|
forgot the name, but right in the commercial zone—he comes in with a two-story condo-
<br /> apartment complex. Well, the Commission hears all this issue about traffic, you know, from the
<br /> neighbors and all that stuff—this was before the traffic lights over there—and so, the Commission
<br /> denies it. So, on appeal, the Intermediate Court of Appeals basically told the Commission there
<br /> was no rational nexus between a traffic issue and your SMA objectives, and so basically said like,
<br /> Commission, you went beyond your boundaries. And so that was the Topliss decision again in
<br /> 1993; it's a decision that wasn't there when I was the planning director. Then the other one was
<br /> like, you know, the second issue was like, you know, this whole notion about takings. Takings is
<br /> like when you require a public use of a private property without just compensation, and that would
<br /> be a violation of the Fifth Amendment of the Constitution. And since then, you know, like since
<br /> 1978 there were two significant judicial decisions. The first one was what is called Nollan versus
<br /> Coastal, California Coastal Commission. California Coastal Commission is equivalent of the
<br /> Planning Commission all pursuant to the CZM law. So in 1987 this guy wants to build, get on an
<br /> old bungalow, it's a shoreline property, he wants to tear down the building and build a house, so
<br /> the planning commission said like, oh, you know what, there is a shoreline access and all that
<br /> stuff, but if you build that, it's going to block the view and it's going to have like a psychological
<br /> impact on people not wanting to use the shoreline because, you know, we cannot see. And so the
<br /> commission then essentially said like, okay, to offset this burden, we are going to require a lateral
<br /> public access on your property this is in Ventura, California—so the guy said like, oh, and went
<br /> all the way up to the Supreme Court, and the state,the U.S. Supreme Court said you know what,
<br /> there was a taking, there was no rational nexus in terms of what you required and, you know, the
<br /> impact of that project. So, that situation was pretty much similar to the Topliss one except that
<br /> Topliss related to the State of Hawaii; this one was in the State of California, so U.S. Supreme
<br /> Court decision. The other one was Dolan versus the City of Tigard in Oregon in 1994, and here
<br /> like it wasn't a shoreline property, but the guy was trying to build something along this public, you
<br /> know, this greenway along a riverside, and then the decisionmakers at the time of building permit
<br /> says like, you know what, you have to provide these public pedestrian pass all way along this
<br /> coast, you know, along this riverbank area. So, the guy appeals, and then the state, or the U.S.
<br /> Supreme Court, they say like, well, you know, I think there is some basis for like the drainage
<br /> issue but in terms of like the right for the public to get access all along the shoreline, I mean not
<br /> sure line but that greenway, it's kind of questionable. So, they introduced the concept of if there is
<br /> some impact, then it's got a, your exaction has to be proportional to the impact; you cannot just
<br /> require whatever, you know, but it has to be proportional. So those two are landmark judicial
<br /> decisions that essentially codified, not codified, established the principle of, you know, when it
<br /> relates to whatever you are going to require as condition, first of all, rational nexus, is there a
<br /> relationship? Secondly, then if there is a relationship, you can determine there is a relationship,
<br /> then what is the proportional obligation?
<br /> The other reason why I've kind of thought about it and think like why, you know, the staff's
<br /> recommendation is on point, it's like the whole notion of, and I've kind of mentioned this earlier,
<br /> it's about equity, fairness. So this guy, and it's not Foodland but it's Foodland then, big corporate,
<br /> and now this guy owns this building, but put yourself in their position, say you have the property
<br /> and 10,000 square feet of land, and the government tells you you cannot use it, you've got to pay
<br /> taxes on them, you've got to maintain it, you've got to assume all liability. And that's what, that's
<br /> what this condition did, that's what this condition-. So, I think if I put myself in that shoes for my
<br /> house, and they tell me I've got to do that, I would say that's totally unfair, you have to pay me,
<br /> 6
<br /> EXHIBIT A
<br />
|