Ralston v. County of San Mateo

Background

Plaintiffs alleged that they owned a parcel in San Mateo County where they wanted to build a modest single-family home. They asserted that the property was entirely within the County’s “Montecito Riparian Corridor,” which was governed by local coastal-plan policies that, according to plaintiffs, did not allow residential development.

Plaintiffs did not apply to the County for a coastal development permit. Instead, they asked the County’s Community Development Director, also called the Planning Director, to review their intention to develop the property. According to the complaint, the Planning Director consulted County Counsel and said that the circumstances of the purchase did not establish a reasonable, economically based expectation of developing the property as a separate residence. The Planning Director also allegedly declined to issue a “buildability letter” that the Coastside County Water District required before providing treated water to the property.

Plaintiffs brought two claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging that the County and the California Coastal Commission carried out an unconstitutional regulatory taking in violation of the Fifth Amendment’s Takings Clause. The County and the Commission filed separate motions to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1), which addresses subject-matter jurisdiction, and Rule 12(b)(6), which addresses legally insufficient claims.

Court’s analysis

The court focused on whether the regulatory-taking claims were “ripe,” meaning ready for judicial decision. Under the rule applied by the court, a regulatory-taking claim generally cannot be considered until the government agency responsible for applying the regulation has made a final decision about the property. The Supreme Court had eliminated a separate requirement that property owners first pursue state procedures for compensation, but it retained the final-decision requirement.

The court identified two independent reasons why the County had not made a final decision. First, the Planning Director might not have had authority to make the final decision on a coastal development permit. County zoning regulations assign decision-making authority among the Planning Director, Zoning Hearing Officer, Planning Commission, and Board of Supervisors, depending on the project’s required permits, approvals, and hearings. The court noted that the property appeared to be within 100 feet of a stream, which could require a public hearing and could mean that a body other than the Planning Director would decide the permit application.

Second, plaintiffs had not submitted a permit application or the required fee, location map, site plan, and building elevations. Without a complete application and a concrete development proposal, the County had not had the opportunity to determine how its local coastal plan applied to the property, whether the project could be approved with environmental or other mitigating conditions, or whether denying the permit would result in a taking. The court therefore concluded that the Planning Director’s informal statements did not establish a final decision.

The court distinguished cases in which property owners had submitted formal development applications, received permit denials, or otherwise obtained a definitive government position. Here, the County had not finally rejected a permit application, and the County represented that a formal application could allow it to approve, deny, or condition the proposed development.

Disposition

Judge Edward M. Chen granted the County’s motion to dismiss in its entirety without leave to amend because plaintiffs’ claims were unripe. The court stated that plaintiffs could refile if necessary after applying for a coastal development permit and receiving a final County decision. The order also stated that it disposed of Docket Nos. 20 and 22, and directed the Clerk to enter judgment and close the file. The opinion does not separately state a distinct grant or denial of the Commission’s motion beyond that docket-disposition statement.