Bottini v. City of San Diego, 27 Cal. App. 5th 281

Background

Owners Francis and Nina Bottini bought a La Jolla lot with a 19th‑century cottage (the Windemere). The cottage had a pending local historic‑designation nomination when they purchased.
After engineering reports and a Code Compliance inspection, the City declared the cottage a public nuisance and issued a ministerial demolition permit; the Bottinis demolished the cottage before applying for a coastal development permit (CDP).
Months later the Bottinis applied for a CDP to build a single‑family house on the now‑vacant lot; City staff concluded the project was categorically exempt under CEQA (Class 3).
The La Jolla Planning Association and a local historical society appealed; the City Council reversed staff, treating the demolition as part of the project, setting a pre‑demolition baseline, and finding CEQA exceptions (historical resources and unusual circumstances) applied, requiring environmental review.
The Bottinis sought mandamus to set aside the City Council decision and sued for inverse condemnation, due process, and equal protection; the trial court granted writ relief and granted the City summary judgment on constitutional claims.
The court of appeal affirmed: demolition was not part of the CEQA project (it was a prior ministerial abatement), proper baseline was the vacant lot at application time, Class 3 exemption applied, and no triable constitutional claims remained.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether demolition of the Windemere is part of the CDP "project" for CEQA and whether the baseline may be set before demolition	Bottini: demolition was connected to later development; baseline should be pre‑demolition so exceptions apply	City: demolition is part of the whole action; baseline may be set when house existed	Demolition was a prior ministerial abatement outside CEQA; baseline is conditions at time of CDP application (vacant lot); Council abused discretion by including demolition
Whether CEQA Class 3 categorical exemption (new single‑family residence) is negated by the historical‑resource or unusual‑circumstances exceptions	Bottini: project is exempt (Class 3) given proper baseline	City: exceptions apply because a historic resource was destroyed and unusual circumstances exist	With correct project/baseline (vacant lot), no substantial evidence supports exceptions; Class 3 exemption applies
Whether City conduct (delay from Council decision) constituted a regulatory taking under state constitution	Bottini: delay deprived them of economic use / investment‑backed expectations; Landgate approach or Penn Central supports takings	City: review under CEQA is legitimate governmental purpose; no taking	Court applies Penn Central (post‑Lingle) and finds no taking: limited investment‑backed expectation and character of action weigh against takings claim
Whether City violated substantive due process or equal protection by granting CEQA appeals	Bottini: action was arbitrary, punitive, and deliberately flouted law; class‑of‑one treatment	City: action had rational bases (protect historic resources/environment) and procedures were followed	No protected property interest to support substantive due process claim; equal‑protection fail—City articulated rational basis and Bottinis produced no evidence of irrational/punitive purpose

Key Cases Cited

Tomlinson v. County of Alameda, 54 Cal.4th 281 (California Supreme Court) (CEQA purpose and overview)
California Building Industry Assn. v. Bay Area Air Quality Management Dist., 62 Cal.4th 369 (California Supreme Court) (categorical exemption/stepwise CEQA review)
CREED‑21 v. City of San Diego, 234 Cal.App.4th 488 (Court of Appeal) (intervening CEQA‑exempt emergency/ministerial action not subject to later CEQA review)
Landgate, Inc. v. California Coastal Com., 17 Cal.4th 1006 (California Supreme Court) (California takings precedent discussed; relied on then‑Agins standard)
Lingle v. Chevron U.S.A., Inc., 544 U.S. 528 (U.S. Supreme Court) (overruling Agins "substantially advances" takings test; endorsing Penn Central factors)
Penn Central Transp. Co. v. New York City, 438 U.S. 104 (U.S. Supreme Court) (ad‑hoc regulatory takings test factors)