Justia California Court of Appeals Opinion Summaries

Banning Ranch was a 400-acre parcel of largely undeveloped coastal property with active oilfield facilities and operations. Project proponents sought to develop one-fourth of Banning Ranch for residential and commercial purposes, and to preserve the remaining acreage as open space and parks, removing and remediating much of the oil production equipment and facilities. The City of Newport Beach and its City Council (collectively the City) approved the Project. Banning Ranch Conservancy filed a mandamus action against the City. The trial court agreed with the Conservancy’s claim that the City violated the Planning and Zoning Law and its own general plan by its alleged failure to adequately coordinate with the California Coastal Commission before its approval of the Project. The court rejected the Conservancy’s claim that the City violated the California Environmental Quality Act by failing to identify in the environmental impact report (EIR) the “environmentally sensitive habitat areas” (ESHAs). All interested parties appealed. After review, the Court of Appeal agreed with the trial court’s CEQA ruling but concluded the court erred by finding the City violated its general plan. Therefore the Court reversed the judgment to the extent it provided mandamus relief to the Conservancy. View "Banning Ranch Conservancy v. City of Newport Beach" on Justia Law

In this eminent domain proceeding, plaintiff Sacramento Area Flood Control Agency (SAFCA) acquired a fee simple interest in, a roadway easement over, and a temporary construction easement over a portion of defendant Ranjit Dhaliwal’s roughly 131-acre property in the Natomas Basin for use in connection with the Natomas Levee Improvement Program. The jury awarded Dhaliwal $178,703 for the property taken and $29,100 in severance damages. Brinderjit Dhaliwal and Gurdeep Dhaliwal, as co-executors of Dhaliwal’s estate, appealed the compensation award, arguing mainly that the trial court prejudicially erred in allowing SAFCA to introduce evidence concerning “future access” to the property. He claimed that such evidence was speculative because “[a]fter this case is concluded, the County and SAFCA would be able to deny Dhaliwal access to the property,” leaving him landlocked. After review, the Court of Appeal concluded that the trial court did not err in admitting the challenged evidence because such evidence had the potential to affect the property’s market value, and was not conjectural, speculative, or remote, and did not contradict the scope of the taking as defined by the resolution of necessity. Dhaliwal also argued that the trial court erred in allowing SAFCA’s appraiser to critique his appraiser’s valuation of the property, and that SAFCA’s counsel committed misconduct during closing argument by commenting on Dhaliwal’s absence and referring to SAFCA’s inability to pay more than fair market value for the property. The Court of Appeal concluded that neither of these contentions had merit, and affirmed the trial court's ruling on those. View "Sacramento Area Flood Agency v. Dhaliwal" on Justia Law

Jefferson Street Ventures, LLC appealed a judgment rendered in favor of the City of Indio in this combined petition for writ of administrative mandamus/inverse condemnation action. In 2007, the City conditioned approval of Jefferson’s 2005 application for development of a shopping center upon Jefferson leaving approximately one-third of its property undeveloped to accommodate the reconstruction of a major freeway interchange that was in the planning stages. The City could not acquire the property at the time Jefferson’s development application was approved due to funding constraints imposed by the "byzantine planning and review process" for the interchange that involved various local, state, and federal agencies, and which the City did not anticipate being complete for at least a few more years. When Jefferson’s development application was being approved, City staff explained the City could not allow development on the part of the site designated for the interchange because the City would incur additional costs for the property if and when it was later taken for the interchange. Jefferson sued the City contending the development restrictions were invalid because they constituted an uncompensated taking of its property. Following a hearing on the writ petition, the trial court found the development restrictions were permissible and denied the writ. On appeal, Jefferson argued: (1) the trial court erred by denying its petition for writ of administrative mandate because the City’s development restrictions constituted an uncompensated taking; and (2) regardless of the ruling on the mandamus cause of action, the trial court erred by denying it a trial on its inverse condemnation claims. The Court of Appeal concluded the restrictions constituted a de facto taking of the development restricted portion of Jefferson’s property and the trial court erred by denying Jefferson’s petition for writ of mandate. View "Jefferson Street Ventures v. City of Indio" on Justia Law

Santa Clara County adopted a mitigated negative declaration and granted a use permit allowing Wozniak to host up to 28 weddings and other events annually, with up to 100 attendees, on 14.46 acres on Highway 35 in the Santa Cruz Mountains. The property houses vineyards for the Redwood Ridge Estates Winery, llama and alpaca grazing land, barns, and a residence where Wozniak lives. It is adjacent to the Bear Creek Redwoods Open Space Preserve, which currently is open to the public by permit only. The remainder of the surrounding area is characterized by single-family residences on heavily wooded lots that are over two acres in size. Before obtaining the permit, Wozniak had hosted unpermitted events. Neighbors had complained. An association of neighboring owners successfully petitioned for a writ of mandate on the ground that the County violated the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), Public Resources Code 21000, in adopting the mitigated negative declaration instead of requiring an environmental impact report. The court of appeal affirmed, noting evidence of likely significant traffic and noise impacts. View "Keep Our Mountains Quiet v. Cnty. of Santa Clara" on Justia Law

Before the enactment of Los Angeles Municipal Code section 14.3.1, developers of eldercare facilities had to obtain several zoning permits or variances. To “expedite the review process for these much-needed Eldercare Facilities,” section 14.3.1 provides that approval of an eldercare facility is warranted if the zoning administrator finds “that the strict application of the land use regulations on the subject property would result in practical difficulties or unnecessary hardships inconsistent with the general purpose and intent of the zoning regulations.” The developer sought a permit for a Woodland Hills eldercare facility on a 1-1/2-acre lot zoned for residential uses. The proposed building would face Fallbrook, a major highway. Zoning regulations would limit a structure to 12,600 square feet; the proposed facility would contain 50,289 square feet, with 60 rooms and 76 beds. Most owners of neighboring single family residences strongly opposed the proposal. The city’s report did not consider whether limiting the facility to 16 rooms would pose an unnecessary hardship. The zoning administrator approved the project. The trial court found no substantial evidence supported the finding of “unnecessary hardship.” The court of appeal affirmed. Although the developer argued the unnecessary hardship was based on its purported lost “economy of scale,” no evidence supported that claim. View "Walnut Acres Neighborhood Ass'n v. City of Los Angeles" on Justia Law

Tam’s Burgers, at the Los Angeles intersection of Figueroa and 101st Streets, has a parking lot and drive-through and walk-up windows, adjacent to residential homes. The Police Department (LAPD) initiated a nuisance investigation, based on reported: “pimping-prostitution, narcotics use-sales, loitering, transients and intoxicated groups, drinking in public, graffiti and associated trash and debris that encourage loitering.” LAPD informed the Planning Department that the owner was uncooperative, citing extensive calls for service and crime reports at the location, including two homicides in the last two years and a narcotics arrest involving an employee. A Planning Department investigator visited Tam’s and reported that the site was not maintained. The city determined that the operation constituted a nuisance and imposed conditions that required it to: not allow patrons to “linger over a … soft drink for more than 30 minutes”; not allow prostitutes, pimps, drug users or dealers, or homeless individuals to loiter; not allow alcoholic beverage consumption on the property; paint over graffiti with a matching color within 24 hours; have a licensed, uniformed security guard; install fencing; implement a 24-hour “hot line” for complaints; and limit hours of operation. The trial court and court of appeal affirmed the determination as supported by substantial evidence. View "Benetatos v. City of Los Angeles" on Justia Law

Oak Shores is a 660-unit single-family residential common interest development, governed by the Oak Shores Community Association (Association). Only 125 to 150, of the homes are occupied by full-time residents. Approximately 66 absentee homeowners rent their homes to short-term vacation renters. Absentee owners sued, challenging: a rule stating the minimum rental period is seven days; an annual fee of $325 imposed on owners who rent their homes; a rule limiting the number of automobiles, boats and other watercraft that 3 renters are allowed to bring into Oak Shores; a mandatory garbage collection fee; boat and watercraft fees; building permit fees; and property transfer fees. The trial court upheld the rules and fee and awarded the association statutory attorney fees and costs. Except for clarifying the award of fees, the court of appeal affirmed. Homeowners associations may adopt reasonable rules and impose fees on its members relating to short term rentals of condominium units. View "Watts v. Oak Shores Cmty. Ass'n" on Justia Law

The United Water Conservation District manages groundwater resources in central Ventura County. San Buenaventura (City) pumps groundwater from District territory and sells it to residential customers. The District collects a fee from groundwater pumpers, including the City, based on volume. The Water Code authorizes this fee (Wat. Code, 74508, 75522) and requires the District to set different rates for different uses. Groundwater extracted for non-agricultural purposes must be charged at three to five times the rate applicable to water used for agricultural purposes. The California Constitution (article XIIID) governs fees "upon a parcel or upon a person as an incident of property ownership, including a user fee or charge for a property related service." The City claimed that the fees violate article XIII D because they "exceed the proportional cost of the service attributable to the parcel[s]" from which the City pumps its water. The trial court found that the pumping charges violated article XIII D and ordered refunds. The court of appeal reversed: pumping fees are not property related taxes subject to the requirements of article XIII C. The charges are valid regulatory fees because they are fair and reasonable, and do not exceed the District's resource management costs. View "City of San Buenaventura v. United Water Conserv. Dist." on Justia Law

In 2011 and 2012, the government brought enforcement actions against more than 80 facilities alleged to be selling and distributing marijuana for medicinal purposes in violation of the Los Angeles Municipal Code for public nuisance, the Narcotics Abatement Law, Health & Safety Code section 11570, and the state unfair competition law, Business & Professions Code section 17200. The complaints sought permanent injunctions, abatement of the nuisances and civil penalties. The trial court denied the government’s omnibus motion for summary judgment, reasoning that claims for penalties made under each of the statutory plans are elements of the causes of action alleged. The court of appeal vacated, holding that the penalties being sought are among the remedies available rather than elements of the causes of action alleged in the several complaints. View "People v. Cahuenga's The Spot" on Justia Law

The 22-acre Shuler ranch in Soma is below 1000 acres owned by Sunshine Agriculture. After agricultural operations expanded up the hillside, it collapsed onto the Shuler property. The Shulers sued, alleging: "Defendants . . . were responsible for the removal of historic watercourses and stable ground cover and also for unreasonable grading, irrigation, planting and maintenance of the hillside slope. . . . acted negligently in failing to take steps to prevent the land from collapsing. . . . [T]he harm was foreseeable because of the steepness of the slope and nature of its soil." The Shuler's engineering expert found that the slope was unsuitable for development and that the alteration of the water courses and the introduction of irrigation for 1000 trees were the most significant factors responsible for the foreseeable slope failure. Defendants moved to dismiss for failure to join an indispensable party: Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS), a division of the U.S. Department of Agriculture, which prepared engineering drawings and calculations in support of the erosion control plan approved by the Ventura County Resource Conservation District. The trial court found that NRCS was a necessary, indispensable party and a federal agency not amenable to suit in state court. The Shulers filed a federal action, naming the same defendants, with the government as an additional defendant. The California Court of Appeal affirmed dismissal of the state suit. View "Dreamweaver Andalusians, LLC v. Prudential Ins. Co." on Justia Law