Real Estate & Property Law

Cal. Court of Appeals: Taking Claim For Denial of Coastal Development Permit Not Ripe

By Robert Thomas

In Charles A. Pratt Constr. Co., Inc. v. Cal. Coastal Comm'n, No. B190122 (May 8, 2008), the California Court of Appeal (2d District) held the property owner's right to develop was not vested, and that a takings claim was not ripe since the owner could submit other plans for development.

In that case, the California Coastal Commission denied a coastal development permit, and the property owner sought an order compelling the permit to issue, as well as damages for the taking of its property.  The owner's first claim was that its right to develop was vested in 1990 pursuant to Cal. Govt. Code § 66498.1 et seq. when it filed the vesting tentative map.  The court rejected the argument, holding that vesting only applies to "requirements created and imposed by local ordinances," and coastal policies are matters of statewide concern.  Slip op. at 4-5. The court also rejected claims that the Commission's actions were arbitrary and capricious, holding that each of the Commission's reasons for denying the permit was supported by the record. Slip op. 7-11.

The property owner also argued that if the Commission's interpretation of the rules were correct, that conclusion deprived the property of all value and was a taking.  The court held that this claim was not ripe even though the property owner had made one meaningful application for development.  The court held the owner had submitted "only one plan," which the Commission denied.  The court distinguished City of Monterey v. Del Monte Dunes at Monterey, Ltd., 526 US. 687 (1999), because in that case, the government rejected 19 different site plans in five formal decisions.  The court held "the Commission has shown its willingness to consider alternatives" to the owner's proposal, slip op. at 12, and that the owner "has yet to submit proposals that contemplate a reduction in the size, scope, configuration or density of the project."   Id. at 13. 

Read the full opinion here.

Full post as published by inversecondemnation on May 19, 2008 (boomark / email).