the council decision and stating remand "is not necessary or appropriate in light of, among other things, the administrative record and findings of fact below."

II APPLICABLE STATUTES AND ORDINANCES

Government Code section 65852.2, operative July 1, 1983, outlines the procedures "for the creation of second units in single-family and multifamily residential zones...." In particular, a city may pass its own ordinance, consistent with section 65852.2, setting standards for those units and requiring a CUP, ² or it may do nothing, subjecting itself to the stricter standards outlined in subdivision (b) of the statute. Subdivision (b) outlines "maximum standards" and "[n]o additional standards, other than those provided in this subdivision [ (b) ] or subdivision (a), shall be utilized or imposed...." The third alternative, subdivision (c), allows a city to ban second units entirely pursuant to certain specified findings. (See Wilson v. City of Laguna Beach (1992) 6 Cal.App.4th 543, 553, 7 Cal.Rptr.2d 848.)

In response, the City passed an ordinance outlining its own concerns (requiring owner-occupancy to protect neighborhood stability and establishing a maximum size to ensure the addition's "subordinate nature"). The ordinance also states: "A second unit as provided for herein, if located on a conforming lot, does not exceed the allowable density for the lot and is a residential use, consistent with the General Plan Designation and applicable zoning." The ordinance then provided amendments to the Costa Mesa Municipal Code (CMMC). Those amendments allow the construction of accessory apartments if the zoning administrator grants a minor conditional use permit and the structure complies with section 13-131 of the planning, zoning and development code. Section 13-131 provides: "Accessory apartments may be approved as a minor conditional use permit. Accessory apartments shall meet the criteria specified in Section 65852.2 of the California Code and the following criteria [not applicable here]." ³

Section 13-347, entitled "Findings Necessary to grant Conditional Use Permit," provides: "When granting a conditional use permit the planning commission shall find that the evidence presented substantially meets the following conditions: [p] (a) The proposed development or use is substantially compatible with developments in the same general area and would not be materially detrimental to other properties within the area. [p] (b) The granting of the conditional use permit will not be materially detrimental to the health, safety and general welfare of the public or otherwise injurious to property or improvement within the immediate neighborhood. [p] (c) The granting of the conditional use permit will not allow a use, density or intensity which is not in accordance with the general plan designation for the property."

Our review of an administrative decision requires that we "scrutinize the record and determine whether substantial evidence supports the administrative agency's findings and whether these findings support the agency's decision. In making these determinations, the reviewing court must resolve reasonable doubts in favor of the administrative findings and decision." (Topanga Assn. for a Scenic Community v. County of Los Angeles (1974) 11 Cal.3d 506, 514, 113 Cal.Rptr. 836, 522 P.2d 12.) "Moreover, '[c]ourts may reverse an agency's decision only if, based on the evidence before the agency, a reasonable person could not reach the conclusion reached by the agency.' [Citation.]" (Lindborg-Dahl Investors, Inc. v. City of Garden Grove (1986) 179 Cal.App.3d 956, 961, fn. 7, 225 Cal.Rptr. 154, italics added.) To this end, we "consider the entire record to determine whether substantial evidence supports the city council's findings and whether those findings support its decision." (Id. at p. 961, 225 Cal.Rptr. 154, fn. omitted.)

III FINDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL

Following the presentation of evidence by approximately 10 neighbors opposing the project (and the asserted agreement of 47 out of 57 homeowners in the 300-foot-radius area contacted by the City), 2 residents who approved, Harris, and his architect, the council members presented their conclusions and/or findings. Mr. Humphrey noted the continuing encroachment into single-family neighborhoods, stating, "If you look at the Code, I don't think that we shall, if we find that it is incompatible, I think we may approve or disapprove." He particularly emphasized the present consistency of the neighborhood and the need to protect single-family neighborhoods: "What that means to me is not that an accessory apartment is inappropriate unless, of course, [there is] a significant change of the neighborhood [which] allows for greater use of a multi-family dwelling to a level that is inconsistent with that neighborhood." He observed that the project per se was "nicely done," entailing a great deal of time and effort. However, he continued, "I do think, quite honestly, that that project does overshadow this neighborhood and does become an inconsistent use within the neighborhood both to the existing general plan and to the CUP process." He moved to uphold denial of the permit.

The motion was seconded by Ms. Genis, who emphasized the overall infringement upon the privacy of the surrounding residents: "And one of the findings that we are asked to make in the approval of any use permit is that it would not be detrimental to other properties in the area in that it would not be detrimental to the health, safety and welfare of the public or otherwise injurious to property improvements within the immediate neighborhood." She noted all windows of the living quarters were, indeed, on the second floor and "would tend to create a greater tendency for invasions of privacy," continuing, "And it also is not in character with the rest of the neighborhood [which] is typically low level. And, therefore, I couldn't say that this project, as proposed, would not be detrimental to the surrounding neighborhood."

Councilman Buffa, in supporting the motion, noted the letter from the proponent of the state legislation, who strongly stated that it was not the intent of the legislation to allow accessory apartments that were larger than the primary residence.

The mayor then asked the city attorney if additional findings were necessary. Said the attorney, "You would need to make a finding with reference to the existing general plan. And number two, I believe that one of the only bases that you can find to deny the project is that there are adverse impacts on the public health, safety and welfare that would result from allowing second units within a single-family area. And that's about the only way you can deny it, or at least uphold the ...