201 Cal. App. 4th 1256
Cal. Ct. App.2011Background
- Undeveloped 2.85-acre parcel in Residential, Low Density zoning was downzoned to RVL (one dwelling per 20 acres) by 1993/1996 amendments, creating an island of low-density zoning amid surrounding RL properties.
- Owners purchased in 1980; initial plans for four houses were approved and a tentative parcel map was conditionally approved, but neighborhood opposition and later developments halted progress.
- RVL zoning applies to “significant acreage” and aims to preserve open space; the subject parcel is on a slope, not a canyon, and RVL’s stated purpose does not clearly fit the parcel.
- In 2006 the owners applied for a four-dwelling project (including general plan and zoning amendments, tentative map, site plan, variance); the City denied in July 2007.
- Phase one writ of mandate (Judge Stock) found inadequate notice of downzoning, arbitrary and capricious RVL designation, and timeliness of the suit; mandated new resolution to vacate the denial.
- Phase two (Judge McEachen) found a Penn Central taking (partial, not complete) and awarded $1.3 million in damages, with the City given choice to comply with the writ or pay the damages.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was the RVL downzoning spot zoning and arbitrary? | Avenida shows the parcel is an RVL spot island. | City argues slope/topography justifies RVL and non-discriminatory application. | Yes; downzoning deemed spot zoning and arbitrary. |
| Was the 2006 denial of development application arbitrary or in bad faith? | City ignored mitigation and failed proper consideration of the proposal. | Denial was within discretion and based on plan/zoning conformity. | Denial found arbitrary and in bad faith. |
| Does the action constitute a compensable taking under Penn Central? | Taking occurred; four-density value lost; original expectations protected. | Argues no taking or not full taking; argues mitigation possible. | Partial taking; remand for recalculation of fair market value. |
| When did the statute of limitations and ripeness principles attach? | As-applied challenge to 2007 denial timely under c)(1)(E). | Limitations should apply to earlier enactments (c)(1)(B). | Appropriate limitations period is c)(1)(E); ripe upon final administrative adjudication. |
Key Cases Cited
- Travis v. County of Santa Cruz, 33 Cal.4th 757 (Cal. 2004) (as-applied takings claim; clarifies (c)(1)(E) governs timing)
- Palazzolo v. Rhode Island, 533 U.S. 606 (U.S. 2001) (regulatory taking can occur without total loss of use)
- Penn Central Transp. Co. v. New York City, 438 U.S. 104 (U.S. 1978) (test for regulatory taking factors)
- Hensler v. City of Glendale, 8 Cal.4th 1 (Cal. 1994) (limitations on inverse condemnation timelines; CCP 662 context)
- Trinity Park L.P. v. City of Sunnyvale, 193 Cal.App.4th 1014 (Cal. App. 2011) (timing and ripeness in regulatory challenges)