Rancho La Costa v. County of San Diego

• Decision Date: 09 October 1980
• Citation: 111 Cal.App.3d 54,168 Cal.Rptr. 491
• Parties: RANCHO LA COSTA, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO, Defendant and Appellant. Civ. 18651.
• Court: California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals

Page 491

168 Cal.Rptr. 491

111 Cal.App.3d 54

RANCHO LA COSTA, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO, Defendant and Appellant.

Civ. 18651.

Court of Appeal, Fourth District, Division 1, California.

Oct. 9, 1980.

Hearing Denied Dec. 4, 1980.

Donald L. Clark, County Counsel, Lloyd M. Harmon, Jr., Chief Deputy County Counsel and Cameron Reeves, Deputy County Counsel, for defendant and appellant.

State of California acting by and through the California Coastal Commission and William M. Boyd, San Francisco, Linda Breeden, Stanford, T. Roy Gorman, Oakland, John Bremner, San Francisco, Janet G. Tulk, El Cerrito, and Nancy Wainwright, Martinez, as amici curiae on behalf of defendant and appellant.

Musick, Peeler & Garrett and Donald J. Drew and Kenneth A. Holland, Los Angeles, for plaintiff and respondent.

COLOGNE, Acting Presiding Justice.

The County of San Diego (County) appeals the judgment awarding Rancho La Costa (R.L.C.) damages for inverse condemnation in allegedly taking land for public park purposes. The trial had been bifurcated and the judge sitting without a jury made a finding the County had taken R.L.C.'s property without due process of law under the California and United States Constitutions, and further found the affirmative defenses were without merit. In the second phase of the trial, a jury awarded damages exceeding $6 million.

R.L.C. is a limited partnership owning approximately 1,980 acres. The property subject of this action consists of approximately 440 acres north of La Costa Avenue and west of El Camino Real, described in this action as "parcel A," 200 acres of which are in and around the Batiquitos Lagoon, and 240 acres of which are situated north of that lagoon.

All of parcel A and most of the rest of the property involved in this action was zoned A-1-8, indicating it is an agricultural zone which allows no more than one dwelling unit for each eight acres.

In 1961, R.L.C. retained the engineers' firm of Moffatt and Nichol who prepared a feasibility study for the development of Batiquitos Lagoon. Their studies, together with a later master plan prepared by Rick Engineering, concluded it was physically and economically feasible to develop the lagoon as a recreational facility surrounded by commercial and residential development. To accommodate that plan, however, it would be necessary to secure an increased elevation of the bridge which the state Division of Highways was building over the lagoon.

As a result of these studies and the willingness of the state and the County to participate, R.L.C. ultimately paid the County $70,442.25, and it in turn contracted with the state to raise the bridge to the appropriate elevation.

The General Plan of the San Dieguito area adopted on September 5, 1967, included the subject property but did not show a regional park in that area. The San Diego General Plan, 1990 (General Plan 1990) adopted three months later, however, did propose a regional park at Batiquitos Lagoon on the privately owned property. Under this plan, the land use designation applicable to the subject property was medium low residential density allowing .75 to 3.3 dwelling units per acre. Though this plan remains in effect, zoning has not been changed to conform.

In 1969 or earlier, the board informally adopted a policy that the planning department would not accept applications for rezoning or for special use permits with respect to the subject property, and R.L.C. was advised of that policy. R.L.C. made no application for any changes, having concluded it would be an idle act.

In December 1970, the County caused to have prepared a Regional Parks Implementation Study (RPIS) in order to establish an implementation plan for General Plan 1990. The RPIS final report included the subject area as a proposed regional park having a high priority for completion. The report was accepted by the board on April 19, 1972, and requested (1) the planning commission to initiate hearings to include this in the General Plan 1990, (2) the chief administrative officer to propose a financial program to acquire and develop all the parks and (3) the public works agency to initiate a precise plan of acquisition and development of the parks.

After April 19, 1972, the County entered into negotiations to acquire a 7.33-acre parcel of state-owned property adjacent to Interstate 5 west of this general area, the land having been declared surplus by the state. It was within the boundaries of the proposed Batiquitos Lagoon Regional Park.

On May 24, 1972, R.L.C. filed an application to annex all the R.L.C. property to the City of Carlsbad, the city having earlier stated it would not consider serving the area with city services, including sewer services, absent annexation. The County planning department advised the Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO) that Batiquitos Lagoon was shown on the County General Plan 1990 as a regional park and recommended that none of the property be annexed to the city. The two supervisors who served on LAFCO also played an active role in opposing the annexation. On November 14, 1972, pursuant to a recommendation of the County public works administrator in connection with the proposed purchase of the 7.33-acre surplus state property, the board adopted a resolution indicating it did not anticipate approval of any further rezoning that would be incompatible with the proposed regional park. The opposition to annexation by the County was found by the trial court to be "a material and procuring cause" for LAFCO's deletion of two parcels including the subject property from the proposed annexation. LAFCO staff recommended the annexation be denied and further that the regional park area be deleted from any future city annexation or incorporation proposal. By a six-to-zero vote, denial of annexation of parcel A occurred on October 2 and December 5, 1972. LAFCO approved annexation of the more northerly parcel B owned by R.L.C.

The trial court found the board of supervisors at all material times "pursued its policy of blocking any economic, beneficial use of Parcel A in order to ensure it could be acquired by (the County) as cheaply as possible."

From an economic point of view, it is apparent R.L.C. had to contract with the City of Carlsbad to obtain city services if it wanted to put together any sort of subdivision of this property. Carlsbad was the only entity capable of supplying these urban services. R.L.C. asserted, and the trial court found as a result of County's action, it was deprived of all reasonable, beneficial use of parcel A and the severance of that beneficial use affected the value of parcel B. A claim against the County for this taking was filed and rejected. This action ensued.

At issue is whether the County by its actions effected a "taking" as contemplated by such inverse condemnation cases as Klopping v. City of Whittier, 8 Cal.3d 39, 104 Cal.Rptr. 1, 500 P.2d 1345 and Peacock v. County of Sacramento, 271 Cal.App.2d 845, 77 Cal.Rptr. 391. In holding it did not, we find it unnecessary to address all the issues raised by this appeal.

In order to state a cause of action in inverse condemnation, there must be an invasion or an appropriation of some valuable property right which the landowner possesses and the invasion or appropriation must directly and specially affect the landowner to his injury (Selby Realty Co. v. City of San Buenaventura, 10 Cal.3d 110, 119-120, 109 Cal.Rptr. 799, 514 P.2d 111).

Public entities are not bound to reimburse individuals for losses due to changes in zoning, for within the limits of the police powers some hardships must be borne by individuals as the price of living in a modern, enlightened and progressive community. Further, landowners have no vested right in existing or anticipated zoning ordinances. (HFH, Ltd. v. Superior Court, 15 Cal.3d 508, 516, 125 Cal.Rptr. 365, 542 P.2d 237; Morse v. County of San Luis Obispo, 247 Cal.App.2d 600, 602, 55 Cal.Rptr. 710.) If it can be said the adoption of General Plan 1990 changed the zone of R.L.C.'s property, it did not constitute a taking of a vested right. In any event, such a change would only serve R.L.C.'s advantage allowing medium low residential density (.75 to 3.3 dwelling units per acre) as opposed to an agricultural use (1 dwelling unit per 8 acres). This could only increase the value. There could be no damage.

The adoption of a general plan is a legislative act and is by its nature tentative and subject to change. The enactment of a general plan for future development of an area indicating potential public use of privately owned land does not amount to inverse condemnation (Selby Realty Co. v. City of San Buenaventura, supra, 10 Cal.3d 110, 119, 109 Cal.Rptr. 799, 514 P.2d 111). The Legislature has authorized such long range plans, including specific plans (Gov. Code, § 65450 et seq.) ¹ and district plans (§ 66105 et seq.) for orderly community growth. So long as the County has not placed obstacles in the path of the property owners in the use of their land or has not refused permission to build or subdivide the property, there is no taking merely in the act of adopting the plan (Selby, supra, at p. 120, 109 Cal.Rptr. 799, 514 P.2d 111). Thus the acceptance of the general plan or the RPIS or the request to staff for physical and financial feasibility studies is no more than planning and does not affect the landowners' interest. The planning and construction of regional parks of this size require a substantial amount of work, and to hold the announcement of the plan or the initiation of the feasibility studies results in inverse condemnation of properties designated for ultimate acquisition would result in forced purchase of property before it was determined to be economically feasible; it would severely hamper government's ability to provide any such programs (Smith v. State of California, 50 Cal.App.3d 529, 536-537, 123 Cal.Rptr. 745).

In Navajo Terminals,...