Item B: Ordinance Concerning Goal 5 Natural Resources Study

Home Browse Search

Page 3 of 10 land, advanced legitimate governmental goals, would benefit the landowners as well as the public by assuring careful and orderly development, and neither prevented the best use of the land nor extinguished a fundamental attribute of ownership. West's Ann.CaI.Gov.Code, ~~ 65302(a, e), 65561 (a, b), 65563; U.S.C.A.Const. Amends. 5,14. [6] KeyCite Notes 414 Zoning and Planning 41411 Validity of Zoning Regulations 41411(A) In General 414k39 k. Effect on Property Value. Most Cited Cases In assessing fairness of zoning ordinance, benefits to the landowner must be considered along with any diminution in market value that landowner might suffer. [7] KeyCite Notes 148 Eminent Domain 1481 Nature, Extent, and Delegation of Power 148k2 What Constitutes a Taking; Police and Other Powers Distinguished 148k2.10 Zoning, Planning, or Land Use; Building Codes 148k2.10(4) Zoning and Permits 148k2.10(6) k. Particular Cases. Most Cited Cases (Formerly 148k2(1.2)) Municipality's good-faith planning activities, which did not result in successful prosecution of an eminent domain claim, did not so burden landowners' enjoyment of the property as to constitute a taking where, even if landowners' ability to sell was limited during pendency of condemnation proceeding, they were free to sell or develop when the proceedings ended; mere fluctuations in value during the process of governmental decision making, absent extraordinary delay, are "incidents of ownership" which cannot be considered a "taking" in the constitutional sense. U.S.C.A.Const. Amends. 5, 14. **2139 *255 Syllabus [FN*] FN* The syllabus constitutes no part of the opinion of the Court but has been prepared by the Reporter of Decisions for the convenience of the reader. See United States v. Detroit Lumber Co., 200 U.S. 321, 337, 26 S.Ct. 282, 287, 50 L.Ed.2d 499. After appellants had acquired five acres of unimproved land in appellee city for residential development, the city was required by California law to prepare a general plan governing land use and the development of open-space land. In response, the city adopted zoning ordinances that placed appellants' property in a zone in which property may be devoted to one-family dwellings, accessory buildings, and open-space uses, with density restrictions permitting appellants to build between one and five single-family residences on their tract. Without having sought approval for development of their tract under the ordinances, appellants brought suit against the city in state court, alleging that the city had taken their property without just compensation in violation of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments, and seeking inter alia, a declaration that the zoning ordinances were facially unconstitutional. The city's demurrer 9/26/2005