Tiburon Open Space Comm. v. Cnty. of Marin
Decision Date | 12 May 2022 |
Docket Number | A159860 |
Citation | 294 Cal.Rptr.3d 56,78 Cal. App. 5th 700 |
Parties | TIBURON OPEN SPACE COMMITTEE et al., Plaintiffs and Appellants, v. COUNTY OF MARIN, Defendant and Respondent; The Martha Company, Real Party in Interest and Respondent; Town of Tiburon, Intervener and Appellant. |
Court | California Court of Appeals |
Jeffer Mangels Butler & Mitchell LLP, Matthew D. Hinks ; Mintz Levin Cohn Ferris Glovsky and Popeo P.C., Jonathan Welner, for Plaintiffs and Appellants, Tiburon Open Space Committee.
Brian E. Washington, County Counsel, Brian C. Case, Deputy, Brandon W. Halter, Deputy, for Defendants and Respondents, County of Marin.
Burke, Williams & Sorensen, LLP, Benjamin L. Stock, Kevin D. Siegel, for Appellant, Town of Tiburon.
Cox, Castle & Nicholson LLP, Michael H. Zischke, Andrew B. Sabey, James M. Purvis, for Real Party in Interest, The Martha Company.
The Martha Company (Martha) owns the largest undeveloped parcel of real property in the vicinity of the Town of Tiburon, 110 acres on top of a mountain, overlooking much of the town and commanding a stunning view of San Francisco Bay. One county supervisor described the site as "the last remaining undeveloped ridgeline on the Tiburon peninsula," and, as such, "it's treasured by residents and visitors." Another supervisor called it "amazing," "unique," and "an absolute treasure," while a third termed it a "jewel."
For decades, Martha has tried to get official approval from the County of Marin to develop the property. Local opposition has been intense and unrelenting.
One manifestation of that opposition has been periodic bouts of litigation in federal district court, starting in 1975, between Martha and the County. The litigation produced two stipulated judgments, one in 1976, the other in 2007. The most significant aspect was that the County twice solemnly—and publicly—agreed to approve Martha building no fewer than 43 units on the property.
Approval for Martha finally came in October 2017—12 years after its latest application for permission to develop the property—when the County certified an environmental impact report and conditionally approved Martha's master plan to construct 43 single-family residences. The County took this action in the belief it was compelled by the stipulated judgments, particularly the 2007 one.
It is axiomatic that governmental powers are indefeasible and inalienable. They cannot be surrendered, suspended, contracted away, waived, or otherwise divested. In short, government cannot bind itself not to govern by exercising its rightful powers, nor can it bind the hands of its successors.
The primary issue here, advanced by the Town and a number of interested Tiburon residents, is whether the County violated this principle by complying with an ostensibly final judgment. The allegation is that the County in effect agreed it would not follow or enforce state law, specifically, the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), to prevent development of an anticipated project by the other party to the litigation.
We conclude that the County did not abdicate its authority or otherwise undertake not to comply with CEQA. With its eyes wide open, the County complied with a binding, final judgment to which it was a party, and that judgment in no way anticipated or legitimated ignoring CEQA.
We reject the remaining objections from the Town and interested persons, and affirm the judgment in full.
Martha is the owner of 110 acres of real property that is, for all practical purposes, undeveloped. Although the site is located in an unincorporated area of the County of Marin, it overlooks much of the Town of Tiburon. It also commands a sweeping panoramic view of almost all of the San Francisco Bay.
Developing the site with single-family residences has been Martha's goal for decades. That prospect has generated intense opposition, especially from the Town and residents of Tiburon. But also from the County, which was twice in federal district court opposing Martha's plans to develop the site. That litigation concluded with two judgments entered pursuant to stipulated settlements. Those judgments are at the heart of this dispute.
The current chapter of the dispute begins in 1974, when the County adopted a re-zoning measure that reduced the number of residences Martha could build on the site from a minimum of 300 units to a maximum of 34.2 The re-zoning would also preclude Martha from building on an area known as the Ridge and the Upland Greenbelt. In response, Martha sued the County in federal district court, seeking $6 million on the theory that the re-zoning effected a regulatory taking of property.
At this point, because of its centrality, the express language of the 1976 Judgment must be quoted, the most important of which was the following: [¶] ... 3
The County responded by returning to federal district court in 2005, asking that it "be relieved from operation of the Judgment." Martha and the Town were named as defendants, as were a number of the property owners—presumably because they had threatened to sue the County it if moved to enforce the 1976 judgment. The County alleged that the 1976 Judgment was
The County's position was echoed by the property owners, who "filed counterclaims against the County, Martha and the Town ... asserting [that] by entering into the 1976 Judgment the County violated the property owners' federal due process rights; the 1976 Judgment violated their state and local notice and hearing rights without providing them notice and an opportunity to be heard; and the County illegally contracted away its police powers over its statutory land use authority when it entered into the judgment."
After the district court dismissed the County's complaint and the property owners' counterclaims,4 the County and Martha again drafted and submitted a Stipulation for Entry of Judgment and Procedures for Enforcing Judgment Entered in the first action.5 The stipulation itself is not in the record. Because of its importance, the judgment—dated November 7, 2007, and hereafter cited as to 2007 Judgment—must be described in some detail. It opens with the following:
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Jenkins v. Brandt-Hawley
... ... we require ... "; "I believe there is more space than what the houses along Woodland have from ... Town of San Anselmo (Super. Ct. Marin County, 2018, No. 2826), including 986 pages from ... ) In short, malice " may range anywhere from open hostility to indifference "; it is not limited to ... a 107-page opinion in a CEQA case, Tiburon Open Space Committee v. County of Marin (2022) ... ...
-
Save Our Capitol! v. Dep't of Gen. Servs.
... ... up to approximately 525,000 square feet of space, the visitor center would contain 40,000 square ... the center's approach and entrance to two, open-air ramps beginning at 10th Street. The opposing ... 3d 174 ( South of Market ); accord Tiburon Open Space Committee v. County of Marin (2022) ... ...
-
Save Our Capitol! v. Dep't of Gen. Servs.
... ... up to approximately 525,000 square feet of space, the visitor center would contain 40,000 square ... the center's approach and entrance to two, open-air ramps beginning at 10th Street. The opposing ... 3d 174 ( South of Market ); accord Tiburon Open Space Committee v. County of Marin (2022) ... ...
- People v. Nance
-
Missing the Forest For the Trees: First District Reverses Trial Court, Upholds Project Description And Impact Analysis In Regents’ EIR For Vegetation Removal Projects To Reduce Wildfire Risk At UC Berkeley Hills Campus
...and (4) a statement briefly describing the EIR’s intended uses. (Citing Tiburon Open Space Committee v. County of Marin (2022) 78 Cal.App.5th 700, 724, fn. 16, 738, and CEQA Guidelines, § 15124(a)-(d).) An “accurate, stable, and finite project description” “is the sine qua non of an informa......
-
Approval Upheld for Lafayette Affordable Housing Project Delayed for a Decade
...of attrition with ever-changing targets for project opponents to aim for.” (Tiburon Open Space Committee v. County of Marin (2022) 78 Cal.App.5th 700, 781, quoting Center for Biological Diversity v. Department of Fish & Wildlife (2015) 62 Cal.4th 204, 245 (dis. opn. of Chin, J.).) The battl......
-
Top Ten Real Property Cases of 2022
...Point Nursery v. Hassid (2021) ___U.S.___, 141 S. Ct. 2063, 2072).109. Tiburon Open Space Committee v. County of Marin (1st Dist. 2022) 78 Cal.App.5th 700.110. Tiburon Open Space Committee v. County of Marin, supra, 78 Cal.App.5th at p. 723.111. Tiburon Open Space Committee v. County of Mar......