Photo of Bryan W. Wenter, AICP

 

Bryan W. Wenter, AICP, is a shareholder in Miller Starr Regalia’s Walnut Creek office and a member of the firm’s Land Use Practice Group. For nearly 20 years, his practice has centered on land use and local government law, with a focus on obtaining and defending land use entitlements for a wide range of complex development projects including, in-fill, mixed-use, residential, retail/commercial, and industrial. His areas of expertise include general plans and specific plans, planned development zoning, vested rights, subdivision maps, development impact fees and exactions, conditional use permits, variances, initiatives and referenda, RLUIPA, CEQA, Ralph M. Brown Act, and Public Records Act. He previously served as City Attorney and Assistant City Attorney for the City of Walnut Creek.

On November 13, 2020, the U.S. Supreme Court issued an order granting certiorari in Cedar Point Nursery v. Hassid.  The question presented in the successful cert petition is “whether the uncompensated appropriation of an easement that is limited in time effects a per se physical taking under the Fifth Amendment.”

Continue Reading Supreme Court Decides to Hear Important Property Rights Case Addressing Whether Time-Limited Easements Are a Physical Taking Under Per Se Rules

On November 5, 2020, in AMCAL Chico LLC v. Chico Unified School District, __ Cal.App.5th __ (2020) (Case No. C087700), a case involving the Chico Unified School District’s imposition of school impact fees on a dormitory complex to house unmarried Chico State University students, the Third District Court of Appeal affirmed a trial court decision rejecting a developer’s suit seeking a refund of the fees.

Continue Reading School District Not Required to Evaluate Impact of Private University Housing Project Before Imposing Impact Fees

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, which has federal appellate jurisdiction over a major portion of the western U.S., has something of a reputation as the most overturned federal appeals court circuit.  While the truth of that is a mixed bag, an October 13, 2020 order in an important property rights case looks to be a worthy candidate for both a petition for writ of certiorari, a grant of cert by the U.S. Supreme Court, and maybe more.

Continue Reading Ninth Circuit to Supreme Court: Pound Sand

Judge Amy Coney Barrett was nominated, for a reason, to replace the late Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg as an Associate U.S. Supreme Court Justice.  As other commenters have noted, a Justice Barrett is expected to move the Court to the right on a wide range of issues, including health care, gun control, and abortion.  But what is far less clear at this point is how a Justice Barrett would influence or alter the Court’s property rights jurisprudence.

Continue Reading What Might Supreme Court Nominee Amy Coney Barrett Mean to Property Rights?

The Third District Court of Appeal published an important new case on September 16, 2020—Parkford Owners for a Better Community v. County of Placer, __ Cal.App.5th __ (2020) (Case No. C087824)—holding that a project opponent’s challenge to the expansion of a development project was moot given that construction was nearly complete.  The case distinguishes other leading cases addressing “mootness” in the land use and CEQA context and provides important insights for those involved in the development process.

Continue Reading Completion of Development Project Rendered Opponent’s Challenge to County’s Issuance of a Building Permit Moot

On August 17, 2020, in Martis Camp Community Association v. County of Placer, __ Cal.App.5th __ (2020) (Case Nos. C087759 and C087778), the Third District Court of Appeal addressed several novel legal claims arising from the County of Placer’s partial abandonment of public easement rights in a road connecting two adjacent residential subdivisions near Lake Tahoe.

Continue Reading Court Holds That County’s Abandonment of Public Road Easement Rights Did Not Violate Brown Act, Was Supported by Substantial Evidence, and Did Not Create Takings Liability

On August 5, 2020, in Granny Purps, Inc. v. County of Santa Cruz, __ Cal.App.5th __ (2020) (Case No. H045387), the Sixth District Court of Appeal addressed several novel property rights issues related to a law enforcement action in the County of Santa Cruz in which officers seized more than 2,000 marijuana plants from a medical marijuana dispensary for violating a local ordinance restricting marijuana cultivation to no more than 99 plants.

Continue Reading Court Holds That Dispensary’s Violation of County Marijuana Cultivation Ordinance Does Not Justify Seizure of Plants But Rejects Related Takings Claim

California’s statues of limitations in land use cases are notoriously short and harsh and don’t often result in outcomes favorable to aggrieved applicants.  Exceptions such as Honchariw v. County of Stanislaus, __ Cal.App.5th __ (2020) (Case No. F077815) (i.e., Honchariw IV), are thus notable and worth remembering.

Continue Reading Court Holds That Subdivider’s Challenge to County’s Interpretation of Vesting Tentative Map Conditions of Approval May be Filed Beyond 90-Day Statute of Limitations Period

Every once in a while a case comes along that calls to mind the adage that “just because you can think it doesn’t mean you should say it.”  The Second District Court of Appeal’s July 30, 2020 eminent domain decision in Rutgard v. City of Los Angeles, __ Cal.App.5th __ (2020) (Case No. B297655) is one of those cases.

Continue Reading Court Rules in Favor of Landowner in Eminent Domain Case Where City Did Not Use Condemned Property for its Intended Public Use Within 10 Years

In a new case published on June 8, 2020, North Murrieta Community, LLC v. City of Murrieta, __ Cal.App.5th __ (2020) (Case No. E072663), the Fourth District Court of Appeal addressed novel vested rights issues arising under both the Subdivision Map Act (Gov. Code § 66410 et seq.) and the density bonus law (Gov. Code § 65864 et seq.).  Both statutes essentially establish that when a local agency approves a vesting tentative map or enters a development agreement the developer is entitled to proceed on the project under the local laws in effect the time of the approval.

Continue Reading Development Agreement Allowed City to Impose New Fees on Housing Project Despite Previously Approved Vesting Tentative Map