Term
| San Remo Hotel, L.P. v. City and County of San Francisco (2005) |
|
Definition
• The legal questions were: Which court should decide what? And when?
• The Supreme Court concluded that state courts are fully competent to adjudicate constitutional challenges to local land-use decisions.
• Held that the court would not create an exception to the “full faith and credit” statute in order to provide a federal forum to litigants seeking to advance a federal claim.
• “Full faith and credit” is given to state court decisions by the constitution so cases cannot be heard in a different forum (i.e. alternate state court, supreme court) |
|
|
Term
| City of Ranchos Palos Verdes v. Abrams |
|
Definition
• The case asked what remedies are available to a property owner if a municipality violates the Telecommunications Act of 1996 (TCA).
• The TCA prohibits local governments from unreasonably discriminating among providers of functionally equivalent services, from taking actions that prohibit the provision of personal wireless services, and from limiting the placement of wireless facilities on the basis of the environmental effects of radio frequency emissions.
• The Supreme Court decision means that property owners who successfully challenge municipalities and counties on violations of the TCA can ask the court to remedy the violation and issue a permit, but cannot obtain money damages and attorney fees. |
|
|
Term
| Kelo v. New London – Physical Taking |
|
Definition
• Examines use of Eminent Domain.
• Eminent Domain constitutes a Physical Taking.
• Physical Taking
o The ability to regulate land derives from the police power of governments to regulate for the public health, safety, and welfare of its citizens. The government’s ability to regulate is, however, limited by the 5th Amendment, which states in part “nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.”
• Arose from condemnation of privately owned property so that it could be used as part of a comprehensive redevelopment plan.
• Court ruled that the general benefits a community enjoyed from economic growth (economic development) qualified such redevelopment plans as a valid “public use” under the taking clause of the 5th amendment.
• Economic development plan would provide appreciable benefits to the community such as new jobs, and increased tax revenue.
• Public use has been interpreted as public purpose (i.e. economic development) as opposed to direct use by the public (i.e public park). |
|
|
Term
| Hawaii Housing Authority vs. Midkiff (1984) – Physical Taking |
|
Definition
• Held that a state could use eminent domain process to take land overwhelmingly concentrated in the hands of private landowners, and redistribute it to the wider population of private residents.
• Confirmed the import of the “public use provision” by stating “purely private takings could not withstand the scrutiny of the public use requirement. It would serve no legitimate purpose of government and would thus be void.”
• Also held, “one person's property may not be taken for the benefit of another private person without a justifying public purpose, even though compensation be paid.”
• Reaffirmed by Kelo vs. City of New London (2005) |
|
|
Term
| Village of Euclid vs. Ambler Realty Co. (1926) |
|
Definition
o Set a zoning precedent. Found that there is a valid government interest in maintaining the character of a neighborhood and in regulating where certain land uses should occur.
o Zoning ordinance is not an unreasonable extension of the village’s police power. |
|
|
Term
| Penn Central Transportation Co. vs. New York City (1978) |
|
Definition
o New York City declared Grand Central Terminal historic, thereby barring a proposal that would have constructed a high-rise office building over the station.
o Landowner claimed this regulation caused a taking of his property under the 5th amendment, but the Court disagreed.
o In ruling that the city’s regulation did not effect a taking, the Court set forth a 3-prong test to be applied in conducting the ad hoc factual inquiries that underlie regulatory takings. The 3 factors to be considered are:
• The economic impact of the regulation on the claimant.
• The extent to which the regulation has interfered with distinct investment-backed expectations.
• The nature of the government action/Character of regulation. |
|
|
Term
| Agins vs. City of Tiburon (1980) |
|
Definition
o Involved municipal zoning ordinances that restricted the types of structures landowners could build on their land.
o Court affirmed that the ordinance did not constitute a taking. The application of a general zoning law to a particular property becomes a taking if the ordinance:
• Does not substantially advance legitimate state interests
• Denies an owner economically viable use of his land.
o Court concluded that no taking had occurred. Ordinance substantially advanced a governmental goal of discouraging premature and unnecessary conversion of open space to urban uses. This was a proper exercise of the city’s police power to protect its residents from the effects of urbanization. |
|
|
Term
| Lucas vs. South Carolina Coastal Council (1992) |
|
Definition
o Prime example of a categorical taking. It is when government regulations deprive landowner of all economically beneficial use of property.
o Agency imposed a regulation barring development of two beachfront lots in a developed subdivision. State regulation findings stated that new construction in the coastal zone threatened a valuable public resource.
o State courts held that a taking had occurred and ordered payment to Lucas.
o Properties with temporary moratorium (temporary taking) will eventually recover its value when moratorium is lifted, it does not permanently deprive the owner of all economically viable use.
o Acknowledges that there is uncertainty regarding partial takings. It is unclear whether it would be analyzed as one being deprived of all economically viable use, or having suffered a mere diminution in value of the tract as a whole.
• This will depend on how the property is defined.
• Regulatory takings are never partial. (All or nothing)
• Set back requirements are not takings. |
|
|
Term
| Lingle vs. Chevron U.S.A Inc. (2005) |
|
Definition
o Ruled that the Agins inquiry whether a land use regulation substantially advances a legitimate state interest is not valid for identifying regulatory takings for which the 5th amendment requires the payment of just compensation.
o Instead, this case reaffirmed its earlier decision that a fact-dependent approach set forth in Penn Central is an appropriate approach. (Ad hoc: a solution designed for a specific problem or task)
o Land use regulations that are irrational may violate a property owners due process rights. |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
A contribution or payment required as an authorized precondition for receiving a development permit. It usually refers to a mandatory dedication or fee in lieu of dedication requirements found in many subdivisions regulations and may apply to land for parks or other public facilities.
A city relies on its authority to exercise its police power to impose conditions on a development project through the dedication of land or the payment of fees. California has held that there is no right to develop and that development is instead a privilege.
The right to build on one’s own property, even though its exercise can be subjected to legitimate permitting requirements, cannot be described as a governmental benefit. |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| Exaction Takings - Permits local governments to require sub-dividers/developers to dedicate land for streets and sidewalks, provide utility easements, and conform their subdivision to major roads. |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| Exaction Takings - Imposed by local governments on new development to help assist or pay for a portion of the costs that the new development will cause with public services in the community. |
|
|
Term
| Nollan vs. California Coastal Commission (1987) |
|
Definition
o Agency demanded a lateral public easement across the a resident's beachfront lot in exchange for a permit to demolish and existing bungalow and replace it with a three-bedroom house.
o Public easement would connect two public beaches that were separated by the resident’s property.
o Agnecy imposed easement to promote the legitimate state interests of diminishing the “blockage of the view of the ocean” caused by the construction of the larger house.
o Court held that there must be an essential nexus (connection) between a legitimate state interest and the permit condition.
o Court ruled that this was a taking in violation of the 5th amendment. There is no connection between blockage of an ocean view and the easement.
o Exactions will be upheld as long as:
• It does not deny an owner of economically viable use of the land
• the required nexus exists |
|
|
Term
| Dolan vs. City of Tigard (1994) |
|
Definition
o Applicant wanted to expand their business. The planning commission granted the Applicnat’s permit on the grounds that they dedicate a portion of their property lying on a flood plain for a storm drain improvement. Also, a 15-foot strip of land as a pedestrian/bicycle pathway.
o Decided that cities must prove that development conditions placed on a discretionary permit have a rough proportionality to the developments impact.
o This case requires a city to document the connection between the dedication and the projected impact of the proposed development. Not only must the required nexus exist, but findings must establish the required reasonable relationship between the required dedication and the impact.
o A two part inquiry must be made:
• The type of condition
• The burden created by the condition |
|
|
Term
| Ehrlich vs. City of Culver City (1996) |
|
Definition
o Applicangt applied for a zone change and general plan amendment to build condos. The city imposed a $280,000 recreation fee to mitigate the communities loss of 4 tennis courts at the club.
o Court concluded that the city has met its burden of demonstrating the required connection (nexus) between the rezoning and the imposition of a monetary exaction to be expended in support of recreational purposes as a means of mitigating that loss. |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
Unless a property owner has obtained statutory vested rights under a development agreement or a vesting tentative map, the property owner will need to establish that sufficient development activities have been undertaken to establish common law vested rights, thereby preventing a change in the law governing the use of the property.
A right that has become absolute and fixed and cannot be defeated or denied by subsequent conditions or a change in regulations, unless it is taken or paid for. |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
If a city changes its land use regulation, a property owner cannot claim a vested right to build out a project under existing land use regulations unless the owner has obtained a building permit, performed substantial work, and incurred substantial liabilities in good faith reliance upon a permit. (Common Law Vested Rights Rule)
Refinements:
1. The rights that may vest upon reliance on a governmental permit are no greater than those specifically granted by the permit itself.
2. Owner of undeveloped land has no vested rights in existing zoning, more valuable zoning that may have been anticipated, or zoning for the highest and best use of the property.
3. Invalid permits vest no rights. |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| Principle that the government must respect all of the legal rights that are owed to a person under the law. Life, liberty and property may not be taken without due process of law. Under the 14th amendment. |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| Fair proceedings. Such as written notice, open meetings, hearings, and taking minutes. Property owners are entitled to these procedures. |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| Rational basis for government interference. There must be a relationship between the government action and the public safety, health and welfare. |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
The Equal Protection Clause, part of the 14th amendment provides that no state shall deny any person the equal protection of the laws. It is an attempt to secure the premise that all men are created equal.
In Planning Law, similarly situated property owners must be treated in a similar way through equal protection of the law. |
|
|
Term
| Proper Use of Police Power |
|
Definition
| The United States Supreme Court and the California Supreme Court have long held that the regulation of land use does not amount to a taking of property if the regulation does not deny the property owner economically viable use of the land. (In regards to exactions) |
|
|
