Young v. City of Coronado
10 Cal. App. 5th 408
| Cal. Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Arthur R. Young and John A. Young (as trustees for the J.S. Abbott Trust) sought a demolition permit for a 1924 cottage in Coronado; because the dwelling was over 75 years old, the Coronado Historic Resource Commission reviewed it for historic designation.
- City staff reported the house did not meet Criteria A, B, or E of Coronado Municipal Code §84.10.030 but had evidence supporting Criterion C (distinctive characteristics of Spanish Bungalow style, intact integrity) and Criterion D (representative/notable work of Hakes Investment Company).
- The Historic Resource Commission adopted Resolution HR 2-14 designating the property under Criteria C and D; the City Council affirmed the designation by Resolution 8654 on appeal, which effectively blocked the demolition absent further permit proceedings under CMC ch. 84.20.
- Appellants filed a writ petition under Code Civ. Proc. §1094.5 challenging (1) insufficiency of the City’s findings (invoking Topanga), (2) failure to apply the City’s Historic Designation Criteria Guidelines, and (3) lack of substantial evidence for Criteria C and D.
- The trial court denied the petition; the Court of Appeal affirmed, holding the resolutions satisfied Topanga, the Guidelines were applied through staff analysis, and the record contained substantial evidence supporting both Criterion C and D findings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether City's written findings met Topanga's bridging requirement | Findings were conclusory, merely parroting code; insufficient to show analytic path | The ordinance itself enumerates required subfindings; adopting ordinance language plus property-specific factual findings suffices | Court: Sufficient. The CMC criteria mirror required subfindings so recitation plus property-specific facts met Topanga |
| Whether City failed to apply its Historic Designation Criteria Guidelines | City did not analyze historic context, number of distinctive characteristics (C), or body of work (D) as Guidelines require | Staff report and hearings applied Guidelines (sources, historic context, style characteristics, list/photographs of Hakes homes) | Court: Guidelines were effectively applied; no requirement to recite the Guidelines by name |
| Whether substantial evidence supports Criterion C (architectural significance & integrity) | Appellants: similar houses exist; staff did not quantify distinctive features per Guidelines | Staff documented many Spanish Bungalow features (roof/parapet, stucco, windows, entry, unaltered condition) and historical context; photos and sources supported conclusions | Court: Substantial evidence supports Criterion C (distinctive characteristics, value for study, little alteration) |
| Whether substantial evidence supports Criterion D (representative/notable work of builder) | Appellants: other Hakes houses were not all designated; testimony questioning notability undermines designation | Staff provided list/photographs of many Hakes houses (at least 27), building permit, published references; Commission assessed body of work and integrity of subject house | Court: Substantial evidence supports Criterion D; each property judged on its merits and Council reasonably upheld Commission |
Key Cases Cited
- Topanga Assn. for a Scenic Community v. County of Los Angeles, 11 Cal.3d 506 (Cal. 1974) (agency must make findings bridging evidence and ultimate decision)
- Topanga Assn. for a Scenic Community v. County of Los Angeles, 214 Cal.App.3d 1348 (Cal. Ct. App. 1989) (clarifies application of Topanga to administrative findings)
- Sierra Club v. City of Hayward, 28 Cal.3d 840 (Cal. 1981) (comparative analysis required where ordinance demands it)
- Jacobson v. County of Los Angeles, 69 Cal.App.3d 374 (Cal. Ct. App. 1977) (ordinance-language findings can satisfy Topanga when statute mandates specific subfindings)
- Desmond v. County of Contra Costa, 21 Cal.App.4th 330 (Cal. Ct. App. 1993) (substantial-evidence standard applies to land-use permit denials)