Disney v. City of Concord
194 Cal. App. 4th 1410
Cal. Ct. App.2011Background
- Concord historically regulated recreational vehicle storage on residential property, codifying it in 1992 as section 122-744.
- Enforcement ceased in 1994, allowing certain RV storage on driveways if neighborhood concerns and safety were not implicated.
- Enforcement resumed June 2007; 243 properties with observed RVs were notified and enforcement was briefly suspended in July 2007 after public complaints.
- A citizens’ task force formed January 2008 recommended storing RVs behind a six-foot fence, eliminating side/rear yard setback restrictions, and prohibiting front-yard storage with a 12-month grandfathering permit for existing front-yard RVs.
- Based on Task Force recommendations and county survey data, the planning commission proposed Ordinance No. 08-7, which the city council adopted December 1, 2008, amending eight provisions.
- Disney challenged the ordinance; the trial court granted judgment on the pleadings, and the appellate court affirmed, finding the ordinance a valid exercise of police power with limited protections for existing owners.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Is Ordinance 08-7 a valid exercise of police power? | Disney contends it exceeds police power. | Concord asserts permissible aesthetic and safety goals within police power. | Yes; valid police-power enactment. |
| Does the ordinance violate due process or equal protection? | Disney argues impairments and selective impact on owners. | Ordinance bears rational relation to legitimate objectives; effects are debatable but permissible. | Not a due process or equal protection violation. |
| Is the ordinance impermissibly spot zoning? | Disney claims selective application to certain parcels. | Ordinance applies to an entire class of property owners, not to a single parcel. | Not spot zoning. |
| Does the ordinance unconstitutionally act as ex post facto or bill of attainder? | No merit; not ex post facto or bill of attainder. |
Key Cases Cited
- Ratkovich v. City of San Bruno, 245 Cal.App.2d 870 (Cal. App. 1966) (limits judicial second-guessing of police power judgments; reasonable relation to public welfare)
- Metromedia, Inc. v. City of San Diego, 26 Cal.3d 848 (Cal. 1980) (aesthetic regulation can be within police power)
- Kucera v. Lizza, 59 Cal.App.4th 1141 (Cal. App. 1997) (aesthetic considerations valid; no taking when reasonable accommodation exists)
- Breneric Associates v. City of Del Mar, 69 Cal.App.4th 166 (Cal. App. 1998) (equal protection; rational basis for land-use decisions)
- People v. Tolman, 110 Cal.App.3d Supp. 6 (Cal. App. 1980) (burden on individual not equivalent to destruction of property use)