Dryden Oaks v. San Diego County Regional Airport Authority
D069161
| Cal. Ct. App. | Oct 19, 2017Background
- Michael Durkin (through Dryden Oaks LLC and Durkin-CAC Lot 24, LLC) bought two lots adjacent to McClellan‑Palomar Airport and obtained City permits (with hold‑harmless/avigation easement conditions) to develop buildings on both lots; Lot 24 was developed and leased, Lot 25 permit later expired.
- The San Diego County Regional Airport Authority (Authority/ALUC) adopted a 2010 Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (ALUCP) that placed the properties in the most restrictive Safety Zone (Safety Zone 1, comparable to the RPZ) and recommended limiting compatible uses.
- The City of Carlsbad (the local land‑use authority) refused to reapprove the Lot 25 development after the ALUCP; Durkin sold Lot 25 in 2015 for a profit but claimed diminished expectations and rents for Lot 24.
- Durkin sued the Authority and the County for inverse condemnation and pre‑condemnation damages, alleging the ALUCP amounted to a taking (and that defendants intended acquisition), though he did not sue the City.
- Trial court granted summary judgment for Authority and County; court concluded ALUCP adoption was not a sufficiently final, binding land‑use decision by those entities to constitute a taking and there was no public announcement of intent to condemn.
- The Court of Appeal affirmed: ALUCP is advisory (local agency retains final land‑use authority), not a final determination for takings; Klopping precondemnation liability requires an announced intent to acquire, which was not shown.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether adoption of the ALUCP constituted a compensable regulatory taking | ALUCP reclassifying lots into Safety Zone 1 diminished value and was a "disguised" taking | ALUCP is advisory; final land‑use decisions rest with the City, so ALUCP adoption cannot be a taking by Authority/County | Court: No taking—ALUCP not a final land‑use determination by Authority/County; summary judgment affirmed |
| Whether Authority's ALUCP produced a per se taking (physical invasion or total loss of use) | ALUCP effectively deprived economically beneficial uses / functionally equivalent to appropriation | No physical invasion; plaintiff retained significant use/rents and sold Lot 25 at a profit; not a Lucas total deprivation | Court: No per se taking; claim analyzed under Penn Central and fails |
| Whether County is vicariously liable (agent/indirect beneficiary) for Authority's actions | County benefited or acted through Authority; thus liable for taking | Authority is separate entity; ALUCP not a taking so no vicarious liability; City, not County, makes final zoning decisions | Court: Moot/denied—no taking by Authority so no County liability; indirect‑benefit theory fails |
| Whether defendants engaged in unreasonable precondemnation conduct (Klopping claim) | Adoption of ALUCP and grant‑related documents evidenced an intent to acquire and depressed property values without condemnation | No public, unequivocal announcement of intent to acquire; planning documents/ALUCP are not firm declarations to condemn | Court: No triable issue—no clear public announcement of intent to condemn; Klopping claim fails |
Key Cases Cited
- Lingle v. Chevron U.S.A. Inc., 544 U.S. 528 (2005) (framework for regulatory takings; distinguishes per se takings and Penn Central multifactor test)
- Penn Central Transp. Co. v. New York City, 438 U.S. 104 (1978) (multifactor balancing test for regulatory takings)
- Lucas v. South Carolina Coastal Council, 505 U.S. 1003 (1992) (total regulatory takings doctrine where all economically beneficial use is lost)
- Selby Realty Co. v. City of San Buenaventura, 10 Cal.3d 110 (1973) (adoption of general plans does not, by itself, constitute inverse condemnation)
- Muzzy Ranch Co. v. Solano County Airport Land Use Com., 41 Cal.4th 372 (2007) (ALUCPs can be CEQA projects; CEQA finality differs from takings finality)
- Klopping v. City of Whittier, 8 Cal.3d 39 (1972) (precondemnation liability where public entity announces intent to condemn and unreasonably delays or abandons proceedings)
- Calprop Corp. v. City of San Diego, 77 Cal.App.4th 582 (2000) (takings claims require a final and authoritative determination of permitted development)
- Sneed v. Riverside County, 218 Cal.App.2d 205 (1963) (physical taking by regulation where low‑flying aircraft effectually appropriated airspace)
- Peacock v. County of Sacramento, 271 Cal.App.2d 845 (1969) (zoning/height limits that freeze meaningful development can effect a taking)