Ralston v. County of San Mateo, 3:21-cv-01880

Plaintiffs Randy Ralston and Linda Mendiola own a 5,000 sq. ft. undeveloped parcel in San Mateo County and seek to build a single-family home.
The parcel is mapped within the County’s Montecito Riparian Corridor and subject to the County’s Local Coastal Program (LCP) restrictions that generally limit development in riparian areas.
Plaintiffs did not file a coastal development permit (CDP) application; they sought informal review and a “buildability letter” from the County’s Planning Director, who gave preliminary statements indicating the County would not allow a home.
Plaintiffs allege those statements and the County’s refusals amount to a regulatory taking under the Fifth Amendment and sued the County and the California Coastal Commission under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
The County moved to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction and failure to state a claim; the court held Plaintiffs’ takings claim is unripe for lack of a final decision and dismissed the complaint without leave to amend.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Ripeness / final-decision requirement for regulatory takings	Ralston contends County’s preliminary refusals and denial of a buildability letter amount to a final decision and an actual taking, so federal suit is ripe.	County argues no final decision was made; Planning Director’s informal statements are not binding and Plaintiffs did not submit a CDP application, so claim is unripe.	Court: Claim unripe—no de facto finality; dismissal granted.
Authority of Planning Director to bind County	Ralston treats the Planning Director’s statements as the County’s final position.	County points to zoning regs showing multiple bodies (Zoning Hearing Officer, Planning Commission, Board of Supervisors) may be the final decisionmakers; authority unclear absent an application.	Court: Planning Director lacked clear authority to issue a final decision here; his statements are preliminary.
Failure to apply for CDP / need for concrete proposal	Ralston argues administrative procedures would be futile and there is no remedy, so suit may proceed now.	County contends a CDP application (with surveys, studies, plans) is required to let the County apply the LCP, consider mitigation, and reach a final, reviewable decision.	Court: Plaintiffs must apply for a CDP; without an application the record is speculative and claim is unripe.

Williamson Cnty. Reg’l Planning Comm’n v. Hamilton Bank of Johnson City, 473 U.S. 172 (U.S. 1985) (establishes final-decision rule for regulatory takings)
Knick v. Township of Scott, 139 S. Ct. 2162 (U.S. 2019) (overrules state-litigation requirement but preserves final-decision requirement)
Pakdel v. City & County of San Francisco, 141 S. Ct. 2226 (U.S. 2021) (clarifies modest de facto finality needed and distinguishes cases where government has taken a definitive position)
Suitum v. Tahoe Regional Planning Agency, 520 U.S. 725 (U.S. 1997) (ripeness where agency made a final determination denying development)
Palazzolo v. Rhode Island, 533 U.S. 606 (U.S. 2001) (ripeness where agency’s rulings left no question about permissible use)
Hodel v. Virginia Surface Mining & Reclamation Ass’n, Inc., 452 U.S. 264 (U.S. 1981) (takings claim unripe absent application for variance)
MacDonald, Sommer & Frates v. Yolo County, 477 U.S. 340 (U.S. 1986) (effect of regulation cannot be measured until a final agency decision is made)
Colwell v. Dep’t of Health & Human Servs., 558 F.3d 1112 (9th Cir. 2009) (standing and ripeness related; ripeness addresses timing of adjudication)