Honchariw v. Cnty. of Stanislaus

• Decision Date: 02 June 2020
• Docket Number: F077815
• Parties: NICHOLAS HONCHARIW, as Trustee, etc., Plaintiff and Appellant, v. COUNTY OF STANISLAUS et al., Defendants and Respondents.
• Court: California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals

NICHOLAS HONCHARIW, as Trustee, etc., Plaintiff and Appellant, v. COUNTY OF STANISLAUS et al., Defendants and Respondents.

F077815

COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

June 2, 2020

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS

California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

(Super. Ct. No. 2026470)

OPINION

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Stanislaus County. Marie Sovey Silveira, Judge.

Nicholas Honchariw, in pro. per., for Plaintiff and Appellant.

Shute, Mihaly & Weinberger, Matthew D. Zinn, Aaron M. Stanton; John P. Doering, County Counsel, and Thomas E. Boze, Assistant County Counsel, for Defendants and Respondents.

-ooOoo-

Plaintiff Nicholas Honchariw appeals from a judgment denying his petition for writ of mandate. In 2012, the Stanislaus County Board of Supervisors (Board) approved, subject to conditions, Honchariw's application for a vesting tentative map for a small subdivision he is attempting to develop. On appeal, he contends the trial court misinterpreted the conditions placed on the approved vesting tentative map. The court concluded the conditions required a fire suppression system, with functional fire hydrants to be in place, before the County of Stanislaus (County) would approve the final subdivision map.

We reach the following determinations. First, as to County's statute of limitations defense, Honchariw's claims of misinterpretation are not barred by the 90-day period set forth in Government Code section 66499.37.¹ Second, the interpretation of conditions of approval of a vesting tentative map is governed by the general principles for the construction of written instruments modified to account for the purposes of the Subdivision Map Act (§ 66410 et seq.), including the particular purposes of the vesting tentative map statute (§§ 66498.1-66498.9). Under these principles, the conditions of approval must be given an objectively reasonable interpretation to protect the reasonable expectations of the applicant obtaining conditional approval of a vesting tentative map. Third, the conditions of approval, as drafted, do not explicitly address when the fire hydrants must be functional. Fourth, the condition requiring Honchariw to "cause all public improvements required by" the Knights Ferry Community Services District (KFCSD) "to be completed and accepted for public use" prior to recording the final map addresses the level of water service for fire suppression and, therefore, implies that the public improvements required by KFCSD will determine the flow and pressure requirements needed to make the fire hydrants functional. The question of what KFCSD requires was not reached in the statement of decision and cannot be resolved on appeal because there is conflicting evidence in the record. Consequently, it must be resolved on remand before the specific terms of any writ are determined.

We therefore reverse the judgment and remand for further proceedings.

FACTS

Honchariw, in his capacity as trustee for the Honchariw Family Trust, proposed dividing a 33.7-acre parcel of land in the Knights Ferry area of Stanislaus County into eight residential lots and one undeveloped parcel. The proposed residential lots consist of four one-acre lots, three five-acre lots, and a half-acre lot. The half-acre lot contains a dwelling, obtains water service from KFCSD, and has a private septic tank. The parcel's eastern boundary is the Stanislaus River, its northern boundary is Cemetery Road, and its western and southwestern boundary is Frymire Road. The parcel was acquired by Reverend Iwan S. Honchariw in 1973 and placed in the Honchariw Family Trust in 1991, the year before he died. The beneficiaries of the trust are Reverend Honchariw's nieces and nephews. Honchariw has been the sole trustee since 1992 and is not a beneficiary of the trust. He intends to have the trust retain the riverfront portion of the property, which had been used by the extended family for decades as a retreat.

As part of his proposal to subdivide the 33.7-acre parcel, Honchariw submitted vesting tentative map application No. 2006-06 to County's planning commission in 2006. The planning commission denied Honchariw's application. He filed an administrative appeal and the Board voted to disapprove the application.

Honchariw filed a petition for writ of mandamus challenging the Board's decision. The superior court denied his petition. In November 2011, we reversed the superior court's judgment and ordered the court to issue a writ of mandate directing the Board to vacate its denial of Honchariw's vesting tentative map application, reconsider the application, and make certain determinations and findings in the event that it again denied the application. (Honchariw v. County of Stanislaus (2011) 200 Cal.App.4th 1066, 1081-1082.)²

The process of reconsidering Honchariw's application included County's planning and community development department preparing a May 15, 2012, action agenda summary for the Board. The action agenda summary stated a core issue was the source of water service for the four contiguous one-acre lots. These lots were within the boundaries of KFCSD. The summary stated the water source would be public water provided by KFCSD. County staff met with KFCSD to discuss KFCSD's ability to provide water and was told the water capacity to serve the four lots was available, but the necessary infrastructure to provide service was not in place. The action agenda summary stated:

"As such, any water connection provided by the KFCSD to the applicant's site, will require the applicant to install the necessary infrastructure to extend the KFCSD's water service. In a recent letter, dated May 3, 2012, the KFCSD indicated that the applicant will need to file a formal application with [KFCSD] to explore current conditions and determine the type of water system improvements needed, in order to provide water to the project site (see Attachment '8'). Conditions of Approval have been added to reflect [KFCSD's] application and water system connection requirements. If this project is approved, actual improvements and associated costs will be the sole responsibility of the applicant and will be required to be in place prior to recording the [vesting tentative map]."

The action agenda summary also addressed the fire-flow requirement previously included when Honchariw's application had been circulated in 2007 and 2008. It stated that a specific condition of approval had been removed from the revised conditions of approval and stated the Oakdale Irrigation District has been contacted and informed of staff's recommendation to remove the condition. In addition, the summary stated:

"The project in its present form, will be obtaining water for domestic use and fire protection from the KFCSD. Any fire flow requirements will be handled through the building permit process and at the time of construction, as required under the California Fire Code."

The subject of fire hydrants and water supply was discussed at the Board's May 15, 2012, meeting. An excerpt from the transcript of that meeting includes the following exchange between a supervisor and the director of County's planning and community development department:

"SUPERVISOR DeMARTINI: Yes, Mr. Chairman, I just wanted to go back to this fire suppression, because I just went through that with our fire department, but ... looking at condition 40, its says fire hydrants shall be extended to serve any new structures in the parcels, and then stuff about how they can't be any further than a thousand feet from the fire hydrant. [¶] I mean, that's one of the conditions. [¶] And the question I had is does the [Knights Ferry] Community Service District have sufficient water? Because it's going to take a larger line for the fire hydrant.

"ANGELA FREITAS: If I may. [¶] Part of Condition of Approval No. 24 is that the applicant study both or work with [KFCDS] to study both domestic and fire suppression. [¶] So the ultimate designs of this project to move forward would require hydrants for fire suppression, and they would have to install a line that's adequate enough to supply those fire hydrants.

"SUPERVISOR DeMARTINI: I just want to be sure I understand this. These are fire hydrants that are coming from water—from [Knights Ferry] Community Service District, not from, say, buried tanks?

"ANGELA FREITAS: Correct.

"SUPERVISOR DeMARTINI: Okay. I take, then, that [Knights Ferry] Community Service District would be able to do that? [¶] If they had the line engineered, they would have sufficient water and pressure?

"ANGELA FREITAS: Correct. [¶] As Condition No. 24, they'll have to—they'll have to address that in the design."

A representative of KFCSD then addressed the Board, stating (1) the district had enough water to serve the residential demand and (2) the fire suppression would have to be engineered and would have to comply with federal, state and county regulations. In closing, the representative stated: "That has all yet to be determined. [¶] We have to get an application for this project and we have to have an investigation. We have to have itall engineered so we know exactly where we stand, before we can say yes or no. Thank you."

On May 16, 2012, Honchariw held a conference call with County's lead staffer on the application, assistant county counsel, and someone from County's department of public works. Honchariw's contemporaneous handwritten notes from the conference call included the following item: "(3) Fire Suppression—arises at bldg. permit stage

On May 22, 2012, the Board approved Honchariw's vesting tentative map application No. 2006-06, subject to 42 conditions of approval. Condition Nos. 24, 25, 26 and 40 are relevant to this appeal and read...