Correspondence - Item 20 (3) - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Jennifer L. Hall June 17, 2025 Page 11 App. 4th 229, 261;Dryden Oaks, LLC v. San Diego County Regional Airport Authority(2017) 16 Cal. App. 5th 383. 395.) (a) Exhaustion of Administrative Remedies is Not Necessary to Pursue a Takings Claim When investment-backed expectations are burdened, and a plaintiff considers an inverse condemnation or taking causes of action, exhaustion of remedies is not necessary before pursuing the inverse condemnation claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. In 2019, the Supreme Court held that when the government violates the Takings Clause, "a property owner may bring a Fifth Amendment claim under §1983 at that time." (Knick v. Twp. of Scott (2019) 139 S. Ct. 2162, 2177.) In fact, a plaintiff can bring any constitutional claim, "without first bringing any sort of state lawsuit, even when state court actions addressing the underlying behavior are available."(Id. at 2172-73). This rule was reinforced last term by the Supreme Court in Pakdel v. City & Cty. of San Francisco, in which the Court held that the "exhaustion of state remedies is not a prerequisite to an action under 42 U.S.C. §1983." (Pakdel v. City & Cty. of San Francisco (2021) 141 S. Ct. 2226, 2228.) 4. If the City,Adopts the Proposed Ordinance, Such Action Would be Arbitrary and Capricious, and Sub'ect to both Facial and As-Agplied Challenges . If the City moves forward with the adoption of the Proposed Ordinance, such action would be arbitrary and capricious and subject to legal challenge. First, as explained above, the Proposed Ordinance suffers numerous constitutional infirmities, and purports to violate industrial property owners' vested rights without requisite due process through the SD 84 area. Second, if adopted the Proposed Ordinance would constitute impermissible "spot zoning," as it purports to place specific and very restrictive nonconforming use provisions on the SD 84 reason for no reason. For example, there is no justification for treating a "noxious" use (as defined by the Proposed Ordinance) differently in SD 84 versus other areas of the City. If a use is noxious and subject to abatement within the SD 84 area, it should be noxious and subject to abatement in other areas. Sincerely, #egislative Director Madison Materials Inc.