Source: https://landuselaw.jmbm.com/category/litigation/
Timestamp: 2019-04-21 10:39:47+00:00

Document:
Sometimes in land use law, the most impactful court holdings come from the simplest of cases. That may be the situation with the new California Court of Appeal decision in Bowman v. California Coastal Commission, issued by the court on March 18, 2014.
Walton Emmick owned property in San Luis Obispo County. In May 2002, Emmick applied to the County for a Coastal Development Permit (“CDP”) to rehabilitate an uninhabitable home on the property. Emmick died in March 2003. The County subsequently issued the CDP (“CDP-1”) to Emmick’s successor, SDS, subject to a condition that SDS dedicate a lateral access easement for public access along the shorefront portion of the property. SDS did not appeal the condition.
In December 2004, SDS applied to the County for a second CDP (“CDP-2”) for construction of a new barn. The application included a request that the lateral access easement condition of CDP-1 be removed. The County approved CDP-2, including the removal of the coastal access condition. Environmental groups and coastal commissioners appealed the County’s decision to the California Coastal Commission. After hearing, the Commission determined that the easement condition contained in CDP-1 is “permanent and binding on the landowner” and conditioned its grant of CDP-2 upon implementation of the easement condition. SDS sued.
In a victory for California property owners, the California Court of Appeal, on March 13, 2014, issued a new opinion holding that the State of California’s proposed entry onto hundreds of properties in Northern California for geological and environmental testing amounted to a taking under the state constitution. The opinion of the court in Property Reserve, Inc. v. Superior Court may have a profound impact upon major public works projects throughout the state.
The well-known “nexus” and “rough proportionality” tests from the United States Supreme Court’s opinions in Nollan v. California Coastal Commission, 483 U.S. 825 (1987) and Dolan v. City of Tigard, 512 U.S. 374 (1994) do not apply where a condition to issuance of a building permit does not otherwise constitute a taking. So says the California Court of Appeal in Powell v. County of Humboldt, a new published opinion that could potentially limit the reach of Fifth Amendment takings protections for California property owners.
Scott and Lynn Powell own property near the Arcata-Eureka Airport in Humboldt County. The previous owners of the property constructed a covered porch and carport without securing a building permit. In May 2008, the County gave notice to the Powells that unless they secured an “after-the-fact” permit for the porch and carport they would be subject to monetary penalties. The Powells thereafter filed a permit application, which included work to secure the porch foundation and strengthen the structures to bring them into compliance with building codes. The County informed the Powells that, pursuant to a County general plan requirement, the County would require, as a condition to issuance of the permit, that the Powells dedicate an aircraft overflight easement over their property granting the County the right to, among other things, allow flights and noise inherent thereto, and regulate the release of substances, light and electrical emissions, in the airspace over the property.
Spot zoning – the practice of singling out a parcel of property for either more or less restrictive zoning regulations – does not always constitute an impermissible abuse of discretion according to a new opinion from the California Court of Appeal in Foothill Communities Coalition v. County of Orange that could potentially alter the way spot zoning is viewed in California.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.