CA Appeals Court Orders Town to Assign a Compliant Land-Use Designation but Denies Petitioners’ Equal Protection and Takings Claims

This post was authored by Sebastian Perez, JD

The Court reviewed de novo two whether (1) the Town’s violation of Government Code Sec. 65302(a) (the “Code”) precluded it from denying Petitioners’ application; and (2) whether the trial court properly issued a writ directing the Town to adopt a compliant land-use designation for the Property. First, the Court determined that the Town waived their ability to allege Petitioner’s challenge to the Property’s land-use designation was time-barred as it was not raised in the trial court and turned to the merits of Petitioner’s writ claim. The Court agreed with Petitioners that the Town’s designation of the Property violated their general plan when it failed to comply with the relevant statutory requirements and agreed with the trial court that the Town had a mandatory duty to adopt a legally compliant land-use designation for the property. However, the Court was not persuaded by the Petitioners’ argument that failure to properly designate the Property prevented the Town from considering their project application. The Court turned to the Town’s cross-appeal and disagreed with their argument that the trial court erred in issuing the writ requiring the Town to adopt a valid land-use designation for the Property because of their duty to adopt a legally compliant land-use designation for the Property. The

A per se taking was not found by the Town’s invalid land-use designation over several decades as it did not prevent Petitioners from seeking to develop their property. Similarly, a regulatory taking was also not found using the Penn Central factors.

The Court determined that the trial court properly rejected the takings claim and turned to Petitioners’ equal protection and substantive due process claims. On the equal protection claim, the Court noted that the mere fact the Town could deny Petitioner’s development application on some other ground failed to establish that such denial had no conceivable rational basis and reasoned that the Town’s delay in properly designating the Property was justified while it gathered more information about the unique aspects of the Property and turned to the substantive due process claim. The Court concluded that the Town’s delay in giving the Property a compliant land-use designation did not shock the conscience because it did not hinder any use of the property and rejected that claim as well. Due to the denial of Petitioner’s other claims, the Court also affirmed the trial court’s denial of Petitioner’s request for declaratory relief.

Lafayette Bollinger Development, LLC v Town of Moraga, 2023 WL 4613300 (CA App. 7/19/2023).