Justia Real Estate & Property Law Opinion Summaries

The case involves the proposed development of the Betabel Project by the McDowell Trust, which includes a large commercial roadside attraction in San Benito County. The County's Board of Supervisors certified an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) and approved a conditional use permit for the project. The Center for Biological Diversity and the Amah Mutsun Tribal Band opposed the project, arguing that the EIR violated the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and that the project approval violated state planning and zoning laws. They filed a petition for a writ of mandate to challenge the project approval.The San Benito County Planning Commission initially approved the project and filed a Notice of Determination (NOD) on October 14, 2022. The Center and the Amah Mutsun Tribal Band appealed this decision to the County Board of Supervisors, which denied the appeals and filed a second NOD on November 10, 2022. The trial court sustained the McDowell Trust's demurrer, agreeing that the CEQA causes of action were time-barred because the petitions were filed more than 30 days after the first NOD.The California Court of Appeal, Sixth Appellate District, reviewed the case and concluded that the trial court erred. The appellate court determined that the 30-day limitations period for filing a CEQA challenge began with the second NOD filed on November 10, 2022, following the final decision by the Board of Supervisors. The court emphasized that the Planning Commission's decision was not final due to the timely appeals. Therefore, the writ petitions filed on December 9, 2022, were within the 30-day period. The appellate court reversed the judgments of dismissal and remanded the case to the trial court with directions to overrule the demurrer. View "Center for Biological Diversity v. County of San Benito" on Justia Law

The City of Ontario filed an eminent domain action to acquire properties owned by We Buy Houses Any Condition, LLC, located near the Ontario International Airport. The City argued that the properties did not conform to land use requirements and suffered from airport-related impacts and blight. The City held a public hearing and adopted a resolution of necessity to commence eminent domain proceedings, citing the mitigation of airport impacts and elimination of blight as public uses. However, the resolution did not describe any specific proposed project.The Superior Court of San Bernardino County granted summary judgment in favor of We Buy Houses, finding that the City had not articulated a proposed project as required to exercise its power of eminent domain. The court concluded that the City’s resolution of necessity was insufficient because it did not describe a specific project, which is necessary to determine public interest, necessity, and compatibility with the greatest public good and least private injury. The court also granted We Buy Houses’s request for attorney fees, making certain reductions to the requested amounts.The Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District, Division One, reviewed the case and affirmed the lower court’s decision. The appellate court held that the City failed to identify a proposed project with sufficient specificity in its resolution of necessity, as required by the Eminent Domain Law. The court found the City’s arguments unpersuasive and concluded that the trial court properly rejected the City’s effort to exercise eminent domain. Additionally, the appellate court found no abuse of discretion in the trial court’s award of attorney fees to We Buy Houses, affirming the fee award. View "City of Ontario v. We Buy Houses Any Condition" on Justia Law

In September 2020, CloudKitchens applied for a zoning clearance from the City of Oakland to convert a wood shop into a commercial kitchen. The facility, measuring approximately 14,000 square feet, was classified as "Light Manufacturing" under the Oakland Municipal Code (OMC) because it involved food production exceeding 10,000 square feet. The City’s Planning Department issued the zoning clearance and a subsequent building permit for renovations. In April 2021, local neighborhood associations learned of the project and requested the City reconsider the zoning classification, arguing it was essentially a fast-food restaurant, which was not permitted in the zone. The Planning Department denied the request, maintaining the classification was correct.The neighborhood associations filed a formal complaint requesting a revocation review process, which the Planning Department also denied, stating the classification was consistent with similar uses and that there was no substantial evidence of a nuisance. An independent hearing officer affirmed this decision, noting that the Enforcement Regulations under chapter 17.152 were not intended to revisit zoning determinations. The hearing officer also found the classification as "Light Manufacturing" to be supported by sufficient evidence. The associations then petitioned for a writ of mandate in the Alameda County Superior Court, which was denied. The court held that chapter 17.152 did not provide a legal basis to challenge the prior zoning determination.The California Court of Appeal, First Appellate District, reviewed the case and affirmed the lower court's decision. The court held that chapter 17.152 of the OMC does not authorize challenges to zoning determinations, which are governed by chapter 17.132. The court found that the neighborhood associations' appeal was time-barred under the specific procedures outlined in chapter 17.132, which requires appeals to be filed within ten days of the Planning Department's decision. The court concluded that the Enforcement Regulations could not be used to challenge the initial zoning classification. View "San Pablo Ave Golden Gate Improvement Assn v. City Council Oakland" on Justia Law

A developer proposed constructing a 12-unit residential condominium in downtown Lafayette, California, on a parcel mostly occupied by a vacant, dilapidated convalescent hospital. The City of Lafayette determined the project was exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) review, classifying it as infill development. Nahid Nassiri, who owns an adjacent office building, challenged this decision, arguing the site had value as habitat for rare species and that the project would significantly affect air quality.The Contra Costa County Superior Court initially granted Nassiri's petition, finding insufficient evidence to support the City's determination that the site had no value as habitat for rare species. However, the court rejected Nassiri's other claims regarding general plan consistency, air quality effects, and mitigation measures. The developer and the City filed a motion for a new trial, arguing that the project site, as defined by recent case law, did not include the area with potential habitat. The trial court granted the motion, leading to the denial of Nassiri's petition.The California Court of Appeal, First Appellate District, reviewed the case. The court found substantial evidence supporting the City's determination that the project site had no value as habitat for rare species, specifically the oak titmouse and Nuttall’s woodpecker. The court also upheld the City's finding that the project would not significantly affect air quality, dismissing Nassiri's reliance on a health risk assessment that did not accurately reflect the project's construction characteristics. Lastly, the court declined to address the "unusual circumstances" exception to the CEQA exemption, as Nassiri did not properly raise this issue in the trial court. The judgment was affirmed. View "Nassiri v. City of Lafayette" on Justia Law

Plaintiff Mark Coziahr filed a class action against Otay Water District, alleging that Otay's tiered water rates for single-family residential customers violated Section 6(b)(3) of Proposition 218, which mandates that property-related fees not exceed the proportional cost of the service attributable to the parcel. The trial court certified the class and found that Otay failed to meet its burden of demonstrating compliance with Section 6(b)(3). In the remedy phase, the court awarded an estimated refund of approximately $18 million, with monthly increases until Otay imposed compliant rates. Otay appealed the liability decision and damages, while Coziahr appealed only as to damages.The Superior Court of San Diego County found that Otay's tiered rates were based on non-cost objectives like conservation and did not correlate with the actual cost of providing water service. The court determined that Otay's reliance on peaking factors and adherence to industry standards were insufficient to justify the tiered rates. The court also found that Otay discriminated against single-family residential customers by charging them more for water than other customer classes without a cogent reason. The court rejected Otay's peaking factor analysis and Mumm's independent analysis as flawed and unsupported by the record.The California Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District, Division One, affirmed the trial court's liability determination, holding that Otay did not establish its tiered rates complied with Section 6(b)(3). The court found that Otay's evidence did not withstand independent review and that the trial court properly applied the principles from Capistrano and Palmdale. However, the appellate court reversed the refund amount, finding the trial court's calculations unreasonable due to reliance on projected data and a proxy from another case. The matter was remanded for a new trial on the refund amount, including monthly increases and prejudgment interest. The judgment was otherwise affirmed. View "Coziahr v. Otay Wat. Dist." on Justia Law

The Regents of the University of California (Regents) approved the construction of a new hospital at the University of California San Francisco (UCSF) Parnassus Heights campus. The Parnassus Neighborhood Coalition (the Coalition), a group of local property owners, sued to halt the construction, arguing it would violate local building height and bulk restrictions. The Regents countered that as a state entity, they were immune from local building and zoning regulations when engaging in governmental activities, such as constructing university buildings. The trial court disagreed, ruling that the question of whether the construction constituted a governmental or proprietary activity could not be resolved at this stage.The trial court concluded that the Regents' immunity depended on whether the proposed construction was a governmental or proprietary activity, a question of fact that could not be resolved on a demurrer. The court further concluded that the exemption only applies when a project is solely for educational purposes. The Regents petitioned for a writ of mandate to vacate the trial court’s order.The Court of Appeal of the State of California First Appellate District Division Three reviewed the case. The court held that the proposed hospital would facilitate the provision of clinical services, thereby advancing UCSF’s academic mission and the Regents’ educational purpose, which is a governmental activity. Therefore, the project falls within the Regents’ broad public purpose, and the Regents are exempt from the local regulations at issue. The court concluded that the demurrer should have been sustained and issued the writ of mandate. The court also ordered modifications to the published opinion filed on June 13, 2024, but there was no change in the judgment. View "Regents of the University of Calif. v. Super. Ct." on Justia Law

This case involves a dispute over an arbitration award in a real estate transaction. The plaintiffs, Miguel and Lizette Valencia, purchased a home from the defendants, Armando Mendoza, Coastal Holdings, LLC, and Class A Realty, Inc. After discovering undisclosed defects in the home, the Valencias initiated an arbitration proceeding against the defendants. The arbitrator ruled in favor of the Valencias, awarding them damages for repairs, loss of use, statutory penalties, and inspection fees, as well as punitive damages and attorneys' fees.The defendants appealed the arbitration award to the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, arguing that the court erred in denying their petition to vacate the arbitration award and in confirming the Valencias' petition to confirm the award. The defendants also contended that the arbitrator committed legal error by excluding key evidence from the arbitration hearing. The trial court affirmed the arbitration award, finding that the defendants' petition to vacate the award was untimely and that they failed to show that the arbitrator erred in its rulings excluding evidence.On appeal to the Court of Appeal of the State of California, Second Appellate District, Division Seven, the defendants argued that the trial court erred in not considering the evidence they submitted with their late-filed petition to vacate the arbitration award. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's decision, holding that the defendants failed to meet their burden of establishing the existence of error in the arbitration award. The court also found that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in confirming the award without considering the defendants' untimely evidence. View "Valencia v. Mendoza" on Justia Law

The case involves plaintiffs Martin Tait, Jane Tait, and Bry-Mart, LLC (collectively, the Taits) who sued Commonwealth Land Title Insurance Company (Commonwealth) for breach of a title insurance policy. The Taits alleged that Commonwealth failed to pay the full amount by which their property’s value was diminished due to an undisclosed easement. The Taits had purchased a residential property in Danville for $1.25 million and had plans to subdivide the property into two lots. However, they discovered a separate 1988 maintenance easement that they believed would impact the marketability and value of the property and interfere with its potential development.The trial court granted Commonwealth’s motion for summary judgment, ruling that the policy required Commonwealth to compensate the Taits only for the value of their actual use of the property as a vacant residential lot suitable for only one home rather than its highest and best use as a subdividable lot. The court reasoned that the legal standard for title insurance losses did not permit consideration of a property’s highest and best use, only its actual use as vacant residential land.The Court of Appeal of the State of California First Appellate District Division Four disagreed with the trial court's interpretation. The appellate court held that the Taits’ policy entitles them to reimbursement for the diminution in value of their property based on its highest and best use. The court found that the Taits’ evidence of the likelihood of subdivision and the value of a subdividable lot created a triable issue of fact regarding the amount of the Taits’ loss under the policy, thereby precluding summary judgment. Therefore, the court reversed the trial court's decision. View "Tait v. Commonwealth Land Title Insurance Co." on Justia Law

In September 2020, CloudKitchens applied to the City of Oakland's Planning Department for a zoning clearance to convert a wood shop into a commercial kitchen. The proposed facility was described as a compartmentalized commercial kitchen for take-out services only, measuring roughly 14,000 square feet. The facility is located in a Housing and Business Mix-1 Commercial Zone (HBX-1 zone), which permits certain industrial activities classified as "Light Manufacturing." The Planning Department issued CloudKitchens a zoning clearance and later a building permit allowing renovations.In April 2021, the San Pablo Avenue Golden Gate Improvement Association, Inc., and Oakland Neighborhoods For Equity (Neighbors) learned of CloudKitchens's plans. They sent a letter to the City Administrator requesting that the City reconsider its approval of CloudKitchens as qualifying for HBX-1 classification. The City's Zoning Manager responded, maintaining that the decision was proper. In July, Neighbors filed a formal complaint requesting the Planning Department initiate a revocation review process. They alleged that CloudKitchens will become a nuisance due to increased traffic, air pollution, and noise, and that the commercialized kitchen is essentially a Fast-Food Restaurant not permitted in an HBX-1 zone. The Planning Department denied the request.Neighbors then petitioned for a writ of mandate in the trial court. Following a hearing, the trial court affirmed, holding that chapter 17.152 “does not create a legal basis to challenge a prior zoning determination made by the City.” Neighbors appealed.The Court of Appeal of the State of California First Appellate District Division Four affirmed the trial court's decision. The court held that chapter 17.152 does not provide a legal basis to challenge the Planning Department’s interpretations and determinations of the zoning regulations, including use classifications and zoning clearances. The court also noted that the Enforcement Regulations still permit Neighbors to seek a revocation hearing for any nonconforming uses (or nuisances) if they arise. However, the Enforcement Regulations do not allow members of the public to challenge use classifications or zoning determinations outside the procedures prescribed in chapter 17.132. View "San Pablo Ave. Golden Gate Improvement Assn. v. City Council of Oakland" on Justia Law

The case involves a worker, Jake Johnson, who was injured while working as an electrician on a construction project managed by CBRE and owned by Property Reserve, Inc. (PRI). Johnson was employed by PCF Electric, a subcontractor hired by Crew Builders, the general contractor for the project. Johnson filed a complaint against CBRE, PRI, Crew, and PCF for damages. CBRE and PRI moved for summary judgment based on the Privette doctrine, which generally protects entities that hire independent contractors from liability for injuries sustained by the employees of the independent contractor. The trial court denied the motion, finding a triable issue of fact as to when CBRE and PRI hired Crew for the project.The Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District, Division One, State of California, disagreed with the trial court's decision. The appellate court found that a written contract was not required to invoke the Privette doctrine, and the undisputed facts established that CBRE and PRI delegated control over the tenant improvements to Crew prior to Johnson’s injury. The court also found that no exception to the Privette doctrine applied. The court concluded that because no triable issues of material fact precluded summary judgment, CBRE and PRI were entitled to relief. The court ordered the trial court to vacate its previous order and enter a new one granting summary judgment to CBRE and PRI. View "CBRE v. Superior Court of San Diego County" on Justia Law