Item B: Ordinance Concerning Goal 5 Natural Resources Study

Home Browse Search

Page '/ ot 10 the public welfare, and their enactment inflicted no irreparable injury upon the landowner. Id., at 395-397, 47 S.Ct., at 121. [5] [6] In this case, the zoning ordinances substantially advance legitimate governmental goals. The State of California has determined that the development of local open-space plans will discourage the "premature and unnecessary conversion of open-space land to urban uses." CaLGovt.Code Ann. ~ 65561 (b) (West Supp.1979). [FN7] The specific zoning regulations at issue are exercises of the city's police power to protect the residents of Tiburon from the ill effects of urbanization. [FN8] Such governmental purposes long have been recognized as legitimate. See Penn Central Transp. Co. v. New York City, supra, 438 U.S., at 129,98 S.Ct., at 2662; *262 Village of Belle Terre v. Boraas, 416 U.S. 1,9,94 S.Ct. 1536, 1541,39 L.Ed.2d 797 (1974); Euclid v. Ambler Co., supra, 272 U.S., at 394-395,47 S.Ct., at 120-121. FN7. The State also recognizes that the preservation of open space is necessary "for the assurance of the continued availability of land for the production of food and fiber, for the enjoyment of scenic beauty, for recreation and for the use of natural resources." Cal.Govt.Code Ann. ~ 65561 (a) (West Supp.1979); see Tiburon, CaL, Ordinance No. 124 N.S. ~~ 1 (f) and (h). FN8. The City Council of Tiburon found that "[i]t is in the public interest to avoid unnecessary conversion of open space land to strictly urban uses, thereby protecting against the resultant adverse impacts, such as air, noise and water pollution, traffic congestion, destruction of scenic beauty, disturbance of the ecology and environment, hazards related to geology, fire and flood, and other demonstrated consequences of urban sprawL" Id., ~ 1 (c). The ordinances place appellants' land in a zone limited to single-family dwellings, accessory buildings, and open-space uses. Construction is not permitted until the builder submits a plan compatible with "adjoining patterns of development and open space." Tiburon, CaL, Ordinance No. 123 N.S. ~ 2(F). In passing upon a plan, the city also will consider how well the proposed development would preserve the surrounding environment and whether the density of new construction will be offset by adjoining open spaces. Ibid. The zoning ordinances benefit the appellants as well as the public by serving the city's interest in assuring careful and orderly development of residential property with provision for open-space areas. There is no indication that the appellants' 5-acre tract is the only property affected by the ordinances. Appellants therefore will share with other owners the benefits and burdens of the city's exercise of its police power. In assessing the fairness of the zoning ordinances, these benefits must be considered along with any diminution in market value that the appellants might suffer. [7] Although the ordinances limit development, they neither prevent the best use of appellants' land, see United States v. Causby, 328 U.S. 256, 262, and n. 7, 66 S.Ct. 1062, 1066, 90 L.Ed. 1206 (1946), nor extinguish a fundamental attribute of ownership, see Kaiser Aetna v. United States, supra, at 179-180, 100 S.Ct., at 393. The appellants have alleged that they wish to develop the land for residential purposes, that the land is the most expensive suburban property in the State, and that the best possible use of the land is residential. App. 3-4. The California Supreme Court has decided, as a matter of state law, that appellants may be permitted to build as many as five houses on their five acres of prime residential property. At this juncture, the appellants are free to pursue their reasonable investment expectations by submitting a development plan to local officials. Thus, it cannot be said that the impact of 9/26/2005