Agenda - Planning Commission - 08/01/1995

Home

Z.B. July 1995 Page 5 pollution. Limiting the number of people exposed to noise around airports was a recognized strategy for dealing with airport noise pollution. Maryland Aviation Administration v. Newsome, 637 A.2d 469 (]994). Harrison v. Schwartz, 572 A.2d 528 (1990). Taking -- Developer Says Growth Control Initiative Caused Lost Profits Del Oro Hills v. City of Oceanside, 37 Cal. Rptr. 2d 677 (California) 1995 Before'December 1985, Del Oro Hills, a real estate development partner- ship, acquired a 300-acre parcel in the city of Oceanside, Calif. In its approval of Del Oro's proposed subdivision map, the city planning commission stated the approval was for financing and land management purposes only. It also said Del Oro would not get any development rights until there were further public hearings on development plans and tentative maps. Del Oro got a specific plan and a planned residential development master plan approved. According to these plans, its development would be a complex of small residential villages that would be sold to other developers after Del Oro prepared the infrastructure. The buyers would be responsible for getting their own development plans approved and any necessary permits. Between December 1985 and February 1986, Del Oro signed improve- ment agreements with the city and recorded its master final subdivision map. Del Oro got financing for its project, signed contracts for utilities and streets, and contracted to sell several villages conditioned on completion of the improvements. In 1987, voters in the city adopted a residential growth control initiative. The initiative set a maximum number of dwelling units that could be built in the city each year. There were various exceptions from these restrictions, mainly dealing with very small development projects, single-family homes, rehabilita- tion, and low-income or senior citizen housing. Shortly after, several real estate developers (including Del Oro) sued the city, asking a court to find the initia- tive invalid. One month after the initiative passed, the city refused Del Oro's request for an exemption from its terms. Del Oro claimed the growth control initiative made it practically impossible to market its property. It sold all the villages within two years, but took more than a $2 million loss. Another developer, Rancho, was exempt from the initiative because it signed a development agree- ment with the city. Del Oro sued the city by itself, arguing the adoption of the initiative was a taking without fair compensation. Del Oro also said the city violated its equal protection rights because the city exempted another developer (with whom the city had a formal development agreement) from the initiative. Its case was consolidated with the one seeking a declaration that the initiative was invalid. After several proceedings, a court found the initiative invalid because it conflicted with the city's general plan and other laws regarding low-income