PL PACKET 08181987 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

cases to discourage such litigation . Most of the directors described the land-use decision making process in their communities as sound , reasonable , and consistently based upon a comprehensive city development . plan , a -- -- ---- process -whic-h -has--r-epor-tedly__withs.t.o_o_d many challenges on the part of some landowners who felt the need to litigate . Two did say that there have been rare occasions when their councils acted out of "local political reasons" , contrary to professional land planning advice , and with full knowledge that their decision would probably be overturned by the court , but by taking, such action they were "off the political hook" . There is , however , a general expectation that some land owners will begin using the supreme court case with their own interpretations of its significance in their attempts to persuade planning professionals and council members to be less restrictive vis-a-vis their particular land . Indeed , several directors have already been approached by landowners with such arguments . Overall , the perception of directors is that the zoning and other land use regulatory measures in effect in their communities are fair and reasonable , have been built upon a comprehensive plan and are designed to protect the health , safety and welfare of the city . What Should A Planner Do? First , don ' t make any major substantive changes in any plan or regulation on the basis of this supreme court decision. until the case has been resolved in the California courts to whom it has been remanded . Why? Because it is unclear as to its applicable significance . 1 . The ordinance was never, throughout this process, considered on its merits , though it now will be in the California courts . Bear in mind that immediately preceding the adoption of the interim ordinance a rain storm caused a flood so severe that it not only destroyed the church ' s buildings and recreation area but it also killed ten people . That , it seems to me , is cause for action to protect the safety , health and welfare of the community . 2 . The United States Supreme Court assumed and accepted as true the church ' s claim that it had been denied all use of its property . The Court did not examine and affirm the claim of the church . This is particularly interesting . First , because the County will now have the opportunity to argue whether or not all use of the property was denied , since this point was also not examined previously by the lower courts . Second , if the California courts find that in fact all use of the property was denied , how applicable would that be to the typical municipal zoning ordinance? The essential purpose of zoning was , and -still 7