Karl O. Hoehne and Phyllis Hoehne v. County of San Benito; Henry Solorio; Frank Sabbatini; Enos Silva; and Edward Lydon

Summary

The Ninth Circuit held that the Hoehnes' federal constitutional claims concerning the denial of their subdivision application were ripe because the County had reached a final decision. The court concluded that further applications for a variance, conditional use permit, rezoning, or General Plan amendment would have been futile, and it reversed the district court's dismissal for lack of ripeness.

Holdings

1. A land-use constitutional or takings claim is ripe when the government has reached a final, definitive position regarding how the regulations will apply to the particular property; further applications are not required when pursuing them would be futile. Under the undisputed facts, the County had reached such a final decision.
2. The Hoehnes were not required to pursue state inverse-condemnation compensation procedures before filing their federal action because, at the time of the alleged taking, California did not provide a compensation remedy for regulatory takings.
3. The Hoehnes' constitutional claims were as-applied challenges arising from the County's decision-making process, not facial challenges that had to be presented to the Board during the subdivision hearings.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the Hoehnes' federal constitutional and inverse-condemnation claims were ripe despite the absence of a further variance, conditional-use, rezoning, or General Plan amendment application.
2. Whether the Hoehnes were required to pursue state inverse-condemnation compensation procedures before bringing their federal claims.
3. Whether the Hoehnes were required to present their constitutional challenges to the County Board of Supervisors during the subdivision proceedings.
4. Whether the County's actions constituted a final decision regarding the permissible development of the property.

Disposition

reversed