Loading...
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