51 Cal.App.5th 982
Cal. Ct. App.2020Background
- Redondo Beach sought redevelopment of its King Harbor waterfront; City selected CenterCal/Redondo Beach Waterfront, LLC (Developer) and the parties worked together beginning in 2012–2013.
- Developer submitted a vesting tentative tract map; the City notified the Developer the map application was "deemed complete" on June 23, 2016 and later approved the map by City Council resolution in October 2016.
- Voters passed Measure C (King Harbor Coastal Access, Revitalization, and Enhancement Act) in March 2017, amending local coastal-zone ordinances; the City submitted Measure C to the Coastal Commission, which later certified it.
- Developer sued the City seeking declaratory and injunctive relief, principally asserting vested rights under Gov. Code § 66498.1(b) that predate Measure C and therefore preclude Measure C’s application to the Project; residents/intervenors (Residents) defended Measure C and argued the Coastal Act/Coastal Commission control prevents such vesting against state oversight.
- Trial court ruled the Developer’s vested rights vested when the map application was deemed complete (June 23, 2016) and thus Measure C could not be applied by the City to the Project; court also denied intervenors’ claims to costs and private-attorney-general fees. Appeals were consolidated; the Court of Appeal affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Developer) | Defendant's/Intervenors' Argument (City/Residents) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether approval/complete date of a vesting tentative map conferred statutory vested rights under Gov. Code § 66498.1(b) and whether those rights vested before Measure C | Map was "deemed complete" June 23, 2016; § 66498.1(b) vests rights as to local ordinances on completion/approval, so rights vested pre-Measure C | City acknowledged map completeness but argued Coastal Commission review could later apply Measure C; Residents contested vesting because permits/approvals not yet final | Held: Vesting occurred when the application was deemed complete; Developer obtained vested rights as to the City on June 23, 2016, before Measure C passed. |
| Whether the Coastal Act or Gov. Code § 66498.6 precludes application of § 66498.1(b) for developments in the coastal zone (i.e., Coastal Act preempts vesting) | § 66498.1(b) binds local agencies as to local ordinances; it does not exempt developer from state law or Coastal Commission jurisdiction | Residents: Coastal Act (and § 66498.6) supersedes or displaces local vesting, so a developer cannot claim § 66498.1(b) protection where Coastal Commission approval is required | Held: No preemption. § 66498.1(b) protects against subsequent changes in local ordinances by the local agency, but does not relieve developer of compliance with state law or Coastal Commission authority; the statutes coexist. |
| Ripeness: whether declaratory relief on vesting was ripe before Coastal Commission acted or before final permits issued | Developer: ripeness exists because City already took actions adverse to Project (e.g., invoking force majeure, terminating agreement) and statute of limitations required timely challenge | Residents/City: not ripe because Coastal Commission had not certified Measure C/application and administrative remedies unsettled | Held: Actual controversy existed (City took adverse actions); the vested-rights issue as to the City was ripe for adjudication. |
| Whether intervenors (Residents) were entitled to costs and attorney’s fees under CCP §§ 1032 and 1021.5 | Residents: they prevailed on two of the three principal issues adjudicated and defended Measure C, so they are a "successful/prevailing party" entitled to fees/costs | Developer: Developer achieved its litigation objective (prevent Measure C application to Project) and thus is the successful/prevailing party | Held: Court did not abuse discretion. Residents were not a "successful party" under § 1021.5 nor the "prevailing party" under § 1032; fees and costs awards to Residents were denied. |
Key Cases Cited
- Arnel Dev. Co. v. City of Costa Mesa, 126 Cal.App.3d 330 (Cal. Ct. App. 1981) (challenge under Arnel standard considered in evaluating arbitrary or discriminatory application of municipal measures)
- Pacific Palisades Bowl Mobile Estates, LLC v. City of Los Angeles, 55 Cal.4th 783 (Cal. 2012) (Coastal Act sets state policy and local permits embody state, not solely local, law)
- Charles A. Pratt Constr. Co. v. California Coastal Comm., 162 Cal.App.4th 1068 (Cal. Ct. App. 2008) (Coastal Commission’s authority to apply state law may limit local vesting only as to state/federal requirements; § 66498.6 preserves that distinction)
- Kaufman & Broad Cent. Valley, Inc. v. City of Modesto, 25 Cal.App.4th 1577 (Cal. Ct. App. 1994) (approval of a vesting tentative map entitles developer to proceed in substantial compliance with ordinances in effect when application was deemed complete)
- Graham v. DaimlerChrysler Corp., 34 Cal.4th 553 (Cal. 2004) (definition and assessment of a "successful party" for fee-shifting under Cal. law)
- Sweetwater Union High Sch. Dist. v. Julian Union Elementary Sch. Dist., 36 Cal.App.5th 970 (Cal. Ct. App. 2019) (partial success can support § 1021.5 fees when litigation produced a practical change benefiting the claimant)