Agenda - Planning Commission - 09/07/1999

Home

Page 2- .. June 25, 1999 Z.B. - U.S. Supreme Court Decision- CoUrt says jury can decide if'denial of building permit is regulatory taking CALIFORNIA (5/24/99) -- The Supreme Court recently held that a jury as opposed to a court -- can decide whether the denial of a building permit strips land of all economically viable use and is reasonably related to a legitimate public purpose. This means developers can now use the threat of a jury trial to pressure a municipality into allowing development. The good news is that the decision is a partial win for municipalities because the Supreme Court agreed that the denial of a development request doesn't have to be "roughly propor- tional'' to the public interest the municipality seeks to further. This standard doesn't apply to regulatory takings, the Court said, though it still applies when a municipality seeks dedications before allowing development. The facts Developers owned a 37.6-acre oceanfront parcel in.the city of Monterey. Except for the ocean and a park, the property was surrounded by a railroad right-of-way and properties devoted to industrial, commercial, and multifam- ily residential uses. The property was zoned multifamily residential, but showed the effects of industrial development. An oil company had used the property for many years to store and reship large quantities of oil. The company removed the tanks, but left behind tank pads, an industrial complex, pipes, and oil-soaked sand. The property's natural flora included buckwheat, the habitat of the endan- gered Smith's Blue Butterfly. The butterfly' lives for one week, travels no more than 200 feet, and must land on .flowering buckwheat to survive. Searches for the butterfly from 1981 through 15385 yielded only one larva. No other speci- mens had been found on the property. In 1981, the developers proposed a development that conformed to the city's zoning requirements. The plan proposed only 344 residences even though up to 1,000 were allowed. The planning commission denied the application but said 264 units "would receive favorable consideration." The developers pro- posed 264 units, but the commission denied the application, saying a plan for 224 units would be favorably received. The developers submitted a proposal for 224 units, which the commission also denied. The developers appealed to ihe city council, which overruled the coinmission's decision and ordered it to consider a plan for 190 units. The developers changed their proposal to comply with the city's request, but the commission rejected this proposal as well. The developers again appealed to the city council, which again overruled the commission and approved the plan subject to various conditions. The developers spent a year revisiag their proposal to meet the city's con- ditions. At the city's request, they provided a public beach, a buffer from the state park, and "view corridors" so the buildings wouldn't'be visible to motor- ists on a nearby highway. The final plan devoted half the property to open