Blodgett v. County of Santa Cruz

• Decision Date: 23 September 1981
• Docket Number: No. C-80-1077 WHO.,C-80-1077 WHO.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Northern District of California
• Parties: Elizabeth BLODGETT and Richard Tarmey, Plaintiffs, v. COUNTY OF SANTA CRUZ, Pat Liberty, Dan Forbus, Chris Matthews, and Gary Patton, Defendants.

553 F. Supp. 1090

Elizabeth BLODGETT and Richard Tarmey, Plaintiffs, v. COUNTY OF SANTA CRUZ, Pat Liberty, Dan Forbus, Chris Matthews, and Gary Patton, Defendants.

No. C-80-1077 WHO.

United States District Court, N.D. California.

September 23, 1981.

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

Joseph M. Gughemetti, Morley & Gughemetti, Palo Alto, Cal., for plaintiffs.

Clair A. Carlson, County Counsel, James M. Ritchey, Asst. County Counsel, Santa Cruz, Cal., E. Clement Shute, Jr., Shute, Mihaly & Weinberger, San Francisco, Cal., for defendants.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

ORRICK, District Judge.

Plaintiffs, Elizabeth Blodgett and Richard Tarmey, are owners of three adjoining properties located in the rural area of the County of Santa Cruz ("the County") consisting of approximately 71 acres. Defendants Liberty, Forbus, Matthews, and Patton were members of the Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors ("the Board") in 1979 and 1980.¹ The complaint, filed under the Civil Rights Act of 1871, 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983, 1985, and 1986, charges that the Board engaged in a series of knowing and intentional acts which were designed to deprive plaintiffs of due process in public hearings, resulting in the arbitrary denial of plaintiffs' applications for minor land subdivisions. Defendants moved this Court for summary judgment, claiming that the County denied plaintiffs' applications in accordance with adopted planning policies and procedures and that defendants are entitled to immunity from suit because the acts alleged were performed in their legislative capacity. This Court determined that no genuine issues of material fact remained for trial, and partial summary judgment was accordingly granted. This Court granted the parties' joint request to submit additional briefing on the remaining issues. Plaintiffs additionally filed a motion for reconsideration, and subsequently filed one for leave to supplement their complaints. For the reasons set forth below, this Court reaffirms its order granting defendants' motion for summary judgment and denies plaintiffs' motions for reconsideration and for leave to supplement their complaint.

I

California law requires that all cities and counties within the state must adopt a comprehensive, long-term general plan for their physical development containing certain specified elements, and that all land use decisions must be consistent with those general plans. Cal. Gov't Code §§ 65300, 65302, 65860 (Deering). The first general plan of the County was adopted in 1961. At that time the property involved in this dispute was designated as "conserved," entitling it to full protection from any use that would harm its natural character. Plaintiffs purchased the property as an 80-acre parcel in 1965. They divided and sold two parcels from this original parcel, and in December, 1971, divided the remaining property into 3 parcels. At that time County regulations did not require County approval for the division. On January 22, 1972, however, planning regulations requiring the approval of the County for the division of rural property went into effect.

In September, 1972, plaintiffs' properties were zoned UBS-20 (unclassified building site; area requirement 20 acres). This zoning designation requires a minimum of 20 acres for each building site or dwelling unit and has remained in effect for plaintiffs' properties since that date. In 1973 the County adopted a Parks, Recreation and Open Space Element ("PROSE") as part of its general plan. This element provided that water recharge areas should be protected and maintained in their current parcel size.

Plaintiff Tarmey filed an application in 1976 for the division of one of his properties into four parcels. The application was recommended for denial by a member of the County Planning staff because it conflicted with the 1961 general plan and with the 1973 PROSE of the general plan. The application was denied by the Planning Commission on February 16, 1977, and by the Board on April 12, 1977. At that time, the property was designated as being within a moderate fire hazard area.

Section 65302 of the California Government Code requires that each county adopt a Fire Safety Element as part of its general plan. In accordance with this requirement the County Planning Commission adopted a fire safety element on September 28, 1977.² The element designated the subject properties as part of a critical fire hazard area. It was, therefore, subject to a minimum parcel size of 20 acres. This designation was placed upon the property after public hearings involving testimony from the fire marshal and other independent fire officials. Plaintiffs did not appear at these hearings to contest the designation. The Fire Safety Element was adopted by the Board of March 7, 1978.³

On June 6, 1978, a majority of voters in the County adopted an initiative known as Measure J which discouraged subdivisions in rural areas. Measure J required the Board to implement the provisions of the ordinance within six months of the date of adoption. In order to do this the Board on January 23, 1979, adopted the Measure J Rural Development Policies. This document was revised on November 13, 1979. The fire safety element was incorporated into this document along with a water resources protection matrix which required a minimum 10-acre parcel size for property located within a primary groundwater recharge area. Plaintiffs' properties were within such an area.

In 1979, it came to the County's attention that the General Plan might be inadequate under state law. Rather than run the risk that all of its development approvals could be challenged in court, the County sought an extension from the State Office of Planning and Research ("OPR"). The OPR granted the extension, though in doing so it imposed certain conditions, among which was a requirement that a minimum 10-acre parcel size shall be required within primary groundwater recharge areas. This extension agreement was entered into by resolutions adopted by the Board in open public meetings. In September, 1980, the County adopted a general plan. The new plan maintained the 10-acre minimum parcel size for land in primary water recharge areas.

The events leading up to the present law-suit began in 1978 and 1979 when plaintiffs filed applications with the County for zoning changes and minor land divisions of their properties. In order to allow the sub-divisions requested, a rezoning of plaintiffs' property would be necessary. Tarmey's application sought to divide his 15.4-acre parcel into 3 parcels of approximately 5 acres each and his 28-acre parcel into 4 parcels, three of which were less than 10 acres in size. Blodgett's application sought to divide her 25.1-acre parcel into 4 parcels. The average parcel size of the surrounding properties averaged 2½ acres. In late 1979 the staff of the County Planning Department recommended denial of the applications on the ground that the applications were not consistent with County planning policies.

In December, 1979, the Planning Commission referred the applications to the Board without a vote of recommendation. The Board directed the Planning Commission to make a recommendation and in January, 1980, the Commission by a vote of 3-2 recommended that the Board deny the applications. In late January the Board directed the Planning Director and County Administrative Officer to meet with plaintiffs' attorney and the OPR regarding the applications. OPR there stated that the applications could not be approved consistent with County planning policies and that approval would violate the terms of the extension agreement. After hearings had been held before the Planning Commission on December 12, 1979, and January 16, 1980, and the Board on January 29, 1980, and February 12, 1980, both applications were denied without prejudice.

Plaintiffs filed this suit claiming that defendants acted intentionally to deprive them of the use of their property, denied them due process in public hearings, and otherwise violated their constitutional and civil rights. Plaintiffs specifically allege that: the map designations relied on by the County in determining critical fire hazard and water recharge areas were false and arbitrary; the agreement between the County and OPR violates the constitutional guarantees of due process and a fair hearing; the denial constituted spot discriminatory zoning; the Board acted in knowing violation of County policies which allowed applicants to mitigate the fire hazard and water recharge problems that caused denial of the applications; defendants denied the applications with knowledge that plaintiffs had acquired a vested right to the development of the properties; and defendants conducted arbitrary public hearings in which plaintiffs' attorney was barred from objecting to false testimony offered by the County planning staff and at which plaintiffs' attorney was ejected when he objected to allegedly illegal attempts of the Board to continue the hearing without a vote. Plaintiffs additionally allege that defendant Supervisors Liberty, Forbus, Matthews, and Patton acted in bad faith with the specific intention of violating plaintiffs' constitutional and civil rights, and pursuant to a conspiracy with the staff of the Planning Department, OPR, and other groups to effect a cessation of all property rights in the rural areas of the County.

Plaintiffs allege that through these actions the defendants have violated their Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment rights, and the rights guaranteed by 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983, 1985, and 1986. Plaintiffs pray for $500,000 general damages, unspecified special damages, damages for mental anguish and depression, and exemplary damages in an amount to be determined by the jury.

II

Summary judgment is appropriate where there is no genuine issue of any material fact, or where, when the evidence is viewed in the light most favorable to the adverse party, the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of...