My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
pf_01912
Roseville
>
Planning Files
>
Old Numbering System (pre-2007)
>
PF1000 - PF1999
>
1900-1999
>
pf_01912
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
2/20/2024 4:49:18 PM
Creation date
2/20/2024 4:37:02 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Planning Files
Planning Files - Planning File #
1912
Planning Files - Type
Zoning Text Amendment
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
154
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
determining whether a taking has occurred. <br />(Pg . 175 ) <br />The court then analyzed whether or not the dedica- <br />tion condition had robbed Grupe of all reasonable use and <br />economic value of his property. The court stated, <br />Although the trial court found that the condition <br />decreased the value of the property by $1501000, <br />this fact, even if true, does not mean respondent <br />was deprived of all reasonable use of his property. <br />Respondent purchased the property for $240,000 and <br />his beach home was constructed for roughly <br />$260,000, for a total investment of $500,000. <br />While the litigation below was pending, a lis <br />pendens was recorded giving notice that condition <br />3.d may eventually apply to the property. After <br />the lis pendens was recorded, respondent obtained a <br />loan for $540,000 which was secured only by deed of <br />trust on his Beach Drive property. Taking judicial <br />notice of the fact that lenders do not lend for the <br />full value of property securing the loan, we may <br />surmise that even with condition 3.d imposed on the <br />property, it had a value somewhere in excess of <br />one-half million dollars. Even if the property <br />would have been valued at $650,000 or more, without <br />condition 3.d, this is simply insufficient to <br />establish that condition 3.d robbed respondent of <br />"all reasonable use" of his property (A ins V. Ci,t <br />of 'Tiburon. supra 24 Cal. 3d at page 2 "� (Pg. <br />6 � <br />Also the court stated, "we do not believe it is <br />dispositive of the taking issue in this case to classify <br />condition 3.d as a physical invasion of respondent's <br />property . . . . if this were true, subdivision dedications <br />for park and recreation facilities required in Associated <br />Home Builders, ,s,upra t and the traffic buffer strip required <br />t caned in . r e s V • fit t,e <br />of Los Angeles, 34 Cal .2d <br />31 (1949) mould necesssarII evolve k ngs un er the Fifth <br />,Amendment. (Pg. 176) <br />1n concluding on this issue, the court stated, <br />While respondent has not received the benefits that <br />ordinarily accompany subdivision approval, such as <br />the provision of public services, he has received a <br />substantial benefit by being allowed to proceed <br />with the development of his property and to thereby <br />greatly increase its value. The benefit involved <br />is that the development is permitted on the coast <br />-- an extremely limited resource -- in exchange <br />-12- <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.