Margaret Kinzli; Evelyn Goossen; Philip Kinzli; Ernest Kinzli v. City of Santa Cruz

Summary

The Ninth Circuit held that the plaintiffs' regulatory takings, equal protection, substantive due process, and related claims concerning Santa Cruz land-use restrictions were not ripe because they had not obtained a final decision on permitted development or pursued required variances. The court also held that claims arising from alleged unkept promises connected to a prior condemnation proceeding required a state-court determination before becoming ripe. It reversed and ordered the district court to vacate its merits decisions.

Holdings

1. The regulatory takings claim was not ripe because the Kinzlis had not obtained a final and authoritative determination of the type and intensity of development permitted on the property.
2. The futility exception did not excuse the Kinzlis' failure to obtain a final decision because they had not submitted at least one meaningful development application or sought a variance.
3. The equal protection claim was not ripe until planning authorities and state review entities made a final determination regarding the status of the property.
4. The substantive due process claim was premature because the City had not made a final decision regarding the application of its regulations to the property.
5. Claims for additional compensation based on the City's post-condemnation conduct and alleged unkept development promises were not ripe because the Kinzlis had not first sought a final determination and compensation through available and adequate California procedures.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the Kinzlis' regulatory takings claim was ripe where they had not obtained a final determination concerning permitted development, had not sought a variance, and had not pursued available state compensation procedures.
2. Whether the Kinzlis' equal protection claim was ripe before planning authorities and state review entities made a final determination regarding the property's status.
3. Whether the substantive due process claim was premature because the City had not made a final decision regarding application of the regulations to the property.
4. Whether claims arising from the City's alleged failure to fulfill promises associated with the 1970 condemnation were ripe before the Kinzlis sought a final determination and compensation through available California procedures.

Disposition

reversed_and_remanded