Filed 10/25/17 Woodall v. City of Lafayette CA1/1
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION ONE


NANCY WOODALL et al.,
Plaintiffs and Appellants,
v.
CITY OF LAFAYETTE,
Defendant and Respondent.

A149936

(Contra Costa County
Super. Ct. No. CIVMSN15-1226)


Plaintiffs Nancy Woodall and Michael Woodall brought a petition for writ of administrative mandamus challenging the City of Lafayette’s (City) denial of design review approval for their construction of a new home. Plaintiffs purchased a 1950’s, ranch-style home in Lafayette, which they sought to demolish and replace with an English-style country house. After the design review commission initially approved the design, the Lafayette Planning Commission (Planning Commission) and City Council (Council) denied approval because the project was not compatible with the neighborhood and unreasonably affected views of adjacent properties. Plaintiffs sought review of the decision, arguing the Council’s administrative findings were not supported by substantial evidence. The trial court denied the writ petition. We affirm.
I. BACKGROUND
Plaintiffs own a single-story, 4,111-square-foot, ranch-style house in the Happy Valley Dell subdivision of Lafayette. In November 2013, plaintiffs filed an application for approval to demolish the existing structure and replace it with a two-story, 5,595-square-foot home. The proposed home design was an “English-inspired country house,” characterized by steep roof pitches. The existing home is 15 feet 1 inch tall; the height of the new home as initially proposed was 32 feet 4 inches.
Under the Lafayette Municipal Code, structures over 17 feet in height required the City to make specific findings before granting design review approval. As relevant here, the City had to determine “[g]eneral architectural considerations, including the character, scale and quality of design, the architectural relationship with the site and other buildings . . . have been incorporated in order to ensure the compatibility of this development with its design concept and the character of adjacent buildings.” (Lafayette Mun. Code, § 6-275, subd. (a)(3), formerly subd. (d).) The City also had to find “[t]he structure is so designed that it will appear compatible with the scale and style of the existing neighborhood and will not significantly detract from the established character of the neighborhood,” and “[t]he structure is so designed that it does not appear too tall or massive in relation to surrounding structures or topography when viewed from off-site.” (Lafayette Mun. Code, § 6-1905, subds. (b), (c).)
Plaintiffs’ application was first considered by the City’s design review commission (DRC) over the course of three public hearings. City planning staff prepared detailed reports prior to each meeting, analyzing the project, reviewing the changes plaintiffs made in response to DRC recommendations, and summarizing public comments received. Though staff found the residence “generally well-designed,” they suggested several modifications, including adjustments to the height and mass of the structure, to address “public comments voicing concerns about the height, mass, neighborhood compatibility, views, privacy, and grading.” After plaintiffs reduced the proposed height of the roof by 17 inches, the DRC eventually approved the design by a vote of two to one.
Plaintiffs’ neighbors to the south appealed the DRC’s decision to the Planning Commission. Over the course of three more public hearings, the Planning Commission considered plaintiffs’ project. Though plaintiffs made further changes in response to suggestions from the Planning Commission, several commissioners continued to express concerns about the height of the roof, the character of the neighborhood, and the impacts on neighbors’ views and privacy. In September 2014, the Planning Commission voted to uphold the appeal and deny the permit.
Plaintiffs appealed the Planning Commission decision to the Council. After two initial public hearings, a referral back to the Planning Commission for review and recommendation, and five additional Planning Commission hearings, the Council voted four to one to deny the project. In Resolution No. 2014-59, the Council concluded it could not make the required finding under Lafayette Municipal Code section 6-275, former subdivision (d) regarding the character, scale, and compatibility of the project, because “the project, as designed, is not compatible with the neighborhood,” which “consists predominantly of one-story ranch style homes.” The proposed maximum ridge height of 28 feet 10 inches was taller than most homes in the neighborhood, particularly “due to its steep roof pitches, which create a tall attic space, in combination with the second-story element.” The Council found “[t]he project’s steep roof pitches, height, character, and scale are in high contrast with the existing neighborhood and adjacent buildings and detract from the established character of the neighborhood.” Recognizing plaintiffs had incorporated architectural details and proposed an extensive landscape plan to lessen the impact of the height, the Council nonetheless concluded such efforts would not “adequately mitigate the impacts of a residence that is out of scale and incompatible with the existing neighborhood.”
Addressing Lafayette Municipal Code section 6-1905, subdivisions (b) and (c), the Council made many of the same findings as under section 6-275, former subdivision (d). The Council also observed the project was “unnecessarily tall” with “steep and visible rooflines,” and noted the “height and mass unreasonably reduce the views of adjacent properties.” Though plaintiffs had reduced the height of the project during the review process, the Council found “they ha[d] not decreased it enough to mitigate the visual impact and views of the home from neighboring properties and Hastings Court.”
Plaintiffs filed a petition for writ of administrative mandate challenging the decision, which the trial court denied. In a detailed and well-reasoned order, the trial court cited an abundance of evidence in the record supporting the Council’s findings that the project is not compatible with the existing neighborhood, would negatively impact offsite views, and would infringe on the privacy of neighbors. Particularly compelling was the “copious commentary from residents in the neighborhood” and “numerous personal impressions of City Commissioners, City Councilmembers, and City staff” expressing concern about the height and pitch of the roof, the massive size of the house, and the negative effect on the established character of the neighborhood. After an exhaustive analysis, the trial court concluded substantial evidence supported each of the Council’s findings. Plaintiffs’ timely appeal followed.
II. DISCUSSION
A. Standard of Review
Plaintiffs argue the Council abused its discretion in denying design review approval because its findings were not supported by substantial evidence. Under Code of Civil Procedure section 1094.5, “[a]buse of discretion is established if the respondent has not proceeded in the manner required by law, the order or decision is not supported by the findings, or the findings are not supported by the evidence.” (Id., subd. (b).)
On review of the Council’s decision, our task is the same as that of the trial court—we determine whether substantial evidence supports the findings in light of the entire administrative record. (Topanga Assn. for a Scenic Community v. County of Los Angeles (1974) 11 Cal.3d 506, 514; Desmond v. County of Contra Costa (1993) 21 Cal.App.4th 330, 335 (Desmond).) We presume the correctness of the Council’s findings and construe the record in the light most favorable to the administrative decision, “giving that decision every reasonable inference and resolving all conflicts in the decision’s favor.” (Amerco Real Estate Co. v. City of West Sacramento (2014) 224 Cal.App.4th 778, 786.) We do not reweigh the evidence, and we uphold the Council’s findings unless they are “ ‘ “so lacking in evidentiary support as to render them unreasonable.” ’ ” (Jamieson v. City Council of the City of Carpinteria (2012) 204 Cal.App.4th 755, 763.) The burden is on plaintiffs to demonstrate no substantial evidence supports the findings. (Desmond, at p. 336.)
B. Substantial Evidence
Under the pertinent municipal code sections, the Council was required to affirmatively find (1) the “character, scale [and] architectural relationship with the site and other buildings” was compatible with the character of adjacent buildings; (2) the design would “appear compatible” with the scale and style of the existing neighborhood and not detract from its character; and (3) the structure did not “appear too tall or massive” when viewed off-site. (Lafayette Mun. Code, §§ 6-275, former subd. (d), 6-1905, subds. (b), (c).) Plaintiffs argue the Council’s decision to deny design review based on these criteria was not supported by substantial evidence. On review of the entire record, we conclude their contention lacks merit.
In support of its determination the proposed design was incompatible with the neighborhood, the Council found the project’s height, character, scale, and steep roof pitch was in high contrast with surrounding residences. Evidence in the record demonstrates most of the houses in the neighborhood are one-story, ranch-style houses with flat roofs. Typical neighborhood houses, including 20 homes within a 300-foot radius of plaintiffs’ property, are 14.5 feet tall and approximately 2,700 square feet. Plaintiffs’ proposed design, by contrast, is 28 feet 10 inches tall and 5,621 square feet. Though two two-story homes are located within a 300-foot radius of plaintiffs’ residence, they average 21 feet in height.
In addition, the record is replete with evidence of vigorous objections by neighbors, including letters, e-mails, and commentary at public meetings, all of which constitute substantial evidence in support of the Council’s findings. (Desmond, supra, 21 Cal.App.4th at pp. 339, 337 [“It is appropriate and even necessary for the County to consider the interests of neighboring property owners in reaching a decision whether to grant or deny a land use entitlement, and the opinions of neighbors may constitute substantial evidence on this issue.”]; Harris v. City of Costa Mesa (1994) 25 Cal.App.4th 963, 973 [expression of opposition by members of neighborhood coalition was substantial evidence in support of incompatibility findings].) Over 20 separate households expressed opposition to the design, many of them on several occasions. Indeed, of the 19 homes closest to plaintiffs’ on a neighborhood map, all but two of the residents objected to the project in letters or remarks at public meetings.
The comments from neighbors are telling. A large number of residents signed identical letters stating: “If approved, the project would irrevocably alter the neighborhood’s long-standing character, impair views and intrude on residents’ privacy [and] set a precedent for constructing buildings that are far taller and larger than our neighborhood’s existing homes.” One neighbor commented the “residence, as it is currently designed, is very wrong for this site and neighborhood. . . . [¶] . . . It’s too high . . . and its design as an English Tudor style with steep roof pitches in an area of ranch homes makes it completely incompatible with other existing homes in the neighborhood. . . . Its height and mass is in sharp contrast to the rest of the homes.” Another resident observed “families have come and gone but the low key unpretentious nature of the neighborhood has prevailed. . . . [Homeowners seeking to execute projects like plaintiffs’] are oblivious to the character of the existing neighborhood and the intrusion that their project represents, and they are totally insensitive to the dangerous precedent that their project entails.” Yet another resident said she was “very concerned,” noting the “height and design of the building do not fit with the neighborhood” and stating her belief the project “will actually destroy the neighborhood.”
City officials, many of whom personally visited the site to observe story poles and/or tour the area agreed the proposed design did not fit with the existing character of the neighborhood. Several noted the “disturbing” height of the house, with Councilmember Anderson saying he was “shocked at the height of the story poles,” and Commissioner Lyddan calling it a “very, very tall house” that “will loom not only over the neighbors but also over the entire neighborhood.” Commissioner Chong found the height “totally unnecessary” and said when he drove on Hastings Court, he observed the “8-foot roof /attic space will stick way up above Hastings Court” and result in a home not “compatible with the scale and style of the existing neighborhood.” Others, including Mayor Tatzin and Councilmember Reilly, found the combination of the pitch of the roof and size of the building rendered the house incompatible with the neighborhood. Commissioner Ateljevich observed “[t]he neighborhood homes are all low homes and the proposed house is also larger than any house in this neighborhood,” concluding it did not “fit in with the general pattern” and detracted from the character of the neighborhood. Such opinions constitute substantial evidence in support of the Council’s incompatibility finding. (Desmond, supra, 21 Cal.App.4th at p. 339; Breneric Associates v. City of Del Mar (1998) 69 Cal.App.4th 166, 176–177.)
Though the evidence in support of the incompatibility finding is sufficient to affirm the judgment (Desmond, supra, 21 Cal.App.4th at pp. 336–337), there is also substantial evidence in support of the finding the project appeared “too tall or massive” when viewed off-site. The City commissioned an independent view study that concluded the introduction of a two-story residence would potentially result in minor to moderate view impacts for three close neighbors and minor view disruptions for other residences across the street. Photos taken by City staff demonstrate the plaintiffs’ proposed roof would be visible from areas of a neighbor’s backyard and locations on Hastings Court (in front of the house).
Neighbors and city officials also expressed concern about the home’s appearance from off-site. One neighbor said the construction of “a 30 foot high house directly in front of her ranch style home[] will dramatically affect her view and the enjoyment of [her] home of so many years.” Others noted the “massive structure” would be visible from the backyard of the neighbor to the south “and other areas, as well.” Plaintiffs’ southern neighbor said if the “proposal is accepted, they will see a long, massive towering roof well out of scale with the neighborhood.” Several city officials also noted the view impacts. Commissioner Ateljevich said she thinks “the neighborhood is going to see more of this house than has been projected” because there is a “view corridor from Hilltop [Drive] into the parcel.” Commissioner Hertel observed “views across to the valley” from Hastings Court “will be compromised by the ridgeline being created.” Mayor Tatzin commented he could still “see the story poles for the second story addition as well as the roof on top of that” when driving up the hill to Hastings Court.
Plaintiffs repeatedly emphasize the subjective nature of the Council’s findings and urge us to reverse because such findings cannot constitute substantial evidence. Citing Citizens’ Com. to Save Our Village v. City of Claremont (1995) 37 Cal.App.4th 1157, 1168 (Claremont), they argue the “determination of whether or not ‘evidence is substantial’ is in itself a weighting [sic] process.” Plaintiffs contend we should “consider all evidence and then weigh that evidence to determine whether or not that isolated for City purposes can actually be deemed substantial—based upon something other than purely subjective reaction.” As we understand this contention, plaintiffs ask us to find the only evidence in support of the City’s decision consists of the subjective opinions of neighbors and City officials, which is not sufficient for substantial evidence purposes.
The problem with plaintiffs’ argument is they fail to cite any case authority indicating design review decisions must be supported by “objective” evidence. To the contrary, as discussed above, case law has consistently emphasized expert opinion is not necessary and the opinions of neighbors and city officials constitute substantial evidence in support of findings of aesthetic incompatibility. (Desmond, supra, 21 Cal.App.4th at pp. 337, 339; Harris v. City of Costa Mesa, supra, 25 Cal.App.4th at p. 975; Breneric Associates v. City of Del Mar, supra, 69 Cal.App.4th at pp. 176–177.) Moreover, the opinions of neighbors and councilmembers in this case were also supported by other evidence in the record that the proposed home was taller and larger than most of the homes in the neighborhood.
Though plaintiffs claim they are asking us to evaluate whether substantial evidence in support of the City’s decision exists, they instead discuss evidence supporting contrary findings and ask us to weigh all the evidence. That is not our role. (San Franciscans Upholding the Downtown Plan v. City and County of San Francisco (2002) 102 Cal.App.4th 656, 674 [appellate court may not substitute its views for those of agency or reweigh conflicting evidence presented to that body]; Kutzke v. City of San Diego (2017) 11 Cal.App.5th 1034, 1040 [although review of administrative decision involves some weighing to estimate the worth of the evidence, “ ‘that limited weighing does not constitute independent review where the court substitutes its own findings and inferences for that of the [City]’ ”].)
At bottom, plaintiffs urge us to do something we cannot—to reweigh the evidence. Because plaintiffs have not shown no reasonable person could reach the conclusion reached by the Council, our task is at an end. (Kutzke v. City of San Diego, supra, 11 Cal.App.5th at p. 1042.)
III. DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed. Respondent City of Lafayette is to recover costs on appeal.


 




_________________________
Margulies, Acting P.J.


We concur:


_________________________
Dondero, J.


_________________________
Banke, J.



















A149936
Woodall v. City of Lafayette