Van Sicklen v. Browne

• Decision Date: 09 February 1971
• Citation: 15 Cal.App.3d 122,92 Cal.Rptr. 786
• Court: California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
• Parties: Frederick M. VAN SICKLEN, Barbara Van Sicklen and Chris Beratlis, Plaintiffs and Appellants, v. Robert E. BROWNE, Ben F. Gross, Joseph W. House, Charles D. St. Clair and William D. Weisgerber as Members of the City Council of the City of Milpitas, Defendants and Respondents. Civ. 27215.

Page 786

92 Cal.Rptr. 786

15 Cal.App.3d 122

Frederick M. VAN SICKLEN, Barbara Van Sicklen and Chris Beratlis, Plaintiffs and Appellants, v. Robert E. BROWNE, Ben F. Gross, Joseph W. House, Charles D. St. Clair and William D. Weisgerber as Members of the City Council of the City of Milpitas, Defendants and Respondents.

Civ. 27215.

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

Feb. 9, 1971.

Hearing Denied April 8, 1971.

Wool, Richardson, Colbert & Shea, San Jose, Breed, Robinson & Stewart, Oakland, for plaintiffs-appellants.

Haskell M. Goodman, City Atty. of Milpitas, San Jose, for defendants-respondents.

MOLINARI, Presiding Justice.

Petitioners appeal from a judgment denying the issuance of a peremptory writ of mandate and discharging the alternative writ upon a petition to review the action of the City Council of the City of Milpitas sustaining the action of the City Planning Commission denying petitioners' application for a use permit to construct an automobile service station on property which they own within the boundaries of Milpitas.

Milpitas is a small, geographically compact community in northeast Santa Clara County and was incorporated in 1954 as a general law city. Pursuant to Government Code sections 65300 and 65850 the city adopted, respectively, a Comprehensive Master Plan and a Milpitas Zoning Ordinance. (Ordinance No. 38.)

Among the relevant provisions of the Master Plan was the following statement of goals and objectives: 'To develop a circulation and a transportation system which is integrated with the community pattern of living, working and shopping areas and which will provide for the safe, convenient and efficient movement of goods and people within the city and to other parts of the region * * *. To * * * strengthen and promote development through stability and balance * * *.'

The zoning ordinance, as expressed in section 1.02, states its purpose as follows: '* * * to encourage the most appropriate use of land throughout the City; to stabilize and conserve the value of property; to provide adequate light, air and reasonable access; to secure safety from fire and other dangers; to prevent overcrowding of land; to avoid undue concentration of population; to facilitate the adequate provision for transportation, water, sewerage, schools, parks and other public improvements; and in general to promote the public health, safety, peace, morals, comfort and welfare, all in accordance with a comprehensive Zoning Ordinance and Master Plan.'

The zoning ordinance, in section 8.90, established an 'HS' Highway Service District whose stated purpose, among other things, is to provide for the wide range of personal and business services primarily oriented to the automobile customer. Among the uses permitted in such a district are automobile service stations located upon specified lot areas containing a specified minimum width. The zoning ordinance provides in section 17.00 thereof as follows: 'CONDITIONAL USES PERMITTED BY COMMISSION Section 17.01 LOCATION OF PERMITTED USES: Wherever it is stated in this Ordinance that the following uses may be permitted in a district, if their location is first approved by the Commission, said uses are deemed to be a part of the Comprehensive Master Plan, or its objectives, and shall conform thereto. Before the Commission makes its final determination, it shall hold a public hearing. Such uses include the following: Section 17.02 * * * automobile service stations * * *.'

Petitioners applied to the Planning Commission for a use permit for the construction of an automobile service station on a lot owned by them in the 'HS' Highway Service District. The Commission denied the application and in its decision stated the following reasons: '1) Approval would create a further proliferation of this type of land use in a neighborhood already adequately served by service stations located more logically at a major intersection. 2) Approval would open the door for at least two additional stations at the Wilson Way intersection and would create a precedent that would make it difficult for the City to deny applicants on other corners. 3) There is no demonstrated need for an additional service station in this neighborhood at this time. Adjacent stations have a history of turnover in management and are known to have been vacant for extended periods in the recent past. 4) Approval would establish a service station use too close to a developed residential area without the logic of it being at the intersection of two heavily traveled major streets. 5) Approval on the basis of a future freeway location seems, at best, premature. While freeway agreements are in existence, actual construction of the freeway is many years away and traffic patterns created by the freeway are neither definite or known. Detailed ramp drawings are not available.'

Petitioners contend that the denial of their application for the permit was arbitrary and capricious because the Commission had no discretion and was obliged to grant the use permit if the parcel for the proposed service station met the minimum width and area requirements set forth in the zoning ordinance. There is no dispute that petitioners' lot met the frontage and area requirements of the zoning ordinance. Respondent City contends, however, that in addition to meeting these requirements the proposed use must conform to the objectives of the Comprehensive Master Plan. We agree with respondent.

The zoning ordinance expressly provides that automobile service stations may be permitted in the Highway Service District if their location conforms to the objectives of the Master Plan. (§ 17.01.) The ordinance also provides in its stated purpose that its objectives are to be accomplished in accordance with the Master Plan. (§ 1.02.) It is apparent, therefore, that the Planning Commission is vested with considerable discretion in determining whether the proposed use subserves the Master Plan's fundamental objectives. One of these objectives is that which seeks to 'strengthen and promote development through stability and balance * * *.'

The Planning Commission, after an extensive hearing, concluded that 'approval would create a further proliferation of this type of land use in a neighborhood already adequately served by service stations located more logically at a major intersection,' ¹ and that 'approval would establish a service station use too close to a developed residential area.' This determination is a legitimate exercise of the discretionary power vested in the Planning Commission by section 17.01 of the zoning ordinance. Since there is no indication that the Planning Commission acted arbitrarily or capriciously, its findings must be upheld. (See Garden Grove Congregation of Jehovah's Witnesses v. City of Garden Grove, 176 Cal.App.2d 136, 139, 142, 1 Cal.Rptr. 65.)

We observe that the traditional purpose of the conditional use permit is to enable a municipality to exercise some measure of control over the extent of certain uses, such as service stations, which, although desirable in limited numbers, could have a detrimental effect on the community in large numbers. Here, in view of the specifically stated purposes of both the zoning ordinance and the Master Plan, it is inconceivable that it was the legislative intent that use permits for service stations would be granted for any number of service stations so long as each parcel met the minimum width, frontage and area requirements.

Petitioners place strong reliance on Redwood City Co. of Jehovah's Witnesses v. City of Menlo Park, 167 Cal.App.2d 686, 335 P.2d 195, in support of their contention that the City...