Item B: Ordinance Concerning Goal 5 Natural Resources Study

Home Browse Search

Page 4 of 10 claiming that the complaint failed to state a cause of action was sustained by the trial court, and the California Supreme Court affirmed. Held : The zoning ordinances on their face do not take appellants' property without just compensation. Pp. 2141-2142. (a) The ordinances substantially advance the legitimate governmental goal of discouraging premature and unnecessary conversion of open-space land to urban uses and are proper exercises of the city's police power to protect its residents from the ill effects of urbanization. Pp.2141-2142. (b) Appellants will share with other owners the benefits and burdens of the city's exercise of such police power, and in assessing the fairness of the ordinances these benefits must be considered along with any diminution in market value that appellants might suffer. P. 2142. (c) Although the ordinances limit development, they neither prevent the best use of appellants' land nor extinguish a fundamental attribute of ownership. Since at this juncture appellants are free to pursue their reasonable investment expectations by submitting a development plan to the city, it cannot be said that the impact of the ordinances has denied them the "justice and fairness" guaranteed by the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments. P. 2142. 24 Cal.3d 266, 157 Cal.Rptr. 372, 598 P .2d 25, affirmed. *256 Gideon Kanner, Los Angeles, Cal., for appellants. E. Clement Shute, Jr., San Francisco, Cal., for appellee. *257 Mr. Justice POWELL delivered the opinion of the Court. The question in this case is whether municipal zoning ordinances took appellants' **2140 property without just compensation in violation of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments. I After the appellants acquired five acres of unimproved land in the city of Tiburon, Cal., for residential development, the city was required by state law to prepare a general plan governing both land use and the development of open-space land. Cal.Govt.Code Ann. ~~ 65302(a) and (e) (West Supp.1979); see ~ 65563. In response, the city adopted two ordinances that modified existing zoning requirements. Tiburon, Cal., Ordinances Nos. 123 N.S. and 124 N.S. (June 28, 1973). The zoning ordinances placed the appellants' property in "RPD-1 ," a Residential Planned Development and Open Space Zone. RPD-1 property may be devoted to one-family dwellings, accessory buildings, and open-space uses. Density restrictions permit the appellants to build between one and five single-family residences on their 5-acre tract. The appellants never have sought approval for development of their land under the zoning ordinances. [FN 1] FN 1. Shortly after it enacted the ordinances, the city began eminent domain proceedings against the appellants' land. The following year, however, the city abandoned those proceedings, and its complaint was dismissed. The appellants were reimbursed for costs incurred in connection with the action. [1] [2] *258 The appellants filed a two-part complaint against the city in State Superior Court. The first cause of action sought $2 million in damages for inverse condemnation. [FN2] The second cause of action requested a declaration that the zoning ordinances were facially unconstitutional. The gravamen of both claims was the appellants' assertion that the city had taken their property without just compensation in violation of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments. The complaint alleged that land in Tiburon has greater value than any other 9/26/2005