Shrink your house
-
The two-story mobile home that Michael and Susan Christian own and live in in the Orange County beach community of San Clemente, California, isn't blighted, dangerous, ugly, or even unpopular with the neighbors.
But it is a little too tall, according to state officials with the California Coastal Commission.
For over a decade, the commission—a state agency with the final say over most development on the California coast—has been arguing that the Christians' addition of a second story to their home obscures ocean views from a nearby walking trail. It also argued the couple added that second story without getting the required permits from the commission.
Late last month, a California appeals court sided with the commission, ruling that the Christians must comply with its demands to shrink their house from its current 22 feet in height down to 16 feet. The Christians' representatives say that will require them to completely tear down and rebuild the home.
"They're an elderly couple. They're in their 70s. They have all kinds of health issues. This is their only home; they live in it," says Lee Andelin, one of the Christians' lawyers. Dismantling the home "is going to cost them millions of dollars, for what? There's not a broader benefit for the public."
Andelin argues the ruling will embolden the commission to place even more restrictions on coastal homeowners' ability to improve their properties.
The Christians got approval to expand their home in 2011 from the California Department of Housing and Community Development, which regulates mobile home construction. At the time, the Christians thought that was the only approval they needed.
In 2014, the Coastal Commission sent the Christians a letter of violation saying that the already-completed renovations were unlawful without their approval.
The couple applied for an after-the-fact permit, which the commission approved in 2016 only on the condition that they cut the size of their house down from 22 feet to 16 feet to avoid "significant" view impacts from nearby walking trails.
The Christians stressed to the commission that they couldn't just lop off six feet of their house without tearing down the whole thing and starting over.
That failed to change the commission's mind. So the Christians sued, arguing the view impacts of their second story were not significant. Pointing to its approval of taller buildings near other coastal trails and parks, they also argued that the commission was applying subjective and ad hoc standards on view impacts.
In November, a state appeals court rejected the Christians' arguments, finding instead that the commission had wide discretion to determine which view impacts were significant. The court also ruled that the commission was under no obligation to establish objective criteria on view impacts.
Determining when new construction adversely affected protected ocean views "will inherently depend on some site-specific factors that require subjective interpretation by the Commission," reads the unpublished opinion.
I happened to watch a lawyer livestream a similar case (in Canada). A woman sued her neighbor because the fence that the neighbor erected obscured her view. The lawyer said the suit will be dismissed because you don't "have a right to a view."
