Boxer v. City of Beverly Hills
201 Cal. Rptr. 3d 371
Cal. Ct. App.2016Background
- Plaintiffs own homes on Spalding Drive, Beverly Hills, and allege unobstructed scenic views prior to city plantings.
- In 1989 the City planted 31 coastal redwood trees in Roxbury Park; plaintiffs claim growth has begun to block and will eventually eliminate their views.
- Plaintiffs notified the City in 2005 and 2013; they allege intermittent trimming but failure to remove poor-quality trees and recent neglect.
- FAC alleges impairment of views and an increased risk of fire hazard, seeking inverse condemnation damages and injunctive relief.
- The City demurred, arguing impairment of view and speculative fire risk do not state a compensable inverse condemnation claim.
- Trial court sustained the demurrer without leave to amend; plaintiffs appealed. The Court of Appeal affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether obstruction of plaintiffs' scenic views by trees planted on public land constitutes an inverse condemnation (a "taking or damaging") | Loss of view is a compensable injury under inverse condemnation; plaintiff relies on authorities that consider view loss in eminent domain damages | Mere impairment of view without physical invasion, damage, or impaired access is not a compensable taking; Regency and related authority foreclose recovery for visibility alone | Held: No. Impairment of view alone does not satisfy inverse condemnation; plaintiffs failed to allege a physical invasion, damage, or an intangible intrusion that is direct, substantial, and peculiar |
| Whether speculative increased fire risk from city trees constitutes a taking | The trees and poor maintenance increased risk to property, implying damage | Speculative risk of future harm is not an "act" constituting a taking | Held: Speculative future risk is not a taking or damaging; plaintiffs abandoned this theory on appeal |
| Whether diminution in property value alone establishes a taking | Diminution in value (from impaired view) should support an inverse condemnation claim | Diminution in value is an element of compensation only where a taking/damaging is otherwise proved; it does not by itself establish a taking | Held: Diminution in value alone is insufficient to establish a taking |
| Whether leave to amend should have been granted | Plaintiffs requested leave but did not propose new facts | City argued no amendment could cure the legal deficiency | Held: Denial of leave to amend not an abuse of discretion; plaintiffs failed to identify curative facts |
Key Cases Cited
- Regency Outdoor Advertising, Inc. v. City of Los Angeles, 39 Cal.4th 507 (Supreme Court of Cal.) (reduced visibility from trees on public land is not a compensable taking absent physical taking or substantially impaired access)
- San Diego Gas & Electric Co. v. Superior Court (Covalt), 13 Cal.4th 893 (Supreme Court of Cal.) (diminution in property value does not by itself establish a taking; intangible intrusions require burdens that are direct, substantial, and peculiar)
- Oliver v. AT&T Wireless Services, 76 Cal.App.4th 521 (Court of Appeal) (visual impairment from lawful neighboring structure does not support inverse condemnation absent physical damage or equivalent intrusion)
- Varjabedian v. City of Madera, 20 Cal.3d 285 (Supreme Court of Cal.) (intangible intrusions such as offensive odors can constitute a taking where they directly and substantially burden property)
- Posey v. Leavitt, 229 Cal.App.3d 1236 (Court of Appeal) (landowner has no natural right to unobstructed view over adjoining land)
- Pierpont Inn, Inc. v. State of California, 70 Cal.2d 282 (Supreme Court of Cal.) (loss of view may factor into compensation where there is a physical taking)
- Goycoolea v. City of Los Angeles, 207 Cal.App.2d 729 (Court of Appeal) (substantial impairment of access and light/air from road project can support compensation; visibility claims tied to access impairment)
- Jordan v. City of Santa Barbara, 46 Cal.App.4th 1245 (Court of Appeal) (risk of future flooding is not an act constituting a taking; speculative future risks insufficient)
- Harding v. State of California, 159 Cal.App.3d 359 (Court of Appeal) (offensive noise, dust, and debris from public works can constitute compensable harm when they cause direct physical effects)
- Aaron v. City of Los Angeles, 40 Cal.App.3d 471 (Court of Appeal) (substantial aircraft noise interfering with residential use can support compensation)