Justia Government & Administrative Law Opinion Summaries

A city in California owned a downtown parking garage known as Garage 5, which was in poor condition and underutilized according to studies conducted in 2019 and 2022. The city had previously adopted a housing plan to identify public land suitable for housing development. In public meetings and study sessions throughout 2021 and 2022, city staff and consultants presented data showing declining demand for public parking and the high cost of necessary repairs to Garage 5. After further study and public comment, the city’s council passed a resolution in December 2022 declaring Garage 5 to be surplus land under the Surplus Land Act, provided that any future development retain at least 75 public parking spaces.The owner of nearby properties, Airport Business Center, filed a petition for writ of mandate and complaint for declaratory relief in Sonoma County Superior Court. The petitioner argued the city had violated the Surplus Land Act by declaring the garage surplus while there was still an ongoing need for public parking and contended that the city’s findings were not supported by the evidence. The Superior Court denied the petition, finding the city’s actions were not arbitrary or capricious, and that there was substantial evidentiary support for the resolution. A temporary stay was granted pending appeal, but the Court of Appeal denied a request for further stay.The California Court of Appeal, First Appellate District, Division Three, reviewed the case. It held that the Surplus Land Act’s requirement that property be “not necessary for the agency’s use” allows a city to designate property as surplus if it is not indispensable for agency operations, even if the property serves a public purpose like parking. The evidence supported the city’s determination, and the findings in the resolution satisfied statutory requirements. The appellate court affirmed the judgment, awarding costs to the city. View "Airport Business Center v. City of Santa Rosa" on Justia Law

A property owner in Los Angeles obtained a density bonus from the city in 2005, allowing him to build one additional housing unit beyond what zoning would otherwise permit, in exchange for agreeing to rent one of the units to low-income households for at least 30 years. This agreement was formalized and recorded against the property in 2006. The owner had previously taken out a mortgage, and the lender recorded its deed of trust against the property in 2005. After the owner defaulted, the lender foreclosed on the property in 2013. Several years later, new owners purchased the property, allegedly unaware of the recorded agreement requiring the low-income rental restriction.Following a notice from the City demanding compliance with the affordable housing agreement, the new owners filed suit in the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, seeking quiet title and declaratory relief. They argued that the affordable housing agreement, recorded after the original deed of trust, was a junior encumbrance extinguished by the foreclosure. The City countered that the agreement was a condition of a building permit and survived foreclosure. The trial court sustained the City’s demurrer without leave to amend, finding that the agreement was a covenant running with the land and survived foreclosure.On appeal, the California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, Division One, affirmed the trial court’s judgment. The appellate court held that the affordable housing agreement was equivalent to a “condition attached to a permit” under Government Code section 65009, subdivision (c)(1)(E), and thus survived foreclosure. Permit conditions that have not been timely challenged run with the land and remain enforceable against successor owners, even those who acquire the property through foreclosure. The court concluded that the plaintiffs failed to state a valid claim and were not entitled to amend their complaint. View "Rodriguez v. City of Los Angeles" on Justia Law

The plaintiffs, a microbrewery and its owner, operated a seasonal business in a tourist town and became known for engaging in political advocacy. The business applied for various permits to operate both an indoor retail outlet and, later, an outdoor beer garden. Despite being granted permits that included specific conditions—such as restrictions on outdoor operations—the plaintiffs repeatedly violated these conditions, operated without proper permits, and explicitly stated their intention to continue doing so regardless of regulatory decisions. Throughout this period, the owner was vocal in criticizing local officials on social media.After several rounds of permit applications, denials, suspensions, and revocations, the plaintiffs’ most recent permit application for an outdoor beer garden was denied by the county committee, which cited the plaintiffs’ ongoing and willful violations of permit conditions and their declared intent to continue such violations. The plaintiffs appealed administrative actions to the Oneida County Board of Adjustment, which upheld the revocations. Subsequently, the plaintiffs filed a lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin, asserting that the permit denials and revocations constituted retaliation for protected political speech, in violation of the First Amendment. They sought a preliminary injunction to reinstate their permit and prevent further alleged retaliation.The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit reviewed the district court’s denial of the preliminary injunction and affirmed it. The Seventh Circuit held that, while the plaintiffs engaged in protected speech and suffered adverse permit actions, they failed to demonstrate a likelihood of success on the merits of their First Amendment retaliation claim. The court concluded that the permit denials and revocations were based on the plaintiffs’ repeated and admitted violations of permit conditions, not on retaliatory motives, and that the plaintiffs offered no evidence of disparate treatment or pretext. View "Minocqua Brewing Company LLC v Hess" on Justia Law

A group of individuals who were instrumental in the campaign to incorporate the City of Erda sought to prevent approximately 8,000 acres from being annexed out of Erda and into Grantsville City. The controversy arose after an entity, Six Mile Ranch, initiated and amended an annexation petition to move land from Erda’s boundaries into Grantsville, during and after Erda’s incorporation process. The Grantsville City Recorder determined that the annexation petition met statutory requirements and certified it, which was followed by Grantsville approving the annexation by ordinance and entering a development agreement for the property. The sponsors challenged the annexation, alleging it violated both statutory requirements and constitutional provisions, and sought to invalidate the annexation ordinance and prevent the Lieutenant Governor from certifying it.In the Third District Court, Tooele County, the sponsors filed a petition for extraordinary relief under rule 65B of the Utah Rules of Civil Procedure. The district court dismissed the petition, concluding that the sponsors lacked statutory, traditional, and alternative standing to challenge the annexation, and denied related motions.On direct appeal, the Supreme Court of the State of Utah affirmed the dismissal but on alternative grounds. The court held that the sponsors, lacking statutory standing, had no other remedy for their statutory claims but failed to demonstrate that rule 65B(d)(2)(B) or the judiciary’s constitutional writ authority permitted relief where a public official had performed their statutory duty, albeit allegedly incorrectly. Regarding the constitutional claims, the court found that a plain, speedy, and adequate remedy was available through declaratory judgment actions, as clarified by recent appellate decisions. Therefore, the sponsors could not obtain extraordinary relief under rule 65B for either set of claims, and the dismissal was affirmed. View "Erda Community Association v. Baugh" on Justia Law

Elliott Land Developments LLC sought to rezone approximately 31.8 acres of property owned by Michael and Winona Aguzin in Jackson County, Mississippi, from agricultural (A-1) to single-family residential (R-1) in order to develop a subdivision. The Jackson County Planning Commission held a hearing, where both supporters and opponents presented evidence and arguments. Elliott Land relied on a Land Use Report showing recent development, improved infrastructure, and a purported public need for more housing. Several residents opposed the rezoning, citing concerns about drainage, traffic, and a desire to maintain the rural character of the area. The Planning Commission recommended approval of the rezoning.An adjacent property owner, Marisa Lamey, appealed the Planning Commission’s recommendation to the Jackson County Board of Supervisors. Elliott Land challenged the sufficiency and timeliness of Lamey’s notice of appeal, but the Board chose to hear the appeal. After a hearing with testimony from multiple residents, the Board of Supervisors voted four-to-one to deny the rezoning application, finding insufficient evidence of a change in the character of the neighborhood or a public need for rezoning. Elliott Land appealed to the Jackson County Circuit Court, arguing the Board’s decision was arbitrary and capricious and that the appeal was not properly before the Board. The circuit court affirmed the Board’s decision, finding it was supported by substantial evidence and not arbitrary or capricious.On further appeal, the Supreme Court of Mississippi held that the appeal was properly before the Board of Supervisors, that the question of whether Elliott Land met its burden was fairly debatable based on substantial evidence from both sides, and that the Board’s denial was not arbitrary or capricious. The Supreme Court of Mississippi affirmed the circuit court’s judgment. View "Elliott Land Developments, LLC v. Board of Supervisors of Jackson County, Mississippi" on Justia Law

Bedford Recycling, Inc. applied to the Monroe County Board of Zoning Appeals (BZA) for a conditional use permit to operate a scrap metal collection and sorting facility on property zoned for mineral extraction. The county’s zoning ordinance did not specifically allow scrap metal recycling, so Bedford sought approval under the category of “Central Garbage/Rubbish Collection Facility.” The BZA granted the permit after a public hearing in which Bedford acknowledged the facility would not handle solid waste, a typical requirement for the permit. Subsequently, Republic Services, a neighboring property owner, filed for judicial review, arguing that Bedford’s facility did not meet the ordinance’s requirements. While preparing written findings to support its decision, the BZA’s attorney concluded that granting the permit was a legal error, as Bedford’s proposed use did not fit the permit’s definition.After several meetings and changes in BZA membership, the Board voted to revoke Bedford’s permit, finding that the facility was essentially a scrap yard, which was not a permitted use in the zoning district. Bedford then sought judicial review in the Monroe Circuit Court, which found that the BZA lacked statutory authority to revoke the permit based on a change in reasoning or alleged legal error, and reinstated the permit. The Indiana Court of Appeals reversed, holding that the BZA could correct its own legal error and revoke the permit.The Indiana Supreme Court granted transfer, vacating the Court of Appeals’ decision. The Court held that administrative bodies like the BZA have only the powers expressly granted by statute and possess no inherent or common law authority to reconsider or revoke final decisions absent explicit legislative authorization. The Court disapproved prior appellate decisions that recognized an “error of law” exception. Accordingly, the Supreme Court affirmed the trial court’s order vacating the BZA’s revocation and reinstated Bedford’s conditional use permit. View "Monroe County Board of Zoning Appeals v. Bedford Recycling, Inc." on Justia Law

A resident of University Heights, Ohio, who practices Orthodox Judaism, sought to use his home for group prayer sessions due to religious obligations and restrictions on travel during the Sabbath. After inviting neighbors to participate in these gatherings, a neighbor complained to city officials, prompting the city’s law director to send a cease-and-desist letter, warning that using the home as a place of religious assembly violated local zoning laws. The resident then applied for a special use permit to operate a house of worship but withdrew his application before the city’s Planning Commission could reach a decision, stating he did not wish to operate a house of worship as defined by the ordinance. Despite withdrawing, he later filed a federal lawsuit against the city and several officials, alleging violations of federal and state law, including constitutional and statutory claims.The United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio granted summary judgment for the city and its officials. The court found that the plaintiff’s claims under the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA), the First and Fourteenth Amendments, and the Ohio Constitution were unripe because there was no final decision by the relevant local authorities regarding the application of the zoning ordinance to his property. The court also rejected his Fourth Amendment and Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act (FACE Act) claims on the merits and declined supplemental jurisdiction over a state public records claim.The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit affirmed. The court held that most of the plaintiff’s claims were unripe because he withdrew his application before any final decision was made by the city’s zoning authorities, and thus there was no concrete dispute for federal review. The court also held that his facial challenges to the ordinance were forfeited and, in any event, failed as a matter of law. The court further concluded that the Fourth Amendment and FACE Act claims failed on the merits and found no abuse of discretion in declining supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claim. View "Daniel Grand v. City of University Heights, Ohio" on Justia Law

The California Department of Water Resources (DWR) planned to conduct preconstruction geotechnical work, such as soil and groundwater testing, in the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta and Suisun Marsh as part of preparations for the Delta tunnel project, which aims to improve water conveyance and environmental protection. Various municipal, tribal, and public interest entities objected, arguing that DWR could not begin this work until it certified that the tunnel project was consistent with the Delta Plan, as required by the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta Reform Act of 2009. The disputed geotechnical work included soil borings, groundwater monitoring, test trenches, and other activities intended to inform the project’s design and mitigation measures.The Superior Court of Sacramento County reviewed several related actions brought by these entities. The plaintiffs sought and obtained preliminary injunctions preventing DWR from conducting the preconstruction geotechnical work until it submitted a certification of consistency with the Delta Plan. The trial court found that the geotechnical work was an integral part of the tunnel project, which was a “covered action” under the Delta Reform Act, and concluded that DWR was required to certify consistency before initiating any part of the project, including the geotechnical work.On appeal, the California Court of Appeal, Third Appellate District, reversed the trial court’s orders. The appellate court held that the Delta Reform Act does not require DWR to submit a certification of consistency before engaging in preconstruction geotechnical work, distinguishing the requirements of the Delta Reform Act from those of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The court found that the geotechnical work was not itself a “covered action” under the Delta Reform Act and that the Act does not incorporate CEQA’s prohibition against “piecemealing.” The case was remanded for the trial court to reconsider the motions for preliminary injunction in light of this holding. View "Tulare Lake Basin Water Storage Dist. v. Dept. of Water Resources" on Justia Law

A developer entered into an agreement with a city to develop a downtown district, which included provisions for three large signs identifying the area as "Reno's Neon Line District." The city council approved the agreement and adopted it by ordinance. A nonprofit organization dedicated to scenic preservation objected, arguing that the signs were actually billboards prohibited by city code and that the developers lacked the necessary interest to enter into the agreement.The Second Judicial District Court in Washoe County partially granted the nonprofit’s petition for a writ of mandamus. The court found that the nonprofit had standing to challenge the agreement. It ruled that one sign (the archway sign) was a permissible area identification sign, but determined that the other two signs (the gas station sign and the cemetery sign) were, respectively, an on-premises advertising display and a billboard, both in violation of city code. The court severed the provisions for these two signs from the agreement and issued a writ preventing their construction.On appeal, the Supreme Court of Nevada reviewed whether the nonprofit had standing and whether the district court properly reclassified the signs. The Supreme Court held that the city’s classification of the signs as area identification signs was entitled to a presumption of validity and that substantial evidence supported this classification. The court further held that the nonprofit lacked standing to seek writ relief because it did not have a direct and substantial beneficial interest in the agreement, as the signs were not billboards and thus not covered by a prior settlement agreement with the city. The court also found that the nonprofit had waived any argument for representational standing. The Supreme Court of Nevada vacated the district court’s order and remanded the case for further proceedings consistent with its opinion. View "RENO REAL ESTATE DEVEL., LLC VS. SCENIC NEVADA, INC." on Justia Law

A proposed residential development in downtown Livermore, California, was the subject of a dispute between a community group and the city. The city had entered into agreements with a developer, Eden Housing, to build affordable workforce housing and, as part of a 2022 resolution, authorized the construction and improvement of a new public park, Veterans Park. Move Eden Housing, a local group, sought to challenge this resolution through a referendum, arguing that the city’s approval of the park was a legislative act subject to voter review.The Alameda County Superior Court initially denied Move Eden’s petition for a writ of mandate, finding the city’s resolution to be administrative and not subject to referendum. On appeal, the California Court of Appeal, First Appellate District, Division Five, reversed, holding that the park approval was a legislative act and ordered the city to process the referendum petition. In response, the city repealed the 2022 resolution and enacted a new 2024 resolution that reaffirmed the development agreement but omitted the Veterans Park provisions.Move Eden then argued that the city’s adoption of the 2024 resolution violated California Elections Code section 9241, which prohibits reenactment of a repealed ordinance for one year. The trial court agreed and granted Move Eden’s motion to compel compliance with the writ of mandate.On further appeal, the California Court of Appeal, First Appellate District, Division Five, reversed the trial court’s order. The appellate court held that section 9241 did not prohibit the city from adopting the 2024 resolution because it involved only administrative acts implementing prior legislative determinations not challengeable by referendum. The court clarified that the referendum power and section 9241’s restrictions apply only to legislative acts, not administrative actions. The matter was remanded with instructions to deny Move Eden’s motion. View "Move Eden Housing v. City of Livermore" on Justia Law