HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 05091995 - 1.48 . rl
TO: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS Contra
r'
Phil Batchelor, County Administrator j- Costa
FROM: _
aSca ?<
c. -
z��-:::_.: ._"..
May 4, 1995 County�` `r' cT;4°
DATE: srI'e UR,�
LEGISLATION: SB 466 (Leonard) - INCREASES THE COUNTY'S EXPOSURE TO
sueJFCT: INVERSE CONDEMNATION LAWSUITS
SPECIFIC REQUEST(S)OR RECOMMENDATION(S)$BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION
RECOMMENDATION:
ADOPT a position in OPPOSITION to SB 466 by Senator Leonard which
would increase the likelihood that the County would be sued for
inverse condemnation because of its actions .
BACKGROUND:
Existing law governing eminent domain authorizes an action in
inverse condemnation if a public entity adopts a resolution of
, necessity but has not . commenced an eminent domain proceeding to
acquire the property or has not attempted diligently to serve the
complaint and summons in such a proceeding within six months of the
resolution.
SB 466 would provide that if a public entity adopts or enacts a
statute, ordinance, resolution, or other measure, or institutes any
other official decision, action, policy, or practice which results
directly in the reduction of the market value of real property by
25% or more, the property owner may bring an action for inverse
condemnation. The bill would also provide that in such an action,
the property owner carries the burden of proving the extent of the
reduction in market value of the real property by the testimony of
at least three real estate appraisers .
The Public Works Director is concerned that any down zoning will
trigger inverse condemnation lawsuits which the County will have to
defend, even if there is little or no substance to the lawsuit. In
Addition, he is concerned that public agencies will be reluctant to
make sound planning decisions for fear -of being sued for devaluing
property.
CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT: YES SIGNATUREZ. ��Z,Zo
RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE
_XAPPROVE OTHER
SIGNATURE S
ACTION OF BOARD ON May 9, 19 9 5 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED�S OTHER
VOTE OF SUPERVISORS
I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A TRUE
UNANIMOUS(ABSENT ) AND CORRECT COPY OF AN ACTION TAKEN
AYES: NOES: AND ENTERED ON THE MINUTES OF THE BOARD
ABSENT: ABSTAIN: OF SUPERVISORS ON THE DATE SHOWN.
ATTESTED MAY 9 1995
Contact: County Administrator PHIL BATCHELOR,CLERK OF THE BOARD OF
CC: Public Works Director SUPERVISORS AND COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
Community Development Director
County Counsel t
Les Spahnn; Heim, Noack, Kelly & Apahnn DEPUTY
-2-
The Public Works Director recommends that the Board of Supervisors
oppose SB 466 and this office concurs with that recommendation.
The bill is set for hearing in the Senate Judiciary Committee on
May 9, 1995 .
t }
J :I
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY
Real Property Division
Date: March 30, 1995
TO: Phil Batchelor, County Administrator
FROM: J. Michael Walford, Public Works Directo
SUBJECT: SB 466 (INVERSE CONDEMNATION)
I think that all Counties and Cities (and probably Taxpayers) in the State of California
should rigorously oppose Senate Bill No. 466 (copy attached). There are two major
reasons why this bill (if it passes) will cause major problems for Counties, Cities and
Citizens of this State.
1. Any down zoning will trigger a raft of inverse condemnation lawsuits. There will be
a "feeding frenzy' in the legal community. Even if there is less than 25% decrease
in value it will be easy for attorneys to find unscrupulous appraisers to testify to 25-
50-75% decreases in market value. The Counties and Cities will have to defend all
of these suits. In cases which the agency loses, the agency will have to pay all legal
and appraisal costs of the property owner as well as their own in addition to the
amount of decline in market value.
2. Counties and Cities will be deterred from making good planning decisions for fear
of being sued for devaluation of properties. All of the citizens of a jurisdiction will
suffer from the lack of good planning decisions due to the constraints this law would
cause.
(Please also note that the State is exempt under this Act)
Property owners don't have to pay the Counties and Cities when their property value
doubles or triples because of a zoning change, why should the Taxpayers have to pay
them when their property value declines because of a zoning change? This bill just
doesn't make sense. It also flies in the face of the constitutional concept of "just
compensation." If this bill becomes law, CSAC and/or the League of Cities should
challenge its constitutionality, but it would be preferable to stop it before it gets that far.
JMW:PBG:glo
g:Vealprop\temp\Walford.t3
Attachments
cc: C.Van Marter, County Administrator's Office - CONTRA COSTA COIJNTY �
V.Alexeff, GMEDA Director
H. Bragdon, Community Development RECEIVED
P. Gavey, Real Property Division
County Counsel
CSAC Attn: DeAnn Baker APR - 41995
D.J. Smith
OFFICE OF
L—COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
i
i
i
i'
AMENDED IN SENATE MARCH 28, 1995
SENA'T'E BILL No. 466
i
Introduced by Senator Leonard
(Principal coauthor: Assembly Member Bordonaro)
-s- -s 14ti-P4 ezftd Russell)
{ giber
(Coauthors: Senators Haynes, Hurtt, Johannessen, Lewis,
and Russell)
(Coauthors: Assembly Members Alby, Boland, Conroy,
Granlund, House, Knight, Setendeb, and Weggeland)
ii
February 17, 1995
An act to add Section 1245.265 to the Code of Civil
Procedure, relating to inverse condemnation.
LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL'S DIGEST
SB 466, as amended, Leonard. Eminent domain: inverse
condemnation.
Existing law governing eminent domain authorizes an
action in inverse condemnation, as specified, if a public entity
adopts a resolution of necessity but has not commenced an
eminent domain proceeding to acquire the property or has
not attempted diligently to serve the complaint and summons
in such a proceeding, within 6 months of the resolution.
This bill would provide that if a public entity eta thftft a
state ageney adepts flit adopts or enacts a statute, ordinance,
resolution, or other measure, or institutes any other official
decision, action, policy, or practice, which results directly in
the reduction of the market value of real property other than
real property owned by a public entity by 25% or more, the
98
J
SB 466 — 2 —
property
2 —
property owner may bring an action for inverse
condemnation according to the same procedure specified
above. This bill would also provide that in such an action, the
property owner shall carry the burden of proving the extent
of the reduction in market value of the real property by the
testimony of at least 3 certified real estate appraisers.
Vote: majority. Appropriation: no. Fiscal committee: no.
a State-mandated,local program: no.
The people of the State of California do enact as follows:
I SECTION 1. Section 1245.265 is added to the Code of
2 Civil Procedure, to read:
3 12 5.265. (a) If a public entity etke� . -a she
4 agettey adepts ana adopts or enacts a statute, ordinance,
5 resolution, or other measure, or institutes any other
6 official decision, action, policy, or practice, which results
7 directly in the reduction of the market value of real
8 property other than real property owned by a public
9 entity by 25 percent or. more, the property owner may '.
10 bring an action in inverse condemnation according to the
11 same procedure specified in Section 1245.260.
12 (b) In such an action, the property owner shall carry
13 the burden of proving the extent of the reduction in
14 market value of the real property by the testimony of at
15 least three certified real estate appraisers.
O
98