A San Diego County Superior Court jury has awarded a developer $94.5 million in damages in an inverse condemnation lawsuit.
The developer of a struggling business park near the Mexican border filed the lawsuit after arguing with the city since the early 1990s. Roque de la Fuente II contended in court that the city breached a 1986 development agreement, dooming development of his 312-acre business park. De la Fuente contended the city made permits difficult to obtain by increasing fees and conditions, in violation of the development agreement. He also argued that the city routed border truck traffic through the business park, and proposed an international airport near the business park, a prospect that scared away potential tenants.
The city countered that it did nothing improper and that de la Fuente was an inexperienced developer who got burned by the recession of the early 1990s.
Finding that the city had blighted the de la Fuente's property, Superior Court Judge Vincent DiFiglia accepted the inverse condemnation arguments. He then handed the case to a jury, which awarded the developer $94.5 million. One juror told the San Diego Union Tribune that it appeared the city wanted the business park to fail so it could take over the property. In fact, the city foreclosed on lots in the business park after de la Fuente failed to make payments on bonds that the city had underwritten to finance to project.
City officials, who were stunned the size of the award, said they would appeal.
The U.S. Supreme Court has dropped its consideration of a case that many people hoped would resolve conflicts over processing of adult business permit applications. The court dismissed a case from Wisconsin because the adult business had withdrawn its application, so "the case no longer qualifies for judicial review," Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg wrote for a unanimous court.
The court had accepted the case because lower courts differ on the meaning of "prompt judicial review." The court in FW/PBS v. Da...
A Hollywood property owners association that governs a business improvement district must abide by local government open meeting laws, the Second District Court of Appeal has ruled.
The unanimous three-judge panel held that the City of Los Angeles "created" the Hollywood Entertainment District Property Owners Association (POA) to assume the city's legislative functions regarding the Hollywood Entertainment District II Business Improvement District. The court rejected the argument that the POA, which i...
A state appellate court has rejected the argument of a landowner who claimed that the City of Fort Bragg was liable for losses suffered when the city approved an adjacent building.
In 1997, the city granted a building permit to David Codling for construction of a two-story building on a vacant lot next to the Barracks Mall, a two-story structure with businesses on the ground floor and apartments above. The Barracks Mall had been built to the lot line, and the city allowed Codling to do the same — putt...
Taxpayer organizations recently lost two lawsuits against the City of Los Angeles alleging violations of Proposition 218. In its first interpretation of the initiative, the California Supreme Court held that the city's apartment inspection fee was not subject to the voter approval provisions of Proposition 218. In the other case, an appellate court ruled that the city's water service fees and the transfer of money from the water fund to other funds were not subject to Proposition 218.
In the apartment...
A divided U.S. Supreme Court has limited the scope of the Clean Water Act by removing U.S. Army Corps of Engineers' jurisdiction over isolated waters and seasonal wetlands, such as vernal pools and ephemeral washes. Farmers, developers and property rights advocates hailed the ruling as an important limitation on intrusive federal regulation. Environmentalists decried the ruling as a step backward, although many observers said the decision's impact would not be as great in California because of extensive...
Claims that Sacramento County violated the California Environmental Quality Act while approving a commercial development have been dismissed by the Third District Court of Appeal because the project opponent did not submit a written request for a hearing within 90 days of filing a lawsuit.
The attorney for opponent Forster-Gill, Inc., argued that a telephone call to the court clerk within the 90-day period was adequate, but the appellate court disagreed, ruling that the law "plainly contemplates a written request that can be, and is, filed with the court."
A state appellate court has upheld the California Coastal Commission's denial of a development permit for a small mixed-use project in Morro Bay.
The court rejected developer Dan Reddell's arguments that the commission violated his due process and equal protection rights, and that its decision was a regulatory taking of property. Instead, the Second District Court of Appeal ruled that substantial evidence supported the commission's finding that Reddell's project was inconsistent with Morro Bay's local coastal plan (LCP).
A state appellate court has thrown out an Inyo County general plan amendment that the county argued was nothing more than a clarification of a longstanding policy.
A unanimous three-judge panel of the Fourth District Court of Appeal, Division Two, concluded that the amendment was more than a mere clarification and that the county should have completed an environmental impact report before approving the amendment.
A City of West Hollywood moratorium on new multi-family housing development has been declared invalid by the Second District Court of Appeal. The court ruled that the city had not made required findings for the moratorium.
The Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has set back a plan to develop the country's largest solid waste landfill near Joshua Tree National Park. The court ruled that the environmental analysis for the project was inadequate and that the Bureau of Land Management undervalued land it would provide to the landfill developer.
A state appellate court has struck down a California Environmental Quality Act exemption for an air district rule permitting new power plants to offset emissions by paving roads. The court found that the Mojave Desert Air Quality Management District did not have adequate evidence to support its finding that the rule could not have a negative impact on the environment.
A developer is not entitled to reimbursement or damages from a consultant hired by a local government to complete an environmental impact report, the First District Court of Appeal has ruled. Even when the consultant fails to complete an EIR in a timely manner, the consultant owes no contractual duty to the developer that paid for the consultant, the court concluded.
