pf_01912 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

a regulation that "goes too far" as an invalid exercise of the police power, rather than as a "taking" for which just compensation must be paid, does not resolve the difficult problem of how to define "too far," that is, how to distinguish the point at which regulation becomes so onerous that it has the same effect as an appropriation of the property through eminent domain or physical possession. As we have noted, resolution on that question depends, in significant part, upon an analysis of the effect the Commission's application of the zoning ordinance and subdivision regulations had on the value of respondent's property and investment -backed profit expectations. Also, in reviewing the constitutionality of a city's land use ordinance or regulation the court will not look at the wisdom of the legislation. "The applicable test requires that the regulation be procedurally fair and reasonably related to a proper legislative goal. The wisdom of the legislation is not at issue in analyzing its constitutionality." Nash v. City of Santa Monica, 37 Cal. 3d 97 (1984) .�-- IV. NEXUS -BENEFIT ISSUE The major legal issue involving dedication is not can dedication or the payment of fees as a condition precedent to development be required, but to what extent can they be required and how much. As a general rule, the courts will uniformly uphold the constitutionality of a city's ordinances, regulations or imposition of conditions requiring dedication or payment of a fee as a condition of land use approval where the following conditions are met: (1) the city is acting within its police power; (2) the conditions have a reasonable relation to the public welfare; and (3) the city does not act in an arbitrary or unreasonable manner. The principal area of dispute is the second test --- what constitutes a reasonable relation -- the nexus or connection theory. As a general rule, it can be stated that dedication or payment of fees should have some reasonable relationship to the needs created by the development. In Associated Homebuilders, Inc. v. City of Walnut Creek, 4 Cal.- 638 (1?71) , tye—Cilifornia Supreme Court broke whatever direct nexus theory for dedications in land use permit approval existed in California. The court disavowed that a dedication requirement may be upheld only if the particular subdivision creates the need for dedication. The court stated that in the absence of a more restrictive statute, dedication can be required based on a general and broad public welfare measure standard. -8-