Justia California Court of Appeals Opinion Summaries

Coalition for a Sustainable Future in Yucaipa filed a petition for writ of mandate against the City of Yucaipa and its City Council challenging Yucaipa's approval of Oak Hills Marketplace (Project), a shopping center to be developed by Target Corporation (Target) on acreage owned by Palmer General Corporation. That petition, filed pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) was denied, and Coalition appealed that decision. The appeal became moot when Target abandoned the Project due to a contract dispute with Palmer. The Court of Appeal directed that the order denying mandate be reversed with directions to dismiss the action with prejudice due to mootness. Coalition then brought a motion for attorneys' fees in the trial court, asserting that its petition was the catalyst for Yucaipa's action to revoke the entitlements. The trial court denied the motion and Coalition appealed again. This time, Coalition argued the denial of attorneys' fees was error because the mandamus petition was the catalyst motivating Yucaipa to revoke the entitlements, the relief Coalition had sought in the trial court. Finding no reversible error, the Court of Appeal affirmed. View "Coalition for a Sustainable Future in Yucaipa v. City of Yucaipa" on Justia Law

The trial court granted a peremptory writ of mandate directing the City to set aside a decision by the City’s planning commission that upheld a building permit allowing the restriping of a parking lot owned by Triangle Center and to reinstate a decision by the City’s zoning administrator that denied the permit. Triangle Center and the City appealed, raising a claim of equitable estoppel. The court concluded that, regardless of whether the elements of equitable estoppel are satisfied, the circumstances here do not justify an equitable estoppel against the City; this is not one of the rare and exceptional cases in which denying equitable estoppel would result in grave injustice; allowing Triangle Center to establish land use rights contrary to the zoning restrictions and despite its failure to comply with the normal land use approval process would adversely affect public policy and the public interest; and that adverse impact outweighs any unfairness to Triangle Center resulting from the failure to apply equitable estoppel. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "Schafer v. City of LA" on Justia Law

Prior to this action, PCF Acquisitionco, LLC owned a former gas station at the corner of 4th and Folsom Streets in San Francisco. The site was marked as the future site of the Central Subway's Moscone station. Following several years of negotiations and the exchange of proposed valuations for the property, the parties were unable to reach a settlement. The matter proceeded to trial, and a jury determined the total compensation to be awarded for the property was approximately $7.3 million, which reflected a fair market value minus costs for environmental remediation. PCF then moved to recover its litigation expenses. The City opposed the motion on the grounds that its final offer was reasonable and, alternatively, that PCF's claimed litigation expenses were excessive. The issue this case presented for the Court of Appeal's review centered on whether the City's final pre-trial settlement offer, made 20 days before trial and contingent on obtaining approvals from other governmental entities, could have been reasonable under Code of Civil Procedure 1250.410, and thus bar PCF (who rejected the offer) from later recovering litigation costs. PCF argued that such a contingent offer was unreasonable as a matter of law because it was conditioned on the approval of three different governmental bodies, thus providing no assurance that OCF's acceptance would result in a pre-trial settlement. The Court of Appeal agreed: the City's contingent settlement offer did not serve section 1250.410's aims of encouraging the pre-trial settlement of eminent domain actions and making property owners whole, and thus was not reasonable within the statute's meaning. The Court therefore reversed the order denying PCF's motion for litigation expenses and remanded to the trial court for further proceedings. View "City & County of San Francisco v. PCF Acquisitionco, LLC" on Justia Law

Balboa Park, a large urban park created on pueblo lands almost 150 years ago, included as its central core the buildings and plazas designed and constructed for the 1915 Panama-California Exposition, and the adjoining buildings and improvements subsequently constructed for the 1935 California Pacific International Exposition (the Complex). A Bridge and the Complex were declared a National Historic Landmark and a National Historic Landmark District nearly 40 years ago. Proposed alterations to the Bridge, an integral element of a revitalization project, spearheaded by the Committee but opposed by the Save Our Heritage Organisation (SOHO), was the focal point of the appeal brought before the Court of Appeal. The Project sought to eliminate vehicles from the plazas within the Complex, and to return the plazas to purely pedestrian zones, simultaneously preserving (for the convenience of those vehicles coming to Balboa Park from the west) the ability of those vehicles to access the southeastern area of the Park across the Bridge. The solution proffered by the Project to this dilemma was to construct a proposed "Centennial Bridge," which would be joined to the Bridge toward the eastern edge of the Bridge to create a detour around the southwestern corner of the Complex. The City of San Diego, after a thorough review of the project, approved it. SOHO filed a petition for writ of mandate alleging, among other things, that City erroneously approved the required site development permit because there was no substantial evidence to support the finding the Project would not adversely affect the applicable land use plan, or to support the supplemental finding that there would be no reasonable beneficial use of the property were the Project denied. The trial court agreed there was no substantial evidence to support the supplemental finding there would be no reasonable beneficial use of the property were the Project denied, and therefore granted SOHO's petition. Committee appealed that ruling, and finding that the grant of the writ was made in error, the Court of Appeal reversed. View "Save Our Heritage Org. v. City of San Diego" on Justia Law

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