Sinclair Oil Corp. v. County of Santa Barbara

• Decision Date: 16 September 1996
• Docket Number: No. 94-56611,94-56611
• Citation: 96 F.3d 401
• Parties: 96 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 6900, 96 Daily Journal D.A.R. 11,329 SINCLAIR OIL CORPORATION, a Wyoming Corporation, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. COUNTY OF SANTA BARBARA, a Political Subdivision of the State of California; Santa Barbara County Board of Supervisors, Defendants-Appellees.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit

Page 401

96 F.3d 401

96 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 6900, 96 Daily Journal

D.A.R. 11,329

SINCLAIR OIL CORPORATION, a Wyoming Corporation, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. COUNTY OF SANTA BARBARA, a Political Subdivision of the State of California; Santa Barbara County Board of Supervisors, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 94-56611.

United States Court of Appeals Ninth Circuit.

Argued and Submitted May 8, 1996.

Decided Sept. 16, 1996.

Michael M. Berger, Berger & Norton, Santa Monica, California, for plaintiff-appellant.

Paula F. Frantz, County of Santa Barbara County Counsel's Office, Santa Barbara, California; David Pettit and Sherryl E. Michaelson, Hedges & Caldwell, Los Angeles, California, for defendants-appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California Robert M. Takasugi, District Judge, Presiding. D.C. No. CV-93-06943-RMT.

Before: FLOYD R. GIBSON, ^* NOONAN, and THOMPSON, Circuit Judges.

FLOYD R. GIBSON, Circuit Judge:

Sinclair Oil Corporation ("Sinclair"), the owner of six lots comprising 265 acres of undeveloped coastal land in Santa Barbara County, California ("the County"), filed a suit alleging primarily that the County's exercise of its regulatory powers had effected a "taking" of Sinclair's property for which "just compensation" was due under the federal and state constitutions. The district court dismissed four of Sinclair's claims as unripe for federal adjudication; the court dismissed the remaining cause of action, which sought a writ of mandate declaring the pertinent zoning actions invalid under California law, based on its belief that 28 U.S.C. § 1651, the All Writs Act, could not provide an independent basis for jurisdiction. In this appeal, Sinclair argues that its federal constitutional claims are ripe and that, even if they are not, the court should have assumed diversity jurisdiction over the state law claims. The County responds that the district court correctly determined that this suit is not ripe. In addition, assuming that any of Sinclair's claims are justiciable, the County contends that the federal courts should abstain from considering this case. We affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand with instructions.

I. BACKGROUND

Under California law, every county must adopt a "General Plan" of land use regulation. See Cal. Gov't Code §§ 65300-65361 (West 1996). In 1993, the County supplemented its existing General Plan by promulgating a "Community Plan" as described in Cal. Pub. Res.Code § 21083.3(e) (West 1996). When it enacted this Community Plan, which was applicable to a particular geographic region known as Goleta, the County contemporaneously approved an environmental impact report designating certain areas as environmentally sensitive habitats. Once land has been specified as an environmentally sensitive habitat, its use is significantly restricted and subject to severe limitations. See Sierra Club v. California Coastal Comm'n, 12 Cal.App.4th 602, 611, 15 Cal.Rptr.2d 779 (Cal.Ct.App.1993).

Sinclair owns 265 acres of undeveloped coastal land in Santa Barbara County; this property, known as "More Mesa," is subject to the Goleta Community Plan ("the Plan"). The Plan substantially affects Sinclair's property, as it reduced from 300 to 70 the number of homes potentially allowable on More Mesa. Furthermore, the Plan designated a large portion of the land as an environmentally sensitive habitat. The Plan did create an administrative procedure through which Sinclair could petition to develop more than 70 residences on the site. To date, though, Sinclair has not submitted to the County a proposal for development of More Mesa, and it has also failed to seek compensation from the County.

On November 17, 1993, Sinclair filed this lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Central District of California. ¹ The complaint asserted that the Plan, on its face, effected a taking of Sinclair's property requiring just compensation under the California and United States Constitutions. Furthermore, citing the County's allegedly unreasonable precondemnation conduct, Sinclair sought additional compensation pursuant to both federal and state law. In addition, Sinclair claimed that the County's adoption of the Plan violated Sinclair's substantive due process rights. Finally, Sinclair asked the district court to issue a writ of mandate declaring the Plan invalid under California's statutes governing the adoption and implementation of general plans.

The County did not answer the complaint, but instead filed a motion to dismiss the suit. The district court granted the motion, labelling as unripe four of Sinclair's five causes of action. The court also dismissed the remaining claim, the petition for a writ of mandate, because it believed that the All Writs Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1651 (1994), could not provide an independent basis for federal jurisdiction. Though Sinclair, reminding the court that the state law causes of action were premised upon diversity jurisdiction, asked for reconsideration of the dismissal of those claims, the court refused to waver from its initial decision. Sinclair filed a timely notice of appeal from the district court's judgment.

Before this Court, Sinclair maintains the district court improperly concluded that its facial challenges to the land use regulations are not ripe for federal adjudication. The County remonstrates that the court correctly determined the claims are not yet justiciable. In the alternative, the County contends the federal courts should abstain from hearing this case.

II. DISCUSSION

A. Standard of Review

This court reviews de novo a district court's ripeness determination. Christensen v. Yolo County Bd. of Supervisors, 995 F.2d 161, 163 (9th Cir.1993). In general, motions to dismiss "must be viewed with particular skepticism in cases involving claims of inverse condemnation." Sinaloa Lake Owners Ass'n v. City of Simi Valley, 882 F.2d 1398, 1401 (9th Cir.1989), cert. denied, 494 U.S. 1016, 110 S.Ct. 1317, 108 L.Ed.2d 493 (1990).

B. The Ripeness of Sinclair's Federal Constitutional Claims

In Williamson County Regional Planning Comm'n v. Hamilton Bank, 473 U.S. 172, 105 S.Ct. 3108, 87 L.Ed.2d 126 (1985), the Supreme Court clarified the ripeness requirements applicable to "as applied" constitutional challenges to land use regulations. Before a plaintiff can bring such a suit in federal court, he must first procure from the relevant regulatory body "a final decision regarding how [he] will be allowed to develop [his] property." Id. at 190, 105 S.Ct. at 3118. To satisfy this requirement, a California landowner must submit to local decision-makers at least one meaningful application for a development project and a variance. Southern Pac. Transp. Co. v. City of Los Angeles, 922 F.2d 498, 503 (9th Cir.1990), cert. denied, 502 U.S. 943, 112 S.Ct. 382, 116 L.Ed.2d 333 (1991). Additionally, because the Fifth Amendment does not prohibit all takings, but merely takings unaccompanied by just compensation, an as applied challenge is unripe unless the plaintiff has sought "compensation through the procedures the State has provided for doing so." Williamson County, 473 U.S. at 194, 105 S.Ct. at 3120; see also Jones Intercable v. City of Chula Vista, 80 F.3d 320, 324 (9th Cir.1996) (observing that a California plaintiff's federal takings claim will not ripen until the party has first sought compensation through that state's inverse condemnation proceedings).

While these twin ripeness requirements are clearly applicable to all claims which, like the causes of action in Williamson County, raise as applied arguments under the Constitution's Takings Clause, they are not so suitable as prerequisites to other varieties of federal land use litigation. In this case, Sinclair contests the Plan's facial validity under various constitutional provisions. ² Consequently, we will separately address the ripeness of each of these claims.

1. The facial taking claims

In counts three and four of its complaint, Sinclair asserts that the Plan, on its face, constitutes a taking of the More Mesa property for which just compensation is due under the Fifth Amendment. Sinclair though, "faces an 'uphill battle in making a facial attack on the zoning restriction as a taking.' " Lake Nacimiento Ranch Co. v. San Luis Obispo County, 841 F.2d 872, 877 (9th Cir.1987) (quoting Keystone Bituminous Coal Ass'n v. DeBenedictis, 480 U.S. 470, 495, 107 S.Ct. 1232, 1247, 94 L.Ed.2d 472 (1987)) (alteration omitted), cert. denied, 488 U.S. 827, 109 S.Ct. 79, 102 L.Ed.2d 55 (1988). To prevail on the merits of this claim, Sinclair will be required to show that the Plan either: (1) does not substantially advance legitimate state interests; or (2) denies the company the economically viable use of its land. Christensen, 995 F.2d at 165.

It is fairly well-settled in this Circuit that the first Williamson County ripeness requirement, the "finality" requirement, is not germane to facial taking claims. See Lake Nacimiento, 841 F.2d at 877 (addressing merits of facial challenge even though landowner had failed to satisfy the finality requirement). But cf. Southern Pac., 922 F.2d at 506 n. 9 (noting that this Circuit has never explicitly held the finality requirement applicable to facial taking claims, but refusing to decide the question). It is less clear, however, whether the second ripeness criterion, the "just compensation" requirement, applies to these claims. Compare Southern Pac., 922 F.2d at 505-06 ("[A] claim alleging that mere enactment of a statute effects an unconstitutional taking is unripe unless and until it is known what, if any, compensation is available.") with Christensen, 995 F.2d at 164-65 (reaching merits of facial challenge even though the landowners had not satisfied the just compensation requirement).

In Southern Pacific, after carefully considering our prior decisions in this area, we determined that the just compensation requirement should apply...