Eminent domain value based on rezoning probability
A land owner was in the planning stages for restoring buildings and developing the property that would result in a higher use of the property. Before the owner could obtain the appropriate permits to rezone the property and proceed with the restoration and development, a government agency adopted a resolution of necessity to exercise its power of eminent domain to take the property. The agency deposited the amount of just compensation for the taking with the court setting the valuation date of the land at the time the resolution was adopted. The owner demanded greater compensation, claiming compensation for a taking must reflect the value of the property had it already been rezoned since just compensation is based on the highest and most profitable use of property, not merely the existing use on the date of valuation. The government agency claimed the owner was not entitled to just compensation based on future rezoning since at the time of the taking the property had not yet been rezoned to allow for its higher use. The California Supreme Court held the owner was entitled to compensation based on the rezoned use of the land, provided there was a reasonable probability of rezoning the land at the time the resolution was adopted, since just compensation must reflect the value of the property at its highest and most profitable use, whether that use is actual or reasonably probable.[Metropolitan Water District of Southern California v. Campus Crusade for Christ, Inc. (July 23, 2007) __CA4th___]
CEQA “common sense” exemption for airport land use plan
An airport land use commission adopted a plan restricting residential development in an area to the levels allowed in the county’s general plan without first performing environmental reviews under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). After the plan was adopted, the commission filed a notice of exemption from CEQA under the “common sense” exemption, which streamlines the CEQA review process for projects consistent with the general plan and zoning by limiting a CEQA review to the environmental effect peculiar to the plan. A neighbor petitioned to have the plan set aside, claiming the commission failed to perform a sufficiently detailed examination of the potential environmental impact of the land use plan on surrounding property before filing the common sense exemption. The commission claimed application of the common sense exemption did not require a detailed examination of the environmental impact since the land use plan was consistent with the existing general plan and zoning regulations. The California Supreme Court held the commission did not need to perform a detailed examination of the environmental impact of the land use plan prior to filing a common use exemption since the land use plan added nothing to the existing general plan and zoning regulations which had an effect on the area’s environment.[Muzzy Ranch Co. v. Solano County Airport Land Use Commission (June 21, 2007) __CA4th___]
