33 Cal. App. 5th 1074
Cal. Ct. App. 5th2019Background
- SRRQ operates a quarry and on-site asphaltic concrete plant on property rezoned in 1982 from industrial to commercial/residential, rendering the operations a legal nonconforming use. At the time of rezoning, asphalt production used on-site mined material and imported sand only.
- County permits (Amendment No. 1, 2010) expressly allowed on-site asphalt batching using on-site aggregate and prohibited importation of used asphalt or other non-sand recycled materials.
- In 2013 the County approved Amendment No. 2 to allow SRRQ to import and process asphalt grindings (recycled asphalt pavement, RAP) on-site; that approval expired in 2015. SRRQ sought and obtained an extension in Resolution No. 2015-108.
- The Point San Pedro Road Coalition challenged the extension, arguing importation/processing of asphalt grindings unlawfully enlarged/intensified the nonconforming use in violation of the county zoning ordinance; the Coalition exhausted administrative remedies with the State Mining and Geology Board and sued in superior court.
- The trial court granted the Coalition’s petition and set aside Resolution No. 2015-108; the county and SRRQ appealed. The Court of Appeal affirmed, concluding the importation/processing of asphalt grindings is a new, materially different operation not within the scope of the 1982 nonconforming use.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether allowing importation/processing of asphalt grindings is an enlargement, increase, or intensification of a nonconforming use prohibited by the county zoning ordinance | Coalition: Importing and processing asphalt grindings is a new, additional operation outside the scope of the 1982 nonconforming use and therefore an unlawful expansion | County/SRRQ: Amendment No. 2 does not change the use; it merely incorporates recycled asphalt into existing asphaltic operations and is consistent with industry practices and mitigation requirements | Held for Coalition: importing/processing RAP is a distinct new operation (crushing, screening, stockpiling, new equipment, truck deliveries) that enlarges/extends the nonconforming use and violates the zoning ordinance |
| Whether the County’s determination that the change would not enlarge/intensify the nonconforming use is dispositive | Coalition: Court should review legal impact of undisputed administrative record and is not bound by County’s legal analysis or implied findings | County/SRRQ: County’s factual/legal determinations should be upheld; the change produces no material operational impacts | Held for Coalition: Court is not bound by County’s implied findings; it must decide legal effect of the record and found no evidence the activity stayed within the original nonconforming scope |
| Whether environmental or operational benefits (no net emissions increase, no added truck traffic) justify the permit amendment | Coalition: Benefits irrelevant to whether the amendment unlawfully expands the nonconforming use | County/SRRQ: Benefits show no noticeable change, so no enlargement/intensification | Held for Coalition: Benefits do not cure an unlawful expansion; relevance is limited because zoning forbids extension even if less incompatible |
| Whether prior litigation or estoppel doctrines bar the Coalition’s challenge | County/SRRQ: Earlier litigation precludes relitigation | Coalition: Exhausted remedies; timely appealed to Mining Board | Held: Trial court’s estoppel rulings discussed but unnecessary to decision; even without estoppel, result would be the same |
Key Cases Cited
- Hansen Brothers Enterprises, Inc. v. Board of Supervisors, 12 Cal.4th 533 (Court must decide legal impact of undisputed administrative-record facts; county not bound by implied findings)
- Edmonds v. County of Los Angeles, 40 Cal.2d 642 (nonconforming use doctrine: continuation contemplates substantially same use, not new profitable uses)
- City of Los Altos v. Silvey, 206 Cal.App.2d 606 (a less incompatible new operation may perpetuate nonconformity; zoning favors restriction of nonconforming uses)
- County of Orange v. Goldring, 121 Cal.App.2d 442 (nonconforming use continuation must be same character as at time of ordinance)
- Johnston v. Board of Supervisors, 31 Cal.2d 66 (administrative action must conform to governing ordinance)
- Paramount Rock Co. v. County of San Diego, 180 Cal.App.2d 217 (case relied on in trial proceedings concerning nonconforming uses)
- Endara v. City of Culver City, 140 Cal.App.2d 33 (case considered by parties on nonconforming-use issues)
- City of Yuba City v. Cherniavsky, 117 Cal.App. 568 (expansion of nonconforming use defeats zoning purpose)
- Bailey v. County of Los Angeles, 46 Cal.2d 132 (governmental authority limits; cited regarding precedential treatment)