Ideal Boat & Camper Storage v. County of Alameda
208 Cal. App. 4th 301
| Cal. Ct. App. | 2012Background
- Ideal Boat & Camper Storage and the Migliore family own a 59.7-acre rural East County site; since 1964 the County approved uses for boat/camper storage via SDR/variances, with later measures limiting expansion; Measure D (2000) amended ECAP and SLVAP to restrict development and nonconforming-use expansions; SLVAP (1993) promotes viticulture, rural qualities, and limited commercial uses; ECAP incorporates SLVAP and, post-Measure D, narrows permissible uses on large parcel agriculture and rural residential zones; Ideal Boat sought a 2010 SDR expansion for up to 720 additional vehicles/boats on rear half but was denied, leading to mandamus/ injunctive relief requests that were refused; the court affirmed the denial, finding expansion inconsistent with Measure D and the SLVAP as incorporated into ECAP.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether expansion violates Measure D/ECAP/SLVAP | Migliores claim expansion is legal nonconforming use pending SDR. | County/Board found expansion inconsistent with Measure D and SLVAP, thus denied. | Yes; expansion conflicts with Measure D and SLVAP as incorporated. |
| Whether existing use is a legal nonconforming use that can be expanded | Existing storage is a preexisting, lawful use entitled to expansion. | Measure D prohibits expansion of nonconforming uses; no vested right to expand. | Expansion not permitted; nonconforming-use expansion barred by Measure D. |
| Whether SDR process is discretionary and whether rights vest | SDR process grants vested rights through prior approvals. | SDR is discretionary with conditions; pre-Measure D approvals do not grant expansion rights. | SDR is discretionary; no vested right to expand absent pre-Measure D approvals for the expansion. |
| Whether the County properly exercised its review under Measure D and general plan | County failed to apply Measure D/ECAP/SLVAP to approve expansion. | County fully evaluated compatibility with Measure D, ECAP, SLVAP and denied appropriately. | County properly exercised discretion; project inconsistent with plan instruments. |
| Whether Measure D improperly delegates zoning to electorate | Measure D shifts permit decisions to voters. | Measure D regulates uses, not permitting; decisions remain with the County. | No improper delegation; Measure D governs use consistency, not permit issuance. |
Key Cases Cited
- Wesley Investment Co. v. County of Alameda, 151 Cal.App.3d 672 (Cal. App. Dist. 1984) (SDR-like discretion to deny unsuitable uses)
- Guinnane v. San Francisco City Planning Comm., 209 Cal.App.3d 732 (Cal. App. Dist. 1989) (planning commissions discretionary to deny unsuitable residential development)
- Save Our Sunol, Inc. v. Mission Valley Rock Co., 124 Cal.App.4th 276 (Cal. App. Dist. 2004) (Measure D preempts preexisting rights for certain developments)
- Hansen Brothers Enterprises, Inc. v. Board of Supervisors, 12 Cal.4th 533 (Cal. 1996) (nonconforming use concept and coexistence with zoning changes)
- FUTURE Citizens of Goleta Valley v. Board of Supervisors, 52 Cal.3d 553 (Cal. 1990) (general plan consistency governs development approvals)