Opinion
D071070
03-10-2017
FRIENDS OF RIVERSIDE'S HILLS et al., Plaintiffs and Appellants, v. CITY COUNCIL OF CITY OF RIVERSIDE et al., Defendants and Respondents; SHOATAO LIU, Real Party in Interest and Respondent.
Johnson & Sedlack, Raymond W. Johnson, Abigail A. Smith, Kimberly A. Foy and Kendall Holbrook, for Plaintiffs and Appellants. Gary G. Geuss, City Attorney, Kristi J. Smith, Chief Assistant City Attorney and Anthony L. Beaumon, Deputy City Attorney, for Defendants and Respondents. William Domnarski, for Real Party in Interest and Respondent.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115. (Super. Ct. No. RIC1501895) APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Riverside County, John W. Vineyard, Judge. Affirmed. Johnson & Sedlack, Raymond W. Johnson, Abigail A. Smith, Kimberly A. Foy and Kendall Holbrook, for Plaintiffs and Appellants. Gary G. Geuss, City Attorney, Kristi J. Smith, Chief Assistant City Attorney and Anthony L. Beaumon, Deputy City Attorney, for Defendants and Respondents. William Domnarski, for Real Party in Interest and Respondent.
INTRODUCTION
Friends of Riverside's Hills (FRH) and Preserve Our Hills and Canyon (POHC) (collectively appellants) appeal the denial of their petition for writ of administrative mandate, which sought to set aside an action by the City Council of the City of Riverside (City) granting a variance to Shaotao Liu to build a two-story home in an area designated as a residential conservation zone (RC zone). Appellants contend the City did not make the necessary findings supported by substantial evidence to grant a variance. We disagree and affirm the order denying the petition for writ of mandate.
BACKGROUND
A
The RC zone was established in Riverside "to protect prominent ridges, hilltops and hillsides, slopes, arroyos, ravines and canyons, and other areas with high visibility or topographic conditions that warrant sensitive development from adverse development practices." (Riverside Mun. Code, § 19.100.010, subd. B.) Some of its objectives are to "preserve and enhance the beauty of the City's landscape," to "maximize the retention of the City's natural topographic features, including but not limited, to skyline profiles, ridgelines, ridge crests, hilltops, hillsides, slopes, arroyos, ravines, canyons, prominent trees and rock outcrops, view corridors, and scenic vistas through the careful selection and construction of building sites and building pads on said topographic features" and to "reduce the scarring effects of excessive grading for building pads and cut and fill slopes." (Id. at subds. (B)(1), (2) & (4).) Single-family homes built within an RC zone are limited to one story and a maximum height of 20 feet. (Riverside Mun. Code, § 19.100.040, Table 19.100.040 A.)
Zoning variances may be granted if the following findings are made: "1. The strict application of the provisions of the Zoning Code would result in practical difficulties or unnecessary hardships inconsistent with the general purpose and intent of the Zoning Code; [¶] 2. There are special circumstances or conditions applicable to the property involved or to the intended use or development of the property that do not apply generally to other property in the vicinity and under the identical zoning classification; [¶] 3. The granting of such variance will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to the property or improvements in the zone or neighborhood in which the property is located; and [¶] 4. The granting of the variance will not be contrary to the objectives of any part of the General Plan." (Riverside Mun. Code, § 19.720.040, subd. A.)
B
The property at issue was established as part of a proposed subdivision tract and was graded in 1998 to provide a 9,500-square-foot building pad about 25 feet above the road. The City approved a lot line adjustment in 2001 giving 25 feet from the subject property to a neighboring property to allow for adequate fire department access to the neighboring property. No other lots were similarly diminished in size.
C
Liu and his wife purchased the property in March 2013. Liu applied to the City for a variance to build a two-story home in the RC zone in October 2013. The proposed home was approximately 5,000 square feet with a height of 24 feet. The lot had been vacant for almost 15 years. Liu stated the level building pad is the smallest in the area and unsuitable to build a 5,000-square-foot house. The maximum size of a one-story house that could be built on the pad would be less than 3,000 square feet whereas surrounding homes were two stories ranging in height from 29 to 35 feet with floor plans ranging from 4,000 to 6,000 square feet. Liu stated strict application of the RC code requiring a one-story house would make it impossible to build the size of home necessary to satisfy the intended use of the property. Liu contended the granting of a variance would not be contrary to the objectives of the general plan because a two-story home would not affect the ridgeline and would add beauty and value to the neighborhood. Liu also noted variances for two-story homes had been granted to many homeowners in the neighborhood.
The City issued a request for public comment noting the variance request was to permit the building of a two-story single family residence with a maximum height of 25 feet where a one-story residence with a maximum building height of 20 feet is permitted in the RC zone.
Two neighbors who lived uphill from the property objected to the project. One neighbor contended Liu could not demonstrate the findings required for a height variance because (1) the purported hardship was self-imposed since Liu was unwilling to edit the house plan, (2) there were no exceptional circumstances or conditions of the property different from neighboring properties subject to the zoning restrictions, (3) the granting of a variance would be detrimental to the neighbor's panoramic views of Riverside, and (4) the variance would be contrary to the objectives of the general plan. A second neighbor objected to the proposed variance stating the project would block the view from his property, for which he paid a premium.
The City's zoning administrator denied the variance request in March 2014 concluding the findings required by the Riverside Municipal Code for granting a variance could not be made.
D
Liu appealed the denial to the City. Liu submitted supplemental materials for the findings of fact indicating strict application of the zoning code would allow only a 3,000-square-foot one-story home, which would be inadequate for a family of seven. Liu contended expanding the building pad to allow for a 5,200-square-foot single family home would require "major re-grading with a major cut in the back and a major fill-in in the front, both of which would require large and expensive retaining walls. This would require a civil engineer to prepare a revised grading plan and process it to get the needed environmental and city-entitlement approvals." Liu also stated most of the homes in the neighborhood are 5,000-square-foot homes and requiring construction of a small one-story home in this neighborhood was not only an unnecessary hardship, but a practical difficulty. Liu noted there are six two-story homes in the nearby area.
Liu also contended the fact the site has the smallest graded building pad in the area created an exceptional circumstance because it allowed for only a small one-story home whereas other homes in the area are two-stories and exceed 20 feet in height. Liu noted the lot had been vacant for 15 years and is one of very few vacant lots in the neighborhood and postulated the reason is the small pad, which would only allow for a small one-story home.
Liu contended granting the variance would not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to property in the neighborhood because the lot is not on a ridgeline and no views would be impaired. Liu also stated granting a variance would not be contrary to the general plan, but rather would be a low impact infill development compatible with development in the neighborhood.
One of the neighbors opposed Liu's appeal of the variance denial stating Liu purchased the property with knowledge of the RC zone compliance requirements and imposed any hardship on himself. The neighbor also stated the property was in the direct line of sight of the primary view of his property and a two-story structure would break the "contract" they had with the City that their property would not be impacted by a structure more than 20 feet in height. The neighbor suggested Liu could change his building plan or make modifications to the building pad to comply with the RC zone requirements.
FRH submitted a letter supporting staff recommendation to uphold the zoning administrator's decision to deny the variance. It contended self-induced practical difficulties or hardships cannot be used as justification for a variance nor can the fact that variances were granted in the past be used as justification.
Liu submitted a letter from William Gardner, a civil engineer and land surveyor, indicating a view of the north of the valley and mountains from neighboring homes would not be impaired by the proposed two-story, 25-foot-high home. He also opined expanding the building pad for a one-story 5,200-square-foot home would require either cutting 15 feet into the rear slope and construction of a 7- to 8-foot wall or cutting the entire rear slope and removal of 2,180 cubic yards of dirt with reverse grading and processing of new environmental, grading, and variance applications. He stated this would cause practical difficulties and unnecessary hardship in developing the project.
Liu also submitted a letter from Christian Bergum, the project architect and former developer, stating the graded building pad "is too small to construct an adequate sized residence and provide for fire department turn-around." He further stated variances "for re-grading, slope heights, building setbacks, [and] retaining walls would be required, and be less desirable."
The matter was heard by the City on May 6, 2014. Staff recommended upholding the zoning administrator's decision to deny the variance request.
Douglas Shackelton represented Liu. He stated Liu required a large home, such as the proposed 5,200-square-foot home, due to the size of the family and his business, which Lui operates out of his home. Shackelton stated the lot has a building pad of approximately 9,600 square feet, which is the smallest of the surrounding lots. He explained there was a lot line adjustment in 2001, which gave 25 feet of this lot to the neighboring lot. The width of the lot was reduced resulting in a smaller building pad area. Shackelton pointed out the number of two-story homes on the same street and in the same area, which had been granted variances.
Speaking to practical difficulties and unnecessary hardship, Shackelton stated the largest house that could be placed on the existing pad would be about 3,000 square feet with a three-car garage and driveway turn-around for a fire truck. Expanding the pad to build a one-story home would require either digging back into the hill or building a retaining wall and placing fill toward the street. This would require hiring a civil and/or structural engineer to do a revised grading plan and new applications for environmental review, grading review and a new variance request.
Shackelton stated exceptional circumstances existed because the lot had an unusually small building pad on which only a small house could be built without a variance. Numerous variances had been granted for surrounding homes and a small home would be out of character with the area. Further, the plans for the home with the variance were compatible with surrounding homes and in no way detrimental. The lot is not on a ridgeline or a hilltop. Liu contended the proposed variance would not be contrary to the general plan.
Gardner, a licensed civil engineer, opined the view of the neighbors in the rear would not be impaired by a 25-foot-high home.
Neighbors spoke in opposition to the variance. The two uphill neighbors expressed concern regarding the view impact and the impact on property values. The City continued the matter to allow the homeowners' association (HOA), Estates at Canyon Crest Riverside, Inc., to consider the building proposal.
E
Lui submitted a letter from the HOA approving the architectural change for a two-story home on the property. The two uphill neighbors submitted a letter disagreeing with the HOA approval and disputing Liu's evidence of practical difficulties or hardship. POHC also submitted a letter asking the City to deny the variance.
A letter was submitted from a neighbor in support of the variance noting the objecting neighbor was granted variances for his property over objections. A number of other property owners signed a document indicating they had no objection to the proposed variance.
The City heard the matter again in January 2015. Liu's counsel stated the lot line adjustment shrank the lot by 25 feet and the building pad was not big enough to build a sufficiently large one-story home to have the kind of property other landowners have. He argued this constituted an unusual hardship. He also stated although view sheds are not required in Riverside, Liu presented evidence the project would not impact the uphill neighbors' views. Liu's counsel also argued the law permits the City to grant variances.
Keith Christianson, a civil engineer, also spoke on behalf of the project variance. He indicated the HOA approved the architectural plan. He also stated they obtained approval from surrounding neighbors, including neighbors on either side of the lot. Although the neighbors behind and uphill from the lot do not approve, he stated a 30-foot residence would not block their view.
Christianson also noted that after the lot line adjustment, this lot, at 111 feet, did not meet the minimum lot size width of 130 feet required by the RC zoning code. He stated there are hardships with the site given its size and topography and provided a document setting forth four proposed findings of fact in support of the variance. Christianson testified the neighboring 2,800-square-foot home needed the extra 25 feet from this lot to build a one level home on a flatter lot. He also testified it would not be desirable to use the entire existing building pad for a one-story home due to the weight on the slope area in the front. It is better to have a pool toward the front of the building pad, and even a pool will have issues on the site.
Neighbors spoke on behalf of the variance indicating a two-story home would bring value to the community. They believed the factors for granting a variance were met, and requiring a one-story home on the site would affect marketability. They also testified about community support for the project. Uphill neighbors again spoke against the variance, primarily based on concerns about their views and contending the factors for granting a variance were not present.
The City adopted Liu's proposed findings in support of a variance. Staff confirmed none of these findings were factually inaccurate. City council members commented on the hardship to the property owner based upon the lot line adjustment, the difficulty of building a home of a comparable size to those in the neighborhood within the limitations of the RC zone, and the fact this project was not contrary to the intention of the general plan. It was part of an established community and not an area of open space or ridgeline requiring protection. The City voted unanimously to allow the variance.
The court denied a petition for writ of mandate filed by FRH and POHC pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure sections 1094.5 and 1094.6. The court concluded there was substantial evidence to support each requirement for a variance under the Riverside Municipal Code and cited evidence in support of each finding made by the City.
DISCUSSION
I
Standing
Liu contends appellants do not have standing to bring this action. We disagree.
FRH alleged it is a not-for-profit corporation created "with the purpose of protecting the natural resources of the Riverside area including sensitive hillsides, arroyos, and biological resources including native habitats." It alleged its members would be harmed by the development at "taller than allowable standards in the RC [zone]." POHC alleged it is "an unincorporated association created to protect and preserve the hillsides, ridgelines, and canyons in the Project vicinity," its members "reside in the neighborhood," and would be harmed by "the City's failure to enforce zoning protections in approving this Project." FRH and POHC have standing to seek a writ of mandate either as beneficially interested parties or under the public interest exception. (Code Civ. Proc., § 1086; Save the Plastic Bag Coalition v. City of Manhattan Beach (2011) 52 Cal.4th 155, 165-166, 170.)
II
Standard of Review
Code of Civil Procedure section 1094.5, subdivision (a), authorizes petitions for administrative mandamus to "inquir[e] into the validity of any final administrative order or decision made as the result of a proceeding in which by law a hearing is required to be given, evidence is required to be taken, and discretion in the determination of facts is vested in the inferior tribunal, corporation, board, or officer."
" 'When evaluating the validity of an administrative decision, both the trial court and appellate court perform the same function ... .' [Citation.] ' "Thus, the conclusions of the superior court, and its disposition of the issues in this case, are not conclusive on appeal." ' [Citation.]
"We review the administrative decision to determine whether it was 'without, or in excess of, jurisdiction; whether there was a fair trial; and whether there was any prejudicial abuse of discretion.' (Code Civ. Proc., § 1094.5, subd. (b).) An abuse 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.' (Code Civ. Proc., § 1094.5, subd. (b).)
"With respect to the City's findings, a court reviewing the grant of a zoning variance 'must determine whether substantial evidence supports the findings and whether the findings support the conclusion that all applicable legislative requirements for a variance have been satisfied.' [Citation, italics omitted.] ' "In determining whether the findings are supported, '[w]e may not isolate only the evidence which supports the administrative finding and disregard other relevant evidence in the record. [Citations.] On the other hand, neither we nor the trial court may disregard or overturn the ... finding " 'for the reason that it is considered that a contrary finding would have been equally or more reasonable.' " ' " ' [Citation.] We 'must afford a strong presumption of correctness' to administrative findings. [Citation.] 'Under the substantial evidence test, the agency's findings are presumed to be supported by the administrative record and the appellant challenging them has the burden to show they are not.' " (Eskeland v. City of Del Mar (2014) 224 Cal.App.4th 936, 941-942.)
III
The Variance Findings Were Sufficient and Supported by Substantial Evidence
Appellants contend the City failed to find all of the elements required for a variance. We disagree.
"[R]egardless of whether the local ordinance commands that the variance board set forth findings, that body must render findings sufficient both to enable the parties to determine whether and on what basis they should seek review and, in the event of review, to apprise a reviewing court of the basis for the board's action. ... [A] reviewing court, before sustaining the grant of a variance, must 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 (Topanga), fn. omitted.)
The decision must set forth "findings to bridge the analytic gap between the raw evidence and ultimate decision or order." (Topanga, supra, 11 Cal.3d at p. 515.) However, the "findings need not be stated with the precision required in judicial proceedings. [Citation.] They may properly incorporate matters by reference and even omissions may sometimes be filled by such relevant references as are available in the record." (Craik v. County of Santa Cruz (2000) 81 Cal.App.4th 880, 884.)
A
Unnecessary Hardship
The City made the following finding on the issue of practical difficulty and unnecessary hardship: "[T]he strict application of the provisions of the Zoning Code would result in practical difficulties or unnecessary hardships in the development of this property as this lot has a relatively small building pad encased with steep slopes to the north and south making building a single-story home difficult. The lot is narrower and has one of the smallest building pads in the development. Development of a two-story home on this small pad will facilitate foundation and site improvements within the existing pad area. Enlarging the building pad will require grading outside of the existing pad area and would require additional entitlements and environmental impacts."
1
Appellants first complain the City's finding failed to specifically address the requirement that the application of the zoning code would "result in practical difficulties or unnecessary hardships inconsistent with the general purpose and intent of the [z]oning [c]ode." (Riverside Mun. Code, § 19.720.040, subd. (A)(1), italics added.) Although the written finding in the City's minutes did not specifically include language regarding the general purpose and intent of the zoning code, the council members discussed the purpose and intent of the zoning code during the January 27, 2016 meeting.
A neighbor testified the proposed variance for Liu's home would not be inconsistent with the purpose of the zoning code and a two-story home would add to community continuity. Several City council members stated this variance would not be inconsistent with the purpose and intent of the zoning code and, it would represent a hardship to the property owner to enforce the zoning code restrictions in this instance. Specifically, they commented this site is a vacant lot within a nearly fully developed residential area surrounded by large two-story homes. The site is not on a ridgeline. It is not open space and does not connect to open space habitat. They also found the variance requested would not impact the views of the neighbors.
On the other hand, evidence in the record shows enforcing the one-story and 20-foot-height requirements for this lot would require extensive regrading of the lot to build a sufficiently sized one-story home. Additional processing of new environmental, grading, and variance applications would also be required.
These measures would not be in keeping with zoning goals of preserving natural topographical features and reducing "the scarring effects of excessive grading for building pads and cut and fill slopes." (Riverside Mun. Code, § 19.100.010, subd. (B)(4).) This is implied in the City's finding, which noted expansion of the building pad would require additional grading as well as additional entitlements and analysis of environmental impacts. There was no abuse of discretion because the City made the appropriate finding supported by substantial evidence. (Topanga, supra, 11 Cal.3d at p. 515; Craik v. County of Santa Cruz, supra, 81 Cal.App.4th at p. 884.)
2
Appellants next contend there should be no finding of hardship because it was feasible to build a smaller home on the existing building pad and Liu's desire to build a larger home does not constitute hardship. We disagree.
"A zoning variance ... must be 'grounded in conditions peculiar to the particular lot as distinguished from other property' in the specific plan area. [Citation.] Unnecessary hardship therefore occurs where the natural condition or topography of the land places the landowner at a disadvantage vis-à-vis other landowners in the area, such as peculiarities of the size, shape or grade of the parcel." (Committee to Save the Hollywoodland Specific Plan v. City of Los Angeles (2008) 161 Cal.App.4th 1168, 1183, citing Zakessian v. City of Sausalito (1972) 28 Cal.App.3d 794, 800.)
Substantial evidence supports the City's findings the lot contains unique characteristics placing Liu at a disadvantage to other landowners in the area and justifying a variance. The lot has steep slopes in the back of and in front of the graded building pad, which is 25 feet above the connecting road. The lot line adjustment, which gave 25 feet of the subject lot to a neighboring property, resulted in a narrower lot than the surrounding lots and the smallest building pad of the 12 surrounding lots. Christiansen testified the topography and slope of the site would make building on the site difficult. This along with the lot line adjustment presented property-specific hardships.
Former developer and architect, Bergum, stated the lot is too small to construct an adequately sized residence and provide for a fire department turn-around. Architect Vesely said it is not feasible to build an acceptable home within the 20-foot height limit on the existing building pad.
The maximum size of a one-story house that could be built on the existing building pad would be less than 3,000 square feet. There was evidence a neighboring one-story house of approximately 2,800 square feet required the extra 25-foot lot line adjustment to build an adequate driveway and it was on a flatter lot. The minimum size home allowed under the HOA rules is 2,500 square feet.
Most of the surrounding homes are large two-story homes averaging 5,000 square feet in size. They were described by some as estates, with fine amenities and landscaping. Neighbors testified a two-story home on Lui's lot would enhance the continuity of the community. In contrast, a one-story home with 2,500 to 3,000 square feet could impact the marketability and comparable sales in the area.
Contrary to the appellants' contentions, the City did consider whether or not a single-story home could be built on the site. Christianson was asked if a one-story home could be built using the existing building pad by building over the area designed for a pool. Christianson stated he did not believe it would be possible due to the amount of weight on the existing slope and the bedrock in the front area. He testified a two-story home with a pool would be a better use for the lot.
Shackelton testified expanding the building pad to allow for an adequately sized one-story home would require extensive regrading with major cuts in the back of the lot, placement of large amounts of fill in the front of the lot, and large new retaining walls. He stated a civil engineer would be needed to provide a revised grading plan and submission for environmental and City entitlement approvals. He stated this would be "a major—and very expensive—unnecessary hardship."
" 'Although financial loss alone will not supply the essential element of unnecessary hardship, such loss may be considered ... along with other circumstances. ...' [Citation.] ... '[I]t is not uniqueness of the plight of the owner, but uniqueness of the land causing the plight, which is the criterion. ...' [Citation.] ... '[Virtually] any circumstance which would lead [one] to seek a variance may ultimately be translated into economic terms.' It would be a rare case of topographical uniqueness of land that could not be alleviated by some amount of financial expenditure." (Zakessian v. City of Sausalito, supra, 28 Cal.App.3d at p. 802; Eskland, supra, 224 Cal.App.4th at p. 954 ["increased expense involved in developing a lot that poses topographical challenges is properly considered when deciding whether a variance is warranted"].) Thus, there is substantial evidence to support the City's findings that the features of the lot would place Liu at a disadvantage if the zoning code were to be strictly enforced.
3
The rule against self-imposed hardship is inapplicable where the hardship inheres in the natural topography of the property making it different from others nearby and the circumstance does not change with ownership. (Committee to Save the Hollywoodland Specific Plan v. City of Los Angeles, supra, 161 Cal.App.4th at p. 1185; Zakessian, supra, 28 Cal.App.3d at p. 800.) This is not a case where a landowner purchased a property with knowledge it was zoned for a particular use and then sought a variance for another use. (See Minney v. Azusa (1958) 164 Cal.App.2d 12, 31-32 [a variance to construct a church in a residential zone was denied because the property was purchased with knowledge it was zoned for another use and the hardship was not grounded in conditions peculiar to the particular lot]; San Marino v. Roman Catholic Archbishop (1960) 180 Cal.App.2d 657, 672-673 [variance to build a rectory, a parking lot, and a playground on property zoned for residential use denied where zoning was known before purchase]; Atherton v. Templeton (1961) 198 Cal.App.2d 146, 153-154 [variance to build a tennis court in a front yard properly denied where evidence showed landowners deliberately disposed of the land on which the tennis court could properly have been built; a person may not proceed contrary to an ordinance and then claim the ordinance is unconstitutional because of his or her own actions in disregard of the ordinance].)
The case of PMI Mortgage Ins. Co. v. City of Pacific Grove (1981) 128 Cal.App.3d 724 does not assist the appellants. Although a prior owner merged three small lots into one parcel and subsequently split them to create illegal building sites, the decision of the appellate court did not address the issue of self-induced hardship. Rather, it found the city council properly denied a variance request because there was no evidence of unnecessary hardship related to the lot not generally applicable to other property in the area. (Id. at pp. 731-732.)
Here, the rule against self-imposed hardship does not apply. The property is zoned for residential use and Liu is seeking to build a residence on the property. Liu presented site-specific hardships based upon the size and topography of the lot, which the City agreed entitled him to a variance.
B
Special Circumstances
The City found, "there are exceptional circumstances or conditions applicable to this property or to the intended use or development of this property that do not ... generally apply to other properties in the same zone as when Lot 2 of Tract Map 25486-3 was approved, the normal RC Zone minimum lot width of 135 feet was adhered to on this lot. After map recordation the lot width was reduced along the west property line by 25 feet and added to Lot 1 (to the west) for Fire Department access to Lot 1. Therefore, creating a present day lot that is actually smaller than the requirements within the RC Zone, and therefore an added hardship to construction of this property.[sic] In addition, this lot has a relatively small building pad encased with steep slopes to the north and south making building a single-story home difficult. This lot is narrower and has one of the smallest building pads in the development."
Christenson testified the lot line adjustment made the lot smaller than the minimum size in the RC zone and has one of the smallest building pads in the development. The lot and the graded pad is the smallest of the 12 surrounding lots due to the lot line adjustment. The City council members had before them maps depicting the lots in the immediate area and their square footage. There was substantial evidence to support the City's findings of special circumstances related to this property based upon comparable data with surrounding properties. (Orinda Assn v. Board of Supervisors (1986) 182 Cal.App.3d 1145, 1166.)
C
No Injury to Neighboring Properties
The City found, "granting the request would not prove materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to the property or improvement in the neighborhood in which the property is located as this proposal complies with this finding. It is understood that the City does not have View Shed Easements or Corridors. The development of this property per the requested variance will not negatively obstruct the adjacent property owners' views. The adjacent property owners to the west, ... have signed the Property Owners Variance Signature Form in favor of this variance. In addition, this property is elevated approximately 26 feet above the fronting Ransom Road. All residences to the south are well above the pad level of this property. This property is consistent with the theme of the majority of homes built within the neighborhood being two-story and conforms to the City standards."
Appellants have not challenged this finding, presumably because they acknowledge there is substantial evidence in support of the finding. Gardner testified there is no view obstruction by the proposed two-story home. Christenson provided graphic view models showing the only obstructed view was of a house in front of the Liu's property, but no obstruction of the city or hillside views. The HOA approved the architectural plans for the project and other neighbors supported the project, including those on either side of the property.
D
Variance Not Contrary to the General Plan
The City found "the granting of this request will not be contrary to the objectives of the General Plan as this property is an infill lot within the confines of a fully constructed (mass graded and all improvements are constructed and final since 2000) within the RC Zone. Of the 111 lots within the Estates at Canyon Crest Communities, 108 of the homes are constructed and inhabited. Of the 108 homes 48 are two-story (44.4%). Six of the existing two-story homes are directly across the street ... and two are directly adjacent to and east of this property. Although view shed corridors do not exist in the City these six homes certainly compromise the view from this property. This property is in alignment with neighborhood compatibility and in compliance with the objectives of the General Plan."
The original developer of the project, Bergum, testified this is an infill project in an established community. As discussed in section III.A.1, ante, the council members discussed the fact the site is a vacant lot within a nearly fully developed residential area surrounded by large two-story homes. The site is not on a ridgeline or open space. The project is not high density and the variance requested would not impact the views of the neighbors. On the other hand, the extensive cuts and grading necessary to build a one-story home in compliance with a strict application of the zoning ordinance would undermine the goals of preserving natural topographical features, such as hillside slopes, and minimizing grading for building pads. (Riverside Mun. Code, § 19.100.010, subd. (B)(4).) As such, the City appropriately considered and found the variance will not be contrary to the general plan and this finding is supported by substantial evidence. There was no abuse of discretion.
DISPOSITION
The City did not abuse its discretion in granting the variance. The order denying appellants' petition for administrative mandamus is affirmed. Respondents and real parties in interest shall recover their costs on appeal.
McCONNELL, P. J. WE CONCUR: HUFFMAN, J. HALLER, J.