Agenda - Planning Commission - 09/07/1999

Home

goB. June 25, 1999--Page 3 space, a public beach, and areas to preserve the buckwheat habitat; only five acres were allocated to buildings. The planning commission's professional staff recommended approval, but the commission again denied the developers' plan. The developers appealed to the city council, which also denied the plan. The council said the developers hadn't provided adequate public access. It also said the proposal would dam- age the environment and would disrupt the butterfly's habitat. The lawsuit After five years, five formal decisions, and 19 different site plans, the de- velopers decided the city wouldn't allow development under any circumstances. They sued the city in federal court, claiming its decision violated their due process rights and amounted to a taking. The court dismissed the developers' claims, finding they hadn't obtained a definitive decision as to what develop- ment, if any, the city would allow. An appeals court reversed, finding the de- velopers were entitled to a trial. The developers said the city could regulate their property but argued the combined effect of the city's various demands -- that the buildings be invis- ible from the highway, a buffer for the park, and a public beach forced development into a "bowl" area of the property. The developers claimed the city's decision that the "bowl" contained sensitive buckwheat habitat that couldn't be disturbed unfairly prohibited development anywhere on the prop- erty. They said the city's real motive was that it wanted to buy the property for public use -- which the city had considered as early as 1979, when it ear- marked public funds to buy the land. (The state later bought the property from the developers while the lawsuit was pending.) The court told the jury it should find the city denied the developers all economic use of the property if there remained no permissible or beneficial use for the property, and the jury awarded the developers $1.45 million for their takings claim. The court ruled for the city on the due process claim. , An appeals court affirmed, finding whether the developers were denied all economically viable use of the property and whether the city's decision sub- stantially advanced a legitimate public interest were factual questions suitable for a jury. The appeals court held that even if the city had a legitimate interest in denying the plan, its actionS~'weren't "roughly proportional" to furthering that interest. Thc city appealed to the Supreme Court, claiming that allowing a jury to consider a regulatory takings claim would eviscerate state and local zoning authority by subjecting all land use decisions to potentially inconsistent juries. The city also claimed it didn't have to show its reasons were "roughly propor- tional'' to the public interest it sought to preserve. The decisiott The U.S. Supreme court affirmed the jury's $1.45 million award to the developers.