Opinion
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
Superior Court County of Santa Barbara, Super. Ct. No. 01243875, Honorable Thomas Anderle, Judge.
Tony Fischer, Attorney, for Plaintiff and Appellant, St. Francis Friends and Neighbors.
Stephen P. Wiley, City Attorney, for Defendant and Respondent, City of Santa Barbara.
Fell, Marking, Abkin, Montgomery, Granet & Raney, Craig S. Granet, and Griffith & Thornburgh, L. Donald Boden, for Real Party in Interest and Respondent Santa Barbara Cottage Hospital Foundatio
COFFEE, J.
St. Francis Friends and Neighbors, an unincorporated association of residents of Santa Barbara (St. Francis), appeals from the judgment denying its mandamus petition to set aside a City of Santa Barbara (City)resolution approving the Santa Barbara Cottage Hospital Foundation Workforce Housing Project (Project). We affirm.
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
In 2003, Santa Barbara Cottage Hospital (Cottage) purchased the former St. Francis Hospital 5.94-acre property (former hospital property), which was zoned C-O Medical (C-O). Santa Barbara Municipal Code (SBMC) section 28.51.001, entitled C-O Medical Office Zone, permits medical, dental and related professional offices, and residences. Cottage also owned an adjacent property, the site of Villa Riviera elder care facility (Villa Riviera), in an R-2 Duplex zone.
On December 19, 2006, the City Council (Council) adopted Resolution 06-103 (resolution), approving the Project, a real estate development involving the demolition of the former St. Francis Hospital and the construction of 115 residential units on 5.94 of 7.39 acres owned by Cottage. The Project includes 81 affordable units for Cottage employees.
In adopting the resolution, the Council granted land use approvals for a tentative subdivision map to create five lots; a tentative subdivision map for a one-lot subdivision with one hundred fifteen residential condominiums; a modification of lot area requirements to allow forty-two "density bonus" residential condominiums; a modification to allow less than the required separation between twenty-one of the forty-eight proposed buildings; a modification to allow less than the required front yard setback for seven buildings; a modification to allow less than the required interior yard setback for three buildings; and the rezoning of a small portion of the real property from the City's C-O zone to the City's R-2 zone by adjusting the boundary between Villa Riviera and the former hospital properties.
St. Francis filed a mandamus petition to set aside the resolution. (Code Civ. Proc., § 1094.5.) It argued, among other things, that the Council lacked the authority to adopt the resolution and that the Project violated many provisions of the City's zoning ordinance. The court concluded that the Council had the authority to adopt the resolution approving the Project and denied the petition. (SBMC, §§ 28.87.400 & 28.92.110.)
Cottage filed a demurrer to the petition which the City supported. The court overruled the demurrer. Neither Cottage nor City appealed the denial of the demurrer. In its brief, Cottage discusses a case that was decided after the denial of its demurrer. It urges this court to review the denial pursuant to section 906 in order to assess prejudice. We find it unnecessary to do so.
All statutory references are to the Code of Civil Procedure unless stated otherwise.
DISCUSSION
Judicial Review of Administrative Decisions
When a party seeks judicial review of an administrative decision through a petition for writ of mandate, "the inquiry shall extend to questions [of] whether the respondent agency has proceeded without, or in excess of jurisdiction; whether there was a fair trial; and whether there was any prejudicial abuse of discretion." (§ 1094.5, subd. (b).) "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." (Ibid.)
Government Code section 65009, subdivision (b)(1) provides that in an action to review a decision of a public agency, "the issues raised shall be limited to those raised in the public hearing, or in written correspondence delivered to the public agency prior to, or at, the public hearing," with exceptions for when the issues could not have been raised at the public hearing by persons exercising reasonable diligence, or when the agency prevented interested persons from raising the issues. Subdivision (2) of section 65009 requires the public hearing notice to state that if a party challenges the agency's action in court, it may be limited to raising only the issues that were raised in the public hearing, or in the written correspondence delivered to the public agency conducting the hearing at or before the hearing.
Scope and Standard of Review on Appeal
''In administrative mandamus actions brought under section 1094.5..., appellate review is limited to issues in the record at the administrative level. 'It is fundamental that the review of administrative proceedings provided by section 1094.5... is confined to the issues appearing in the record of that body as made out by the parties to the proceedings, though additional evidence, in a proper case, may be received. [Citation.] It was never contemplated that a party to an administrative hearing should withhold any defense then available to him or make only a perfunctory or "skeleton" showing in the hearing and thereafter obtain an unlimited trial de novo, on expanded issues, in the reviewing court. [Citation.].'" (City of Walnut Creek v. County of Contra Costa (1980) 101 Cal.App.3d 1012, 1019.)
"[A] variety of administrative land use decisions, including the granting of a variance [citation], the granting of a use permit [citation], and the approval of a subdivision map [citation]," have been classified as adjudicative and thus reviewable by the substantial evidence test. (Arnel v. City of Costa Mesa (1980) 28 Cal.3d. 511, 518-519, fn. 8; Topanga Assn. for a Scenic Community v. County of Los Angeles (1974) 11 Cal.3d 506, 514-518.) On questions of law, such as statutory interpretation, we exercise independent judgment. (Kalway v. City of Berkeley (2007) 151 Cal.App.4th 827, 832.)
When reviewing local ordinances and regulations, "[w]e may neither substitute our views for those of the agency whose determination is being reviewed, nor reweigh conflicting evidence presented to that body. [Citations.]" (San Franciscans Upholding the Downtown Plan v. City of San Francisco (2002) 102 Cal.App.4th 656, 674.) "[T]he decision as to whether a particular project is consistent with a general plan involves 'the application of standards... to individual parcels' which renders that decision adjudicatory, and thus subject to the substantial evidence test on judicial review. [Citation.]" (Guardians of Turlock's Integrity v. Turlock City Council (1983) 149 Cal.App.3d 584, 598.)
Zoning Ordinance - Parking Requirement
St. Francis contends that the Project violates the parking requirements of the zoning ordinance because it does not provide onsite parking for Villa Riviera. This contention concerns a Villa Riviera parking lot that was within its lot boundaries before the Project's approval. In approving the Project, the Council approved a subdivision map that changes the Villa Riviera lot boundary lines so that its parking lot lies within the adjacent condominium Project lot. The parking lot is still designated for the use of Villa Riviera and remains in the same proximity to the Villa Riviera facility. In raising this issue, St. Francis relies upon SBMC section 28.90.100(G), entitled Residential Parking Requirements. That section provides that "[i]n any zone, for every residential unit or units, and every residential building or structure[,]... [t]here shall be provided on the same lot or parcel of land a minimum ratio of parking space for each unit or occupant...."
The court concluded that St. Francis had not exhausted its administrative remedy by raising the parking issue at the administrative level pursuant to Government Code section 65009. St. Francis had claimed that it could not have raised the issue because the public notices did not "list on the tentative map any deviations between the parking requirements of the zoning ordinance and the proposed project." The court noted that St. Francis did not allege that the map was drawn in a way to obscure the inclusion of the Villa Riviera parking in the Project space. The court found language in the record indicating that the Project's spaces "'include[d] 11 parking spaces required... for the adjacent Villa Riviera facility.'" The court ruled that St. Francis thereby received adequate notice to raise the parking issue to the Council and that it was barred from raising that issue in its administrative mandamus proceeding. We agree. (See Gov. Code, § 65009; § 1094.5; City of Walnut Creek v. County of Contra Costa, supra, 101 Cal.App.3d at p. 1019.)
In addition, the court rejected the parking issue on the merits. It found that Villa Riviera had never been classified solely as residential because it was part of a hospital. Thus, it was not subject to the "same lot" parking requirement which does not apply to mixed use parcels under SBMC section 28.90.001.18.
Upper Middle Income Density Bonus Allowance
St. Francis further contends that the Council "acted contrary to law by approving an increase in density for upper-middle income households." It argues that the City's zoning ordinances do not authorize affordable upper-middle income density bonus units. The court concluded that City zoning regulations SBMC sections 28.43.050 and 28.87.400(D) expressly authorize upper-middle income density bonus units. In making this contention, St. Francis relies largely upon SBMC section 28.92.110, in part because it was cited in the resolution. Although that section does discuss modifications to the construction of housing units for lower-level and middle-income level households, it does not prohibit modifications in units for other income levels. St. Francis also stresses that the Project does not comply with the pricing requirements of SBMC section 28.43.030(F)
We do not find these arguments persuasive. St. Francis did not raise the issue concerning SBMC section 28.92.110 during the Council's public hearing. Moreover, the Council's approval of the Project comports with the City's General Plan and its Affordable Housing Policies and Procedures (AHP&P) manual. Through its density bonus program and AHP&P, "the City allows development of a greater number of units than would normally be allowed under the existing zoning. In return, some or all of the units on the site are subject to affordability restrictions." (AHP&P, p. v.) The housing element of the City's General Plan also supports the use of density bonus units: "Continue to provide bonus density units above levels required by State law, to be reviewed on a case-by-case basis." (Gen. Plan, § 6.3.3 Housing Element Policies, Implementation Strategy 4.1.1, italics omitted.) The land use element of the City's General Plan reflects the City's commitment to workforce housing: "Encourage the development of projects that combine and locate residential uses near areas of employment...." (Id. at § 6.3.4 Land Use Element, Implementation Strategy 13.1.1, italics omitted.)
The AHP&P note that housing targeted to middle-income or upper-middle incomecategories may be eligible to receive a density bonus. The AHP&P also state: "In order to provide incentive to developers to provide additional affordable units under the City's program, the following prices will be allowed for density bonus units that are above the first 25% of density bonus in the project. Such units may be sold to upper-middle income first time homebuyers at prices which, on average, are targeted to the following incomes:.... " (AHP&Pat § IX, City Density Bonus Requirements for Ownership Units, italics added.) SBMC section 28.87.400(D) states: "When a developer proposes a development... and requests a density bonus, the Community Development Director or his/her designee will review the project for consistency with the criteria of the City's density bonus program, described in the [AHP&P] Manual. If the proposed project is determined to be consistent with the criteria of the City's density bonus program, it will be approved or disapproved under the provisions of that program."
The AHP&P permit a 25 percent density bonus allowance for middle income units and up to 60 percent by including upper middle income units. The allowable density bonus units are based on the density that is otherwise permitted in the applicable zone. For example, based upon its size and zone (C-O), the Project property would accommodate 73 units, absent a density bonus allowance. Under the density bonus program, an additional 25 percent of 73 units (18.5 bonus units) are permissible provided those units are affordable to middle income buyers. Sixty percent of the permissible 73 units in the Project would be 43.8 units. The Project accommodates 42 density bonus units, including 19 for middle income buyers. The court below correctly ruled that the City properly approved the density bonus.
Modifications to Zoning Requirements
St. Francis also challenges the Council's approval of modifications to requirements for yard area, lot area, setback, and distances between buildings for the Project. It argues that the Council failed to make a finding "supported by reliable evidence" that the modifications were consistent with the intent and purposes of SBMC sections 28.51.001 and 28.21.080. The trial court properly rejected this challenge.
In making this challenge, St. Francis relies primarily upon SBMC section 28.92.110(A)(2), which requires that the Planning Commission, or Council on appeal, find that each "modification is consistent with the purposes and intent of this Title." SBMC section 28.43.050(B) authorizes the City to "provide modifications in zoning requirements that will facilitate increased density for the purpose of accomplishing the goals of this Chapter, including modifications to parking, setback, yard area, lot area, open space and solar access requirements as specified in Section 28.92.110 of this Municipal Code." SBMC section 28.43.050(B) does not prohibit the Council from providing modifications to facilitate increased density for upper middle income housing.
St. Francis also cites SBMC section 28.21.080 in arguing that the Council improperly approved the modifications in set back and other requirements. SBMC section 28.21.080 states that variable density "shall be applicable in the R-3, R-4, C-1, C-2, C-M, R-O, HRC-2 and OC Zones and not in any other zone." The project is in a C-O Zone. SBMC section 28.21.080 has no application where the City grants a density bonus allowance. The City granted such an allowance in this case.
The court also properly rejected the claim of St. Francis that the record lacked evidence to support the approved modifications. The record demonstrates that the Council found that the modifications were reasonable and necessary to accommodate the increased density, to allow Cottage to secure a ''70% affordable housing project" appropriate for the site, with open space and other favorable attributes. For example, by concentrating the density in the center of the site, the Project reduces its impact on the neighborhood. In addition, the Project provides a privately financed development that furthers the goals of the City's General Plan and the AHP&P, and its goal of providing housing near the worksite. In addition, because Cottage is not only an employer but also a hospital, the Project "assures that health care employees are available during area emergencies."
The judgment is affirmed. Costs are awarded to respondents.
We concur: GILBERT, P.J., PERREN, J.