California Eminent Domain Report

California Eminent Domain ReportPosted at 6:39 AM on July 29, 2011 by Brad KuhnRegulatory Takings: When Permit Conditions Go Too FarAnyone who's ever been involved in real estate development knows that as part of the permit approval process, developers are routinely required to make concessions to the government in order to move forward with proposed development plans. And, if you're building near the coast, you usually need to jump through even more hoops (sometimes backwards and through fire) to please the Coastal Commission. But when do the demanded concessions go too far?We've covered in the past the "rough proportionality" and "nexus" requirements that development conditions must satisfy in order to withstand scrutiny, but a recent trial court decision in San Mateo County serves as a good reminder. The case, Sterling v. California Coastal Commission, involves the owners of 143 acres of vacant land in Half Moon Bay challenging a dedication requirement imposed by the Coastal Commission. The owners sought a permit to build a 6,000 square foot home, and in return, the Coastal Commission demanded that the owners convey an agricultural easement which would require farming the remainder of the property forever (with no other uses allowed). You may be wondering, where's the nexus; where's the proportionality? As suspected, the "forced farming" condition was shot down by the court. But the Coastal Commission decided to try again and came back with a new condition: that the owners dedicate the remainder of the property to open space for the public good. This imposed condition sure doesn't sound any better. The trial court once again shot down the condition, finding that the Coastal Commission's imposition of the open space requirement constituted an unconstitutional taking of property, as it is disproportionate to the public impact of the proposed development. The Pacific Legal Foundation represented the owners, and it reports the court's ruling as follows:The new condition, in the form of an open space deed restriction is not tailored to the development and is once again irreconcilable with Nollan and Dolan. As compared to the Commission’s prior failed attempt to impose an agricultural easement on the property, the Commission’s new attempt is a distinction without a difference.The case serves as a good reminder that when conditions of approval go too far, they can constitute a regulatory taking of property. You can read a more detailed summary by reviewing PLF's Press Release. Trackbacks (0)Links to blogs that reference this articleTrackback URL
http://www.californiaeminentdomainreport.com/admin/trackback/255033 Comments (1)Read through and enter the discussion with the form at the endPacific Legal Foundation - July 29, 2011 9:08 AMThanks for blogging on our case. An interesting side note is that the Sterlings applied for the original building permit way back in 1999; not a lot of clients have that kind of staying power, for obvious reasons. They are true heroes for fighting for what is right. The Coastal Commission can also be thanked for the fact that the Sterlings' children may not ever get the opportunity to live in the house their parents wanted to build for the family.Nossaman LLPLos Angeles 777 South Figueroa Street
34th Floor Los Angeles, CA90017T 213.612.7800F 213.612.7801Washington, DC 1666 K Street, NW
Suite 500 Washington, DC20006T 202.887.1400F 202.466.3215San Francisco 50 California Street
34th Floor San Francisco, CA94111T 415.398.3600F 415.398.2438Arlington 2111 Wilson Boulevard
Suite 700 Arlington, VA22201T 703.682.1750Orange County 18101 Von Karman Avenue
Suite 1800 Irvine, CA92612T 949.833.7800F 949.833.7878Austin 919 Congress Avenue
Suite 1050 Austin, TX78701T 512.651.0660F 512.651.0670Sacramento 915 L Street
Suite 1000 Sacramento, CA95814T 916.442.8888F 916.442.0382 Thanks!
Curtis D. Harris, BS, CGREA, REB
Bachelor of Science in Real Estate, CSULA
State Certified General Appraiser
Real Estate Broker
ASTM E-2018 Commercial Real Estate Inspector
HUD 203k Consultant
HUD/FHA Real Estate Appraiser/Reviewer
FannieMae REO ConsultantCTAC LEED CertificationThe Harris Company, Forensic Appraisers and Real Estate Consultants
*PIRS/Harris Company and the Science of Real Estate-Partners*1910 East Mariposa Avenue, Suite 115
El Segundo, CA. 90245
310-337-1973 Office
310-251-3959 CellWebSite: http://www.harriscompanyrec.com Resume: http://www.harriscompanyrec.com/CURRICULUMVITAENAME2011a.pdf Commercial Appraiser Blog: http://harriscompanyrec.com/blog/IT'S THE LAW-Designation Discrimination is Illegal [FIRREA, Sec. 564.6]: Professional Association Membership http://www.orea.ca.gov/html/fed_regs.shtml#Statement7 Membership in an appraisal organization: A State Certified General Appraiser may not be excluded from consideration for an assignment for a federally related transaction by virtue of membership or lack of membership in any particular appraisal organization, including the appraisal institute.CONFIDENTIALITY/PRIVILEGE NOTICE: This transmission and any attachments are intended solely for the addressee. The information contained in this transmission is confidential in nature and protected from further use or disclosure under U.S. Pub. L. 106-102, 113 U.S. Stat. 1338 (1999), and may be subject to consultant/appraiser-client or other legal privilege. Your use or disclosure of this information for any purpose other than that intended by its transmittal is strictly prohibited and may subject you to fines and/or penalties under federal and state law. If you are not the intended recipient of this transmission, please destroy all copies received and confirm destruction to the sender via return transmittal