Mendelson v. San Mateo County

Background

The Ninth Circuit remanded the case for the court to reconsider San Mateo County’s motion to dismiss in light of Pakdel v. City and County of San Francisco. Felix Mendelson asserted two claims: a Fifth Amendment takings claim and a Fourth Amendment seizure claim. He alleged that his property was in a riparian corridor governed by the County’s Local Coastal Program and that the regulations prevented him from building a home or making any economically beneficial use of the property.

Mendelson acknowledged that he had not submitted a meaningful development proposal to the County. The court had previously held that his takings claim was not ripe. Ripeness is a threshold requirement that prevents courts from deciding disputes before the relevant facts and government decisions are sufficiently settled.

Fifth Amendment Claim

The court explained that Ninth Circuit precedent generally requires a property owner to submit at least one meaningful development proposal and receive a final decision from the local land-use authority before bringing a takings claim. The Supreme Court’s decision in Pakdel stated that a claim can become ripe when there is no question about how the regulations apply to the particular property. The court said Pakdel could support a more flexible approach in a case where the regulations clearly prohibited all development.

The court nevertheless concluded that this case did not qualify for that possible exception. Even if Mendelson’s reading of the County’s regulations was correct, the County had discretion under section 30010 of the California Coastal Act to depart from its Local Coastal Program when necessary to avoid an unconstitutional taking. Because the County had not yet exercised that discretion, there was still uncertainty about how much development it would permit on Mendelson’s property.

The court relied on a prior related Ninth Circuit proceeding involving similar riparian-corridor allegations against San Mateo County. In that proceeding, the Ninth Circuit concluded that the County’s Local Coastal Program alone could not constitute a final decision because the County retained discretion to interpret and apply its regulations to avoid a taking. The court rejected Mendelson’s argument that section 30010 did not apply when the County evaluated coastal development permit applications under its Local Coastal Program.

The court also addressed Mendelson’s request for judicial notice of nine County documents. Assuming without deciding that the documents could be considered on a motion to dismiss, the court found that they did not show a final County decision or a definitive interpretation of the Local Coastal Program. The court therefore held that Mendelson’s takings claim was not ripe.

Fourth Amendment Claim

Mendelson alleged that the County had arbitrarily and capriciously seized his property without a legitimate public purpose by prohibiting development. The court held that this claim was also premature. Until Mendelson submitted a meaningful development proposal and the County considered it, determining whether the County had seized the property would be speculative.

Disposition

Because both claims were unripe, the court held that they could not currently proceed in federal court. Judge Alex G. Tse granted the County’s motion to dismiss and directed the Clerk to close the case file. The court stated that Mendelson may renew his claims, if necessary, after he files a coastal development permit application and the County issues a final decision on that application.