agins
tiburon
argued
april
decided
june
appellants
acquired
five
acres
unimproved
land
appellee
city
residential
development
city
required
california
law
prepare
general
plan
governing
land
use
development
land
response
city
adopted
zoning
ordinances
placed
appellants
property
zone
property
may
devoted
dwellings
accessory
buildings
uses
density
restrictions
permitting
appellants
build
one
five
residences
tract
without
sought
approval
development
tract
ordinances
appellants
brought
suit
city
state
alleging
city
taken
property
without
compensation
violation
fifth
fourteenth
amendments
seeking
inter
alia
declaration
zoning
ordinances
facially
unconstitutional
city
demurrer
claiming
complaint
failed
state
cause
action
sustained
trial
california
affirmed
held
zoning
ordinances
face
take
appellants
property
without
compensation
pp
ordinances
substantially
advance
legitimate
governmental
goal
discouraging
premature
unnecessary
conversion
land
urban
uses
proper
exercises
city
police
power
protect
residents
ill
effects
urbanization
pp
appellants
share
owners
benefits
burdens
city
exercise
police
power
assessing
fairness
ordinances
benefits
must
considered
along
diminution
market
value
appellants
might
suffer
although
ordinances
limit
development
neither
prevent
best
use
appellants
land
extinguish
fundamental
attribute
ownership
since
juncture
appellants
free
pursue
reasonable
investment
expectations
submitting
development
plan
city
said
impact
ordinances
denied
justice
fairness
guaranteed
fifth
fourteenth
amendments
pp
powell
delivered
opinion
unanimous
gideon
kanner
argued
cause
appellants
briefs
john
pollock
reginald
hearn
clement
shute
argued
cause
pro
hac
vice
appellee
brief
robert
conn
gary
ragghianti
briefs
amici
curiae
urging
reversal
filed
robert
ferris
california
forest
protective
association
les
weinstein
aaron
peck
glendale
federal
savings
loan
association
howard
ellman
kenneth
burns
michael
burke
half
moon
bay
properties
gus
bauman
national
association
home
builders
et
al
ronald
zumbrun
thomas
hookano
pacific
legal
foundation
pro
se
burton
goldstein
reed
hunter
jess
jackson
jerrold
fadem
michael
berger
roger
sullivan
richard
desmond
stephen
wagner
gerald
hansen
alfred
chasuk
goldstein
et
al
briefs
amici
curiae
urging
affirmance
filed
solicitor
general
mccree
assistant
attorney
general
moorman
deputy
solicitor
general
claiborne
elinor
hadley
stillman
jacques
gelin
george
deukmejian
attorney
general
gregory
taylor
assistant
attorney
general
richard
jacobs
deputy
attorney
general
state
california
attorneys
general
officials
respective
jurisdictions
follows
macfarlane
attorney
general
colorado
richard
gebelein
attorney
general
delaware
regina
small
state
solicitor
jim
smith
attorney
general
florida
richard
hixson
assistant
attorney
general
wayne
minami
attorney
general
hawaii
william
scott
attorney
general
illinois
george
wolff
assistant
attorney
general
william
guste
attorney
general
louisiana
kendall
vick
assistant
attorney
general
richard
cohen
attorney
general
maine
cabanne
howard
assistant
attorney
general
stephen
sachs
attorney
general
maryland
paul
strain
thomas
deming
deputy
attorneys
general
francis
bellotti
attorney
general
massachusetts
stephen
leonard
assistant
attorney
general
robert
abrams
attorney
general
new
york
william
brown
attorney
general
ohio
colleen
nissl
assistant
attorney
general
james
redden
attorney
general
oregon
peter
herman
mary
deits
deputy
attorneys
general
jerome
diamond
attorney
general
vermont
bensen
scotch
assistant
attorney
general
slade
gorton
attorney
general
washington
charles
roe
senior
assistant
attorney
general
bronson
la
follette
attorney
general
wisconsin
state
colorado
et
al
john
larson
paul
hanson
county
los
angeles
robert
logan
jeffrey
widman
city
san
jose
et
al
daniel
riesel
nicholas
robinson
joel
sachs
ross
sandler
philip
weinberg
committee
environmental
law
association
bar
city
new
york
david
bonderman
conservation
foundation
et
al
elliott
blinderman
federation
hillside
canyon
associations
et
al
briefs
amici
curiae
filed
timothy
flynn
thomas
hunt
american
planning
association
et
al
frank
schnidman
national
association
manufacturers
louis
goebel
guenter
cohn
san
diego
gas
electric
justice
powell
delivered
opinion
question
case
whether
municipal
zoning
ordinances
took
appellants
property
without
compensation
violation
fifth
fourteenth
amendments
appellants
acquired
five
acres
unimproved
land
city
tiburon
residential
development
city
required
state
law
prepare
general
plan
governing
land
use
development
land
cal
govt
code
ann
west
supp
see
response
city
adopted
two
ordinances
modified
existing
zoning
requirements
tiburon
ordinances
nos
june
zoning
ordinances
placed
appellants
property
residential
planned
development
open
space
zone
property
may
devoted
dwellings
accessory
buildings
uses
density
restrictions
permit
appellants
build
one
five
residences
tract
appellants
never
sought
approval
development
land
zoning
ordinances
appellants
filed
complaint
city
state
superior
first
cause
action
sought
million
damages
inverse
condemnation
second
cause
action
requested
declaration
zoning
ordinances
facially
unconstitutional
gravamen
claims
appellants
assertion
city
taken
property
without
compensation
violation
fifth
fourteenth
amendments
complaint
alleged
land
tiburon
greater
value
suburban
property
state
california
app
appellants
possess
magnificent
views
san
francisco
bay
scenic
surrounding
areas
highest
market
values
lands
tiburon
rezoning
land
forever
prevented
development
residential
use
therefore
appellants
contended
city
completely
destroyed
value
appellants
property
purpose
use
whatsoever
city
demurred
claiming
complaint
failed
state
cause
action
superior
sustained
demurrer
california
affirmed
cal
state
first
considered
inverse
condemnation
claim
held
landowner
challenges
constitutionality
zoning
ordinance
may
sue
inverse
condemnation
thereby
transmute
excessive
use
police
power
lawful
taking
compensation
eminent
domain
must
paid
sole
remedies
taking
concluded
mandamus
declaratory
judgment
turning
therefore
appellants
claim
declaratory
relief
california
held
zoning
ordinances
deprived
appellants
property
without
compensation
violation
fifth
amendment
noted
probable
jurisdiction
affirm
holding
zoning
ordinances
face
take
appellants
property
without
compensation
ii
fifth
amendment
guarantees
private
property
shall
taken
public
use
without
compensation
appellants
complaint
framed
question
whether
zoning
ordinance
prohibits
development
land
effects
taking
fifth
fourteenth
amendments
california
rejected
appellants
characterization
issue
holding
matter
state
law
terms
challenged
ordinances
allow
appellants
construct
one
five
residences
property
consider
whether
zoning
ordinances
unconstitutional
applied
prevent
appellants
building
five
homes
appellants
submitted
plan
development
property
ordinances
permit
yet
concrete
controversy
regarding
application
specific
zoning
provisions
see
socialist
labor
party
gilligan
see
also
goldwater
carter
powell
concurring
thus
question
properly
us
whether
mere
enactment
zoning
ordinances
constitutes
taking
application
general
zoning
law
particular
property
effects
taking
ordinance
substantially
advance
legitimate
state
interests
see
nectow
cambridge
denies
owner
economically
viable
use
land
see
penn
central
transp
new
york
city
determination
governmental
action
constitutes
taking
essence
determination
public
large
rather
single
owner
must
bear
burden
exercise
state
power
public
interest
although
precise
rule
determines
property
taken
see
kaiser
aetna
question
necessarily
requires
weighing
private
public
interests
seminal
decision
euclid
ambler
illustrative
case
landowner
challenged
constitutionality
municipal
ordinance
restricted
commercial
development
property
despite
alleged
diminution
value
owner
land
held
zoning
laws
facially
constitutional
bore
substantial
relationship
public
welfare
enactment
inflicted
irreparable
injury
upon
landowner
case
zoning
ordinances
substantially
advance
legitimate
governmental
goals
state
california
determined
development
local
plans
discourage
premature
unnecessary
conversion
land
urban
uses
cal
govt
code
ann
west
supp
specific
zoning
regulations
issue
exercises
city
police
power
protect
residents
tiburon
ill
effects
urbanization
governmental
purposes
long
recognized
legitimate
see
penn
central
transp
new
york
city
supra
village
belle
terre
boraas
euclid
ambler
supra
ordinances
place
appellants
land
zone
limited
dwellings
accessory
buildings
uses
construction
permitted
builder
submits
plan
compatible
adjoining
patterns
development
open
space
tiburon
ordinance
passing
upon
plan
city
also
consider
well
proposed
development
preserve
surrounding
environment
whether
density
new
construction
offset
adjoining
open
spaces
ibid
zoning
ordinances
benefit
appellants
well
public
serving
city
interest
assuring
careful
orderly
development
residential
property
provision
areas
indication
appellants
tract
property
affected
ordinances
appellants
therefore
share
owners
benefits
burdens
city
exercise
police
power
assessing
fairness
zoning
ordinances
benefits
must
considered
along
diminution
market
value
appellants
might
suffer
although
ordinances
limit
development
neither
prevent
best
use
appellants
land
see
causby
extinguish
fundamental
attribute
ownership
see
kaiser
aetna
supra
appellants
alleged
wish
develop
land
residential
purposes
land
expensive
suburban
property
state
best
possible
use
land
residential
app
california
decided
matter
state
law
appellants
may
permitted
build
many
five
houses
five
acres
prime
residential
property
juncture
appellants
free
pursue
reasonable
investment
expectations
submitting
development
plan
local
officials
thus
said
impact
general
regulations
denied
appellants
justice
fairness
guaranteed
fifth
fourteenth
amendments
see
penn
central
transp
new
york
city
iii
state
determined
appellants
recover
damages
inverse
condemnation
even
zoning
ordinances
constituted
taking
stated
mandamus
declaratory
judgment
remedies
available
landowner
taking
occurred
need
consider
whether
state
may
limit
remedies
available
person
whose
land
taken
without
compensation
judgment
california
affirmed
footnotes
inverse
condemnation
distinguished
eminent
domain
eminent
domain
refers
legal
proceeding
government
asserts
authority
condemn
property
clarke
inverse
condemnation
shorthand
description
manner
landowner
recovers
compensation
taking
property
condemnation
proceedings
instituted
appellants
also
contended
city
aborted
attempt
acquire
land
eminent
domain
destroyed
use
land
pendency
condemnation
proceedings
app
state
superior
granted
appellants
leave
amend
cause
action
seeking
declaratory
judgment
appellants
avail
opportunity
california
also
rejected
appellants
argument
institution
abandonment
eminent
domain
proceedings
constituted
taking
found
city
acted
reasonably
general
municipal
planning
decisions
violate
fifth
amendment
appellants
also
contend
state
courts
erred
sustaining
demurrer
despite
uncontroverted
allegations
zoning
ordinances
forever
preven
development
residential
use
completely
destro
value
appellant
property
purpose
use
whatsoever
california
compared
express
terms
zoning
ordinances
factual
allegations
complaint
terms
ordinances
permit
construction
one
five
residences
appellants
tract
therefore
rejected
contention
ordinances
prevented
use
land
california
practice
allegations
complaint
taken
true
unless
contrary
law
fact
may
take
judicial
notice
dale
city
mountain
view
cal
app
cal
rptr
see
martinez
socoma
cal
california
courts
may
take
judicial
notice
municipal
ordinances
cal
evid
code
ann
west
case
state
merely
rejected
allegations
inconsistent
explicit
terms
ordinance
review
appellants
objection
state
application
state
law
raise
federal
question
appropriate
review
see
patterson
colorado
ex
rel
attorney
general
state
also
recognizes
preservation
open
space
necessary
assurance
continued
availability
land
production
food
fiber
enjoyment
scenic
beauty
recreation
use
natural
resources
cal
govt
code
ann
west
supp
see
tiburon
ordinance
city
council
tiburon
found
public
interest
avoid
unnecessary
conversion
open
space
land
strictly
urban
uses
thereby
protecting
resultant
adverse
impacts
air
noise
water
pollution
traffic
congestion
destruction
scenic
beauty
disturbance
ecology
environment
hazards
geology
fire
flood
demonstrated
consequences
urban
sprawl
appellants
also
claim
city
precondemnation
activities
constitute
taking
see
nn
supra
state
correctly
rejected
contention
municipality
planning
activities
result
successful
prosecution
eminent
domain
claim
burdened
appellants
enjoyment
property
constitute
taking
see
also
city
walnut
creek
leadership
housing
systems
cal
app
cal
rptr
even
appellants
ability
sell
property
limited
pendency
condemnation
proceeding
appellants
free
sell
develop
property
proceedings
ended
mere
fluctuations
value
process
governmental
decisionmaking
absent
extraordinary
delay
incidents
ownership
considered
taking
constitutional
sense
danforth
see
thomas
garland
city
louis
cert
denied
reservation
eleven
associates
district
columbia
app
virgin
islands
acres
land
supp
sackman
rohan
nichols
law
eminent
domain
ed