Sierra Club v. County of Alameda

• Decision Date: 22 September 1977
• Citation: 140 Cal.Rptr. 864,73 Cal.App.3d 572
• Court: California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
• Parties: The SIERRA CLUB et al., Plaintiffs and Appellants, v. COUNTY OF ALAMEDA et al., Defendants and Respondents, DIAMOND A RANCH, INC., et al., Real Parties in Interest and Respondents. Civ. 38554.

Page 864

140 Cal.Rptr. 864

73 Cal.App.3d 572

The SIERRA CLUB et al., Plaintiffs and Appellants, v. COUNTY OF ALAMEDA et al., Defendants and Respondents DIAMOND A RANCH, INC., et al., Real Parties in Interest and Respondents.

Civ. 38554.

Court of Appeal, First District, Division 1, California.

Sept. 22, 1977.

For Opinion on Hearing see 142 Cal.Rptr. 176, 572 P.2d 755.

Laurens H. Silver, Sierra Club Legal Defense Fund, Inc., Owen P. O'Donnell, Meis & O'Donnell, San Francisco, for plaintiffs and appellants.

Richard J. Moore, County Counsel, Thomas J. Fennone, Senior Deputy County Counsel, County of Alameda, Oakland, for defendants and respondents.

Watson & Joiner, Joseph D. Joiner, D. Dewey Watson, San Francisco, for real party in interest and respondents.

ELKINGTON, Associate Justice.

The issue of this appeal concerns the validity of a conditional use permit authorized by the Alameda County Board of Supervisors (hereafter sometimes the 'Board') pursuant to the zoning ordinance of that county.

The following facts are not in dispute.

The applicants for the conditional use permit, Diamond A Ranch, Inc. and William W. Apperson, the real parties in interest of this appeal (hereafter sometimes the 'Applicants'), were the owners of about 2,555 acres in southern Alameda County known as the Apperson, or Diamond A, Ranch, and located within 6 miles of the Cities of Fremont, Pleasanton and Livermore. The land had been zoned as part of the county's 'A' (agricultural) district. The Applicants sought to use 145 acres (about 6 percent) of the land as an outdoor recreational facility (hereafter sometimes 'Outdoor Recreation Facility') consisting of 18 tennis courts, 40 riding horses with stables, corral and trails, a youth camp with shelter buildings including bunkhouses, toilets and cooking and eating accommodations, a health spa with outdoor sulphur and 'health' springs and lagoon and pools, swimming and wading pools, and related water supply, sewage, fire-fighting, and other facilities. The project contemplated 322 'guest villas' and additional accommodations for its employees. At peak occupancy and usage it would accommodate about 1,300 persons, including the employees, and at off seasons, about 100.

The county's zoning ordinance, section 8-25.3, expressly permits an 'Outdoor Recreation Facility' as a conditional use in its 'A' district.

After extensive hearings at the county's lower planning levels and then before the Board, the here contested conditional use permit for an Outdoor Recreation Facility was granted. Twenty-one conditions were imposed; they were generally calculated to insure adequate sewage disposal, water supply, storm drainage, proper grading, soil and geological studies and reports, adequate access roads, erosion control, preservation of existing vegetation, removal of solid waste, fire protection, traffic control, periodic inspections and payment of their costs, and compliance with building and other regulations.

Two of the conditions, as will later be seen, are of special significance. They were as follows:

'18. The 322 'cottages' or 'villas' shall not be designed or used as 'dwelling units' as defined by Section 8-20.15 of the Zoning Ordinance.'

'21. The 2,410 acres of the Diamond A Ranch not proposed for development under this permit shall, for the term of this permit, be used only as an operating cattle ranch and, except for riding trails accessory to the use authorized by this permit, shall remain otherwise undeveloped.'

Government Code section 65901 provides for the issuance of conditional use permits by a county's zoning authority 'when the zoning ordinance provides therefor and establishes criteria for determining such matters, . . .'

Pursuant to that statutory authorization Alameda County's zoning ordinance's section 8-94.0 had established the following criteria:

'CONDITIONAL USES. Certain Uses, referred to in this Chapter as Conditional Uses, are hereby declared to possess characteristics which require special review and appraisal in each instance, in order to determine whether or not the use (1) is required by the public need, (2) whether the use will be properly related to other land uses and transportation and service facilities in the vicinity, (3) whether or not the use if permitted will, under all the circumstances and conditions of the particular case, materially affect adversely the health or safety of persons residing or working in the vicinity, or be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to property or improvements in the neighborhood, and (4) whether or not the use will be contrary to the specific intent clauses or performance standards established for the District, in which it is to be located. . . .'

These criteria, common in California, are called 'general welfare' criteria. (See County of Imperial v. McDougal, 19 Cal.3d 505, 510, fn. 2, 138 Cal.Rptr. 472, 564 P.2d 14; Hawkins v. County of Marin, 54 Cal.App.3d 586, 591-592, 126 Cal.Rptr. 754; Cal. Zoning Practice (Cont.Ed.Bar 1969) Types of Zoning Relief, §§ 7.70-7.71, pp. 305-306.) They ordinarily authorize a conditional use permit where the zoning authority, on substantial evidence, finds that the 'general welfare' standards are satisfied.

Such 'general welfare' criteria 'cannot be successfully challenged.' (City & County of S.F. v. Superior Court, 53 Cal.2d 236, 250, 1 Cal.Rptr. 158, 347 P.2d 294; and see Simi Valley Recreation & Park Dist. v. Local Agency Formation Com., 51 Cal.App.3d 648, 672, 124 Cal.Rptr. 635; Garavatti v. Fairfax Planning Com., 22 Cal.App.3d 145, 150, 99 Cal.Rptr. 260; City of Santa Clara v. Santa Clara Unified Sch. Dist., 22 Cal.App.3d 152, 163, 99 Cal.Rptr. 212; Mitcheltree v. City of Los Angeles, 17 Cal.App.3d 791, 797, 95 Cal.Rptr. 76; Van Sicklen v. Browne, 15 Cal.App.3d 122, 126-127, 92 Cal.Rptr. 786; Stoddard v. Edelman, 4 Cal.App.3d 544, 548, 84 Cal.Rptr. 443.)

A companion provision of the ordinance is section 8-94.1, which states:

'CONDITIONAL USES: ACTION. The Zoning Administrator shall receive, hear and decide applications for a Conditional Use Permit and after the conclusion of the hearing may authorize approval as to zoning of the proposed use if the evidence contained in or accompanying the application or presented at the hearing is deemed sufficient to establish that, under all circumstances and conditions of the particular case, the use is properly located in all respects as specified in Section 8-94.0, and otherwise it shall disapprove the same.'

As will be seen from our ensuing discussion, it bears emphasis that section 8-94.1 provides that the county's zoning authority 'may authorize approval . . . of the proposed [conditional] use if the evidence . . . is deemed sufficient to establish that . . . the use is properly located in all respects as specified in [the 'general welfare' criteria of] Section 8-94.0, . . .' Nothing further is there required for issuance of a conditional use permit.

Contemporaneously with the issuance of the here disputed conditional use permit the Board made these findings of fact:

'(1) The use is required by the public need in that there is no comparable recreation resort area of the type proposed herein in the County of Alameda offering such unique advantages as proximity to operating regional parks and uncultivated and undeveloped lands combining both ease of accessibility to developed urban areas of the County together with scenic rural and pastoral amenities; also, the completed project will directly result in an increased tax base generating revenues to the County to the benefit of all taxpayers therein;

'(2) The use will be properly related to other land uses and transportation and service facilities in the vicinity in that a proposed access road for the project shall be designed to conform to County gradient criteria, which access road already exists in part and will be connected to existing County roads in the area, which roads can accommodate whatever increase in traffic is generated by the completed project. The land uses in the vicinity are a mixture of open space, agricultural-oriented, residential and highway frontage commercial. The project land is presently zoned in the 'A' (Agricultural) Zoning District which permits one residence for each one hundred acres. If allowed to develop in a residential manner without any change in zoning, some 25 residences might be constructed on the Ranch acreage. By appropriate conditioning of this permit most of this land will remain in uncultivated, undeveloped open space, in furtherance of the goals and policies set forth in the Alameda County General Plan and the Open Space Element thereof.

'(3) The use will not, if permitted, under all the circumstances and conditions of this particular case, materially affect adversely the health or safety of persons residing or working in the vicinity, or be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to property or improvements in the neighborhood in that only 145 acres out of a total of 2,555 comprising the Ranch are to be developed subject to site plans and, specifically, the (21) conditions set forth by this resolution will guarantee the maximum protection to the public welfare and to other public and private property and improvements in the area.

'(4) The use will not be contrary to the specific intent clause or performance standards established for the district in which it is to be located in that the Agricultural Zoning District both specifically by its terms and impliedly by application of its intent provisions is hereby found to permit such structured and controlled use in a manner consistent with the open space values set forth by the Alameda County General Plan and the Open Space Element thereof, which documents recognize textually that limited portions of lands designated for uncultivated and undeveloped use should be made available for vacation, weekend, and resort-type development provided that...