Paul Christensen Candice Christensen Eugene A. Dellavalle v. Yolo County Board of Supervisors Davis City Council

Good Law
93 Daily Journal DAR 7172·995 F.2d 161·1993 WL 190282·1993 U.S. App. LEXIS 13312·93 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 4176
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitJune 8, 199391-16163California2,447 words

Opinion

Opinion

Choy, J.

Plaintiffs (“the Christensens”) contend that defendants, by adopting a zoning agreement, (1) exercised a taking of their property in violation of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments; (2) violated the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses; and (3) violated the Commerce Clause. Plaintiffs appeal pro se the district court’s grant of defendants’ motion for summary judgment. We affirm.

I. FACTUAL BACKGROUND

Plaintiffs own a one-acre parcel of land in Yolo County (“County”) near an exit ramp of Interstate 80, several miles east of the City of Davis (“City”). To plan for future growth the City adopted a General Plan (“Davis General Plan”). The Davis General Plan covers incorporated land within the City and unincorporated land within the County, including plaintiffs’ property. In the Davis General Plan, plaintiffs’ property is designated for agricultural use. The County also has a General Plan (‘Yolo General Plan”) covering land in the County. Under the Yolo General Plan, plaintiffs’ property is designad ed for commercial use.

In 1985, the City commenced a redevelopment project. As a result of the redevelopment project, the County lost certain tax revenues. In 1987, the City and the…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.