Pacifica Homeowners' Assn. v. Wesley Palms Retirement Community

• Decision Date: 19 March 1986
• Court: California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
• Parties: PACIFICA HOMEOWNERS' ASSOCIATION, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. WESLEY PALMS RETIREMENT COMMUNITY, et al., Defendants and Respondents. D002396.

Page 380

224 Cal.Rptr. 380

178 Cal.App.3d 1147

PACIFICA HOMEOWNERS' ASSOCIATION, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. WESLEY PALMS RETIREMENT COMMUNITY, et al., Defendants and Respondents.

D002396.

Court of Appeal, Fourth District, Division 1, California.

March 19, 1986.

A. Lee Estep and Estep, Williams & Gordon, San Diego, for plaintiff and appellant

Kadison, Pfaelzer, Woodard, Quinn & Rossi and Laurence J. Hutt, Los Angeles, for defendants and respondents.

STANIFORTH, Associate Justice.

Pacifica Homeowners' Association (Association) appeals the sustaining of a demurrer and the dismissal of its action seeking to enjoin the Wesley Palms Retirement Community and Pacifica Homes, Inc. (collectively Wesley Palms) from allowing trees on its property to grow higher than its five-story building.

FACTS

The Association's members own single-family residences in a development, Pacifica Homes (Pacifica), located uphill from Wesley Palms on Mount Soledad in the City of San Diego (City). These residences have views of the ocean, Mission Bay and the city. Covenants contained in the homeowners' deeds protect these views from future obstruction.

Wesley Palms was granted a conditional use permit in 1958 to operate a retirement hotel on its 40-acre tract of land. In the findings of fact supporting issuance of the permit, the City, inter alia, stated:

"That such use under the circumstances of the particular case will not be detrimental to health, safety or general welfare of persons residing or working in the vicinity, or injurious to property or improvements (existing or future) in the vicinity because a capable architect has designed attractive buildings and cottages which will be surrounded by a beautiful landscaped area. There will be no medical facilities on the property, which will not be a rest home, hospital, or sanitarium. The buildings will be set back from the exterior boundaries of the 40-acre tract and will constitute a harmonious, well-designed unit, which will be far more attractive than even a high-class subdivision, or an uncoordinated development of individual houses. The installation of sewer and water lines will directly increase property values and health conditions; improve fire protection facilities; and make the immediate development of surrounding areas easier and less expensive."

The City also attached conditions to the issuance of the permit, including:

"That a landscaping plan be submitted and approved by the Planning Commission along with the final subdivision map with the entire landscaping plan to be completed within one year after the first building is occupied.

"...

"That construction shall be substantially as shown on the attached plan, except that the proposed 7-story building shall be reduced in height by two floors, with a proportional reduction in total height."

By 1984, eucalyptus and pine trees on the Wesley Palms property exceeded the height of its five-story building and were obstructing views in Pacifica. Attempts to resolve the problem broke down and the Association filed suit in February 1984, alleging Wesley Palms had interferred with an easement to light, air and an unobstructed view created by the conditional use permit in favor of the Association. The Association sought damages and injunctive relief. In July 1984, the Association amended the complaint. It sought injunctive relief, alleging the Wesley Palms property was burdened with a servitude in favor of the Association to not permit any obstruction exceeding the height of Wesley Palms' five-story building, had a duty under the conditional use permit to maintain its land so as not to be injurious to the Association's property and was creating a nuisance by allowing its trees to obstruct the Association's light and view.

Wesley Palms demurred. On September 7, 1984, the court sustained the demurrer without leave to amend. A judgment of dismissal was entered on October 3, 1984.

The Association appeals, contending the conditional use permit was intended to give the Association's members a right to an unobstructed view and Wesley Palms has violated that condition.

DISCUSSION

"The function of a demurrer is to test the sufficiency of a complaint as a matter of law." (Banerian v. O'Malley, 42 Cal.App.3d 604, 611, 116 Cal.Rptr. 919.) A demurrer admits the truth of all properly pleaded material allegations without regard to the difficulty of proof. (Alcorn v. Anbro Engineering, Inc., 2 Cal.3d 493, 496, 86 Cal.Rptr. 88, 468 P.2d 216.) " '[T]he allegations of the complaint must be liberally construed with a view to attaining substantial justice among the parties.' " (King v. Central Bank, 18 Cal.3d 840, 843, 135 Cal.Rptr. 771, 558 P.2d 857.)

A general demurrer may be sustained without leave to amend where it is probable from the nature of the defects in the previous unsuccessful attempts the plaintiff cannot state a cause of action. On appeal, the question is whether the trial court abused its discretion in denying leave to amend. (Fugitt v. City of Placentia, 70 Cal.App.3d 868, 871, 139 Cal.Rptr. 123.) The burden of showing an abuse of discretion rests on the appellant. (Goodman v. Kennedy, 18 Cal.3d 335, 349, 134 Cal.Rptr. 375, 556 P.2d 737.)

As a general rule, a landowner has no natural right to air, light or an unobstructed view and the law is reluctant to imply such a right. (Venuto v. Owens-Corning Fiberglas Corp., 22 Cal.App.3d 116, 127, 99 Cal.Rptr. 350; Taliaferro v. Sayler, 162 Cal.App.2d 685, 691, 328 P.2d 799; 3 Miller & Starr, Current Law of California Real Estate (1977) § 18:9, p. 262; 1 Ogden's Revised California Real Property (1974) § 13.13, p. 548; 3 Witkin, Summary of Cal. Law (8th ed. 1973) Real Property, § 360, p. 2056.) Such a right may be created by private parties through the granting of an easement (see, e.g., Petersen v. Friedman, 162 Cal.App.2d 245, 247, 328 P.2d 264; Civ. Code, § 801, subd. (18)) or through the adoption of conditions, covenants and restrictions (as is the case among the Pacifica homeowners) or by the Legislature (see, e.g., Civ. Code, §§ 801, subd. (18), 801.5; Pub. Res. Code, § 25980 et seq. (creating a right to sunlight for solar collectors). Local governments may also protect views and provide for light and air through the adoption of height limits. (See, e.g., San Diego Mun. Code, § 101.0452 et seq.; Taliaferro v. Sayler, supra, 162 Cal.App.2d 685, 691, 328 P.2d 799.)

II

Wesley Palms asserts that even if the permit contained a condition limiting the height of its trees, this condition could not be enforced by the Association.

The law allows a private individual to enjoin a zoning violation as a nuisance when the individual suffers a "special injury to himself in person or property of a character different in kind from that suffered by the general public" (Venuto v. Owens-Corning Fiberglas Corp., supra, 22 Cal.App.3d 116, 124, 99 Cal.Rptr. 350, emphasis deleted) or an injury "greater than that suffered by the public generally" (California Zoning Practice (Cont.Ed.Bar 1969) § 11.6, pp. 479-480) or the individual is a "member of the community for whose particular welfare the ordinance was enacted" (McIvor v. Mercer-Fraser Co., 76 Cal.App.2d 247, 254, 172 P.2d 758).

Here the Association alleges a specific conditional use permit contains a limitation on tree height and this limitation was imposed particularly for the benefit of the uphill landowners including the Association. Under these circumstances, the Association has met the standing requirements. It has sufficiently alleged it is a "member of the community for whose particular welfare the ordinance was enacted" (McIvor v. Mercer-Fraser Co., supra, 76 Cal.App.2d 247, 254, 172 P.2d 758) and it has suffered an injury different from or greater than that suffered by the general public. (Contrast Taliaferro v. Sayler, supra, 162 Cal.App.2d 685, 328 P.2d 799, where the plaintiff sought an injunction for a violation of a general height limit. ¹ )

Wesley Palms also contends the Association's failure to timely appeal the issuance of the conditional use permit or seek court review of the issuance of the permit bars the present action. This contention has no merit. The Association here is not challenging the validity of the permit or its conditions but seeking to enforce a condition which it alleges was attached to the permit. Any action based on a violation of this alleged condition would have been premature if prosecuted within the time frame (10 to 180 days after issuance) suggested by Wesley Palms.

III

The Association asserts the conditional use permit restricted the height of Wesley Palms' trees to the height of its five-story building. ² The Association concedes the use permit does not expressly limit the height of the trees but argues such a limitation may be implied by reading together the City's finding Wesley Palms would not be "injurious to property and improvements (existing or future) in the vicinity" with the permit's conditions that Wesley Palms submit and obtain the planning commission's approval of a landscaping plan and that Wesley Palms' seven-story building be reduced by two floors. The Association contends since the City intended Wesley Palms be compatible with the surrounding community and since the City placed a five-story height limit on the building due to community concern, the City also intended to limit the height of the trees to the height of the five-story building.

First, we note the Association's reliance on the permit's language Wesley Palms would not be "injurious to property or improvements (existing or future) in the vicinity" is misplaced. This language is contained in a finding of fact, not a condition. Such a finding--the proposed use "will not adversely affect" the neighborhood--is required for the issuance of every conditional use permit. (San Diego Mun.Code, § 101.0506-C.1.) Moreover, when read in context, the language does not imply a height limitation on trees in favor of the Association....