Lockaway Storage v. County of Alameda
216 Cal. App. 4th 161
| Cal. Ct. App. | 2013Background
- Lockaway sought to develop an 8.45-acre Parcel under a 1999 CUP; Measure D was enacted Nov 2000, restricting development,”
- The 1999 CUP expired Sept 22, 2002; Lockaway pursued a new CUP after Measure D took effect.
- County staff advised Lockaway that Measure D blocked the project; the Board denied the new CUP Sept 2002.
- Lockaway obtained a writ of mandate directing the County to recognize the 1999 CUP and permit construction to proceed; permits issued Aug 2005.
- Trial court held Measure D exempted Lockaway under Section 22, awarding damages for a temporary taking and awarding fees; County appealed.
- Damages for inverse condemnation totaled $989,640.96; attorney fees awarded were $728,015.50.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Measure D barred Lockaway's project overall | Lockaway prevailed under Section 22 exemption | Measure D prohibited development unless approved by voters | Section 22 exemption applied; project not barred by Measure D |
| Whether writ of mandate is moot given project completion | Writ remains valid to vindicate rights | Project completed; relief moot | Writ appeal moot; focus on merits of taking claim remains |
| Whether County's conduct caused a regulatory taking under Penn Central | Regulation burden was substantial, element of investment-backed expectations | Delay was a normal regulatory process | Temporary regulatory taking; Penn Central factors support compensation |
| Whether Landgate governs takings analysis here over Penn Central | Landgate precedents apply due to agency delay | Lingle requires Penn Central framework | Penn Central framework controls; Landgate inapplicable to takings here |
| Whether attorney fees under CCP 1036 were properly awarded for related civil rights work | Civil rights work were related to inverse condemnation | Fee award must be limited to inverse condemnation work | Fees upheld as reasonably related to inverse condemnation work |
Key Cases Cited
- Lingle v. Chevron U.S.A. Inc., 544 U.S. 528 (U.S. Supreme Court 2005) (regulatory takings beyond per se categories analyzed under Penn Central)
- Penn Central Transp. Co. v. New York City, 438 U.S. 104 (U.S. Supreme Court 1978) (ad hoc framework balancing economic impact, investment-backed expectations, character of governmental action)
- Landgate v. California Coastal Comm., 17 Cal.4th 1006 (Cal. 1998) (delay as takings depends on substantial government purpose; Landgate caveat applies)
- Ali v. City of Los Angeles, 77 Cal.App.4th 246 (Cal.App. 4th 1999) (temporary taking for regulatory delay; proper if government action unreasonable)
- Sunol v. Mission Valley Rock Co., 124 Cal.App.4th 276 (Cal.App. 4th 2004) (Sunol interpreting Measure D’s Section 22; development exemptions)
- Shaw v. County of Santa Cruz, 170 Cal.App.4th 229 (Cal.App. 4th 2008) (reaffirming Penn Central framework and substantial evidence review)
- Kavanau v. Santa Monica Rent Control Bd., 16 Cal.4th 761 (Cal. 1997) (regulatory takings and investment-backed expectations)