Douglas

I.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL

BACKGROUND

We begin by summarizing the facts. Under the applicable standard for reviewing a dismissal based on the sustaining of a demurrer, we accept as true all factual allegations of the operative complaint and facts that “may logically be inferred” from those allegations. (Branson v. Martin (1997) 56 Cal.App.4th 300, 302.)

1 The Douglases own property in Portola Valley. In July 2001, the Town of Portola Valley (Town) imposed a condition in a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) requiring them to connect to a sewer whenever one became “ ‘available in Portola Road in front of the subject property.’ ” The Town represented to the Douglases that the sewer condition would be triggered only if the Town “constructed and provided a sewer system for all of the residents of Portola Valley.” Sometime later, “a private sewer pipe [was] constructed pursuant to” an August 14, 2006 reimbursement agreement between West Bay and a group of developers, which “was entered into by way of an unnoticed resolution by the District Board of . . . West Bay” on or around the same day.1 This agreement allegedly “was designed and created to compel the Douglas[es] to be forced to fund…