Broad Beach Geologic Hazard Abatement Dist. v. 31506 Vict. Point LLC
| Decision Date | 02 August 2022 |
| Docket Number | B304699, B309296 |
| Citation | 81 Cal.App.5th 1068,297 Cal.Rptr.3d 741 |
| Parties | BROAD BEACH GEOLOGIC HAZARD ABATEMENT DISTRICT, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. 31506 VICTORIA POINT LLC et al., Defendants and Respondents. Broad Beach Geologic Hazard Abatement District, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. 31506 Victoria Point LLC et al., Defendants and Appellants. |
| Court | California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
Colantuono, Highsmith & Whatley, Michael G. Colantuono, Ryan Thomas Dunn and Liliane M. Wyckoff, Pasadena; Elkins Kalt Weintraub Reuben Gartside, Kenneth A. Ehrlich and John M. Bowman, Los Angeles, for Plaintiff and Appellant and Plaintiff and Respondent Broad Beach Geologic Hazard Abatement District.
Burke, Williams & Sorensen, Kevin D. Siegel, San Francisco and Megan A. Burke, Oakland, for League of California Cities, California State Association of Counties, California Special Districts Association, and California Association of GHADs as Amici Curiae on behalf of Plaintiff and Appellant.
Tantalo & Adler and Michael S. Adler, Los Angeles, for Defendants and Respondents and Defendants and Appellants 31506 Victoria Point LLC, E. Jane Arnault, the Hopkins Family Trust, the WWV Trust and JLA Seawall, LLC.
Greenspoon Marder and Matthew D. Kanin, Los Angeles, for Defendant and Respondent and Defendant and Appellant Gayle Pritchett Macleod, Trustee of the Pritchett Family Trust.
Alston & Bird, Nicki Carlsen, Andrea Warren and Julia Consoli-Tiensvold, Los Angeles, for Defendants and Respondents Christopher Cortazzo Trust, Zbonfire, LLC, CI Properties, LLC and Three Chips Realty Investments, LLC.
The City of Malibu formed appellant, the Broad Beach Geologic Hazard Abatement District (the District), to protect the homes on the city's Broad Beach, threatened by longstanding shoreline erosion. The District developed a plan to import sand and maintain a revetment on portions of the beach, in order to fortify the shoreline. To fund this project, it proposed a special assessment on parcels within its boundaries, and homeowners approved the assessment.1 Litigation ensued, in which the District filed an action seeking to validate the assessment, and the homeowners opposing the assessment claimed it violated the requirements of Proposition 218 (), which added article XIII D to the California Constitution, limiting local government's ability to impose assessments.2
Before the trial court, the challengers claimed the District violated Prop. 218 by, inter alia: (1) failing to consider and exclude from the assessment general benefits from the project, in the form of recreational benefits from the expected wide sandy public beach; (2) failing to consider special benefits from the revetment, which protected only some of the homes on the beach; (3) failing to assess two county-owned parcels that were subject to assessment; and (4) assigning unsupported special benefits to properties on the west end of the beach, which would not receive direct sand placement under the project. The trial court ultimately agreed with the challengers on these issues and invalidated the District's assessment.
After the court's ruling on the merits, the challengers sought attorney fees under Code of Civil Procedure section 1021.5 ( Section 1021.5 ), which codified the private attorney general doctrine of attorney fees. The trial court denied their motions, concluding that each of the challengers had a sufficient financial incentive to bring the litigation without the expectation of a fee award, rendering an award inappropriate. In these consolidated appeals, the District challenges the trial court's invalidation of its assessment, while two appealing assessment challengers (the West End Parties and Pritchett) contest the court's denial of attorney fees.
In its appeal, the District contests all the trial court's grounds for invalidating its assessment. It contends, inter alia, that it was not required to account for general benefits from the widened beach because these recreational benefits did not impose additional costs, were not part of the project's purpose, and were required by state agencies which compelled the District to maintain public access to the beach.3
As discussed below, we hold that Prop. 218 required the District to separate and quantify general benefits from the widened beach, regardless of whether those benefits imposed additional costs and without regard to the District's subjective intent in designing the project. That state agencies precluded the District from hindering public access to the improved beach neither removed its general benefits nor exempted them from consideration. We further agree with the trial court that the District was required to consider special benefits from the revetment to relevant homes, and to assess the county-owned parcels.4 Accordingly, we affirm the court's judgment invalidating the assessment.
In their appeal of the order denying their motions for attorney fees, the challengers claim the court erred, inter alia, in determining they had a meaningful financial interest in the litigation, in calculating the amount of any such interest, and in failing to recognize special circumstances that warranted an award of fees despite such interest. We discern no error in the court's determination and weighing of the challengers’ financial interest in the litigation, and conclude the court was not compelled to award fees to homeowners who were sufficiently incentivized and well able to fund the litigation. We therefore affirm the court's order denying attorney fees as well.
Broad Beach is a roughly one-mile-long public beach in the City of Malibu. Along the beach are 121 private parcels, most of which contain homes, as well as two county-owned parcels containing public-access stairs. Historically a wide beach, Broad Beach has been consistently narrowing since the early 1970s, with its shoreline retreating about 65 feet between 1974 and 2009. It now consists of a narrow strip of sand, and little to no dry beach is present at high tide levels. Continuing erosion threatens the homes along the beach, and several homes were lost or damaged during storm events over the years. In 2010, a voluntary association of Broad Beach residents (the Trancas Property Owners’ Association) constructed a temporary rock revetment to protect 78 of the homes at the central and eastern parts of the beach. The temporary revetment was constructed partly on state land, apparently without sufficient authorization.
In June 2011, seeking a long-term solution to the erosion of the beach and the threat to Broad Beach homes, the Trancas Property Owners’ Association petitioned the city to form a geologic hazard abatement district under Public Resources Code section 26500 et seq. The city obliged by forming the District, which encompasses all of Broad Beach.5
After its formation, the District adopted a plan to provide "sand nourishment" for the beach, proposing to import hundreds of thousands of cubic yards of sand to restore the width of the beach and provide a protective barrier for the District's parcels. The District also sought to obtain a permit for the permanent retention of the temporary revetment.
Following extensive negotiations with the California Coastal Commission (the Commission) to obtain required permitting for the project, the Commission provided a conditional permit for an initial 10-year period, imposing many limitations and requirements on the District. Among other things, the Coastal Commission prohibited the District from placing sand at the west end of the beach, due to environmental concerns. While allowing the District to retain the revetment, the Commission required it to ensure the relocation of its eastern portion landward, onto homeowners’ lands. Affected landowners agreed to bear the costs of the revetment's relocation and to contribute lands for its new placement. Like the temporary revetment, the planned permanent revetment would not protect all of the homes on the beach.
To mitigate environmental impact from the project's features, including the revetment, the Coastal Commission required the District to create and maintain a system of sand dunes to serve as habitat areas for certain plant and animal life. The Commission also imposed various conditions intended to ensure convenient public access to the beach.6 Relatedly, the California State Lands Commission agreed to forgo rent for the revetment's encroachment onto state land, conditioned on the maintenance of at least 10 feet of dry sand seaward of the revetment, to allow unrestricted public access. However, the State Lands Commission required the District to pay $500,000 for the temporary revetment's prior, unauthorized use of state lands.
Shortly after its formation, the District proposed an annual assessment on parcels within its boundaries to fund its project on Broad Beach, and the assessment was approved by the property owners. It proposed an adjusted assessment in 2015, after learning that the Coastal Commission would not allow it to deposit sand at the west end of the beach, and this assessment was also approved by the property owners.
In late 2017, after learning of additional regulatory requirements and receiving updated cost estimates, the District proposed another adjusted assessment, which is the subject of this appeal. In support of its proposed assessment, the District produced an engineer's report describing the project and discussing special and general benefits to be generated by it.7
The District divided assessed parcels into three assessment tiers (100 percent, 75 percent, and 25 percent of base rate), based on the expected added beach...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Coal. of Cnty. Unions v. L. A. Cnty. Bd. of Supervisors
... ... at some point causes the Napa County General Plan to become ... Within the broad parameters ... imposed by Measure J, ... subd. (a); see also Broad Beach Geologic Hazard Abatement ... Dist. v ... ...
- Friend of Camden, Inc. v. Brandt
-
Hill RHF Hous. Partners, L.P. v. City of L. A.
...beyond that, the report lacked an analysis of even how or to what extent the benefits would extend to the assessed properties. (Ibid.) In Broad Beach, the court addressed a district that created to abate shoreline erosion on a mile-long stretch of beach that included 121 parcels by importin......
-
Hill RHF Hous. Partners v. City of Los Angeles
...beyond that, the report lacked an analysis of even how or to what extent the benefits would extend to the assessed properties. (Ibid.) In Broad Beach, the court addressed a district that created to abate shoreline erosion on a mile-long stretch of beach that included 121 parcels by importin......