Justia California Court of Appeals Opinion Summaries

This appeal stems from a dispute between outdoor advertising companies and the City over certain billboards with digital displays. Plaintiff Summit Media filed a motion seeking, among other things, an order that “[a]ll digital displays and sign structures” identified in the trial court's April 2013 order “shall be demolished and removed . . . .” Real parties CBS Outdoor wished to resume the use of their sign structures to display static advertising, as they had before the illegal digital conversion. The trial court denied plaintiff's motion to demolish the signs and denied plaintiff's request for attorney fees. The court concluded that the trial court did not abuse its discretion by refusing to require either the demolition of the structural improvements or the removal of the digital equipment, and that plaintiff offers no persuasive authority for its claim. Further, the record supports the trial court’s conclusion that plaintiff had a personal financial stake in this litigation that was sufficient to warrant its decision to incur significant attorney fees and costs in the vigorous prosecution of this lawsuit. View "Summit Media v. City of Los Angeles" on Justia Law

In 1989, defendant-appellant City of San Clemente created the “Beach Parking Impact Fee” because the City anticipated that substantial residential development proposed for the City’s inland areas would significantly increase the demand for public parking at the City’s beaches. The City imposed the Beach Parking Impact Fee on all new residential developments outside the City’s coastal zone to defray the cost of acquiring and constructing new beach parking facilities. Between 1989 and 2009, the City collected nearly $10 million in Beach Parking Impact Fees and accrued interest, but the City spent less than $350,000 to purchase a vacant parcel on which it has not constructed any parking facilities. Plaintiffs and respondents Daniel Walker, as Trustee for the 1997 Walker Family Trust, and W. Justin McCarthy (collectively, Plaintiffs) filed this action to compel the City to refund the unused portion of the Beach Parking Impact Fee. Plaintiffs alleged the five-year findings the City made in 2009 failed to satisfy the Act’s requirements and did not justify the City’s continued retention of the unexpended Beach Parking Impact Fees because the increased parking demand had not materialized over the ensuing 20 years. The trial court agreed and entered judgment ordering the City to refund approximately $10.5 million in unexpended impact fees to the current property owners on which the fees were imposed. The City appealed, contending it satisfied the Mitigation Fee Act’s requirement of five-year findings when it “receive[d] and file[d]” a 2009 staff report. Upon review, the Court of Appeal affirmed, finding that the City failed to make the five-year findings as required. The Court found that the report’s findings were mere conclusions, not the specific findings required under the Act. Consequently, the City failed to justify its continued retention of the unexpended impact fees. View "Walker v. City of San Clemente" on Justia Law

This case was the third of a string of appeals before the Court of Appeal concerning the City of Irvine's attempt to stop a proposed expansion of the James A. Musick Jail Facility. In "Musick I," the cities of Irvine and Lake Forest challenged the 1996 certification of an environmental impact report, "EIR 564," involving a proposed expansion of the Facility from about 1200 inmates to 7,584 inmates. In Musick I, the Court overturned a trial court decision finding EIR 564 inadequate, finding that EIR 564 did indeed adequately disclose the impacts of the project. The 1996 project, however, did not go forward because the County did not consider it had the financial resources for it. Approximately ten years later, Realignment Act of 2011 was passed, which shifted responsibility for the custodial housing and post-release supervision of some felons from the state prison system to local jails and probation departments. Concomitant with realignment, legislation was passed making it easier for local government agencies to obtain state funds to build more local jail cells. The County revived its plans for the Musick jail expansion, and the County applied for state funds for the project. Irvine challenged the County's application for state funding of the expansion without a new EIR, even though the County, at roughly the same time as the application, had certified a supplemental EIR ("SEIR 564") dealing with the project in light of planned intervening changes in surrounding land uses. In "Musick II," the Court of Appeal concluded there was no need to prepare an EIR (or other appropriate environmental impact document) prior to merely applying for funds. In this case, "Musick III," Irvine directly challenged SEIR 564. There was one big intervening change in surrounding land use since the initial proposed expansion, which was the scrapping of a proposed international airport at the former El Toro Base in favor of a "Great Park," with some adjacent housing development. Irvine presented several challenges to SEIR 564 that centered on two environmental effects: impacts on local traffic intersections and the loss of agricultural land. Taking Irvine's arguments into consideration, the Court of Appeal concluded that SEIR 564 was legally unobjectionable, and denied Irvine the relief it requested. View "City of Irvine v. County of Orange" on Justia Law

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