master plan

In 1965 New York City enacted the Landmarks Preservation Law, which created an eleven-member Landmarks Preservation Commission and authorized it to designate buildings at least thirty years old that possess special historical or aesthetic interest. The law required owners of designated landmarks to obtain Commission approval before altering exterior architectural features and imposed an affirmative duty to keep those features in good repair. In August 1967 the Commission designated Grand Central Terminal a landmark and the city tax block it occupies a landmark site; the Board of Estimate confirmed the designation the following month. Penn Central Transportation Co. and its affiliates owned the Terminal, an eight-story Beaux-Arts structure completed in 1913 that served as the main station for the New York Central and Harlem lines. On January 22, 1968, Penn Central entered a fifty-year renewable lease with UGP Properties, Inc., under which UGP agreed to construct a multistory office building cantilevered above the Terminal and to pay Penn Central at least three million dollars annually after construction. Penn Central and UGP submitted two plans prepared by architect Marcel Breuer: Breuer I, a fifty-five-story tower resting on the Terminal roof, and Breuer II Revised, a fifty-three-story building that would have removed part of the 42d Street facade. After four days of hearings at which over 80 witnesses testified, the Commission denied this application as to both proposals. Penn Central filed suit in New York Supreme Court, Trial Term, seeking a declaratory judgment, injunctive relief, and damages for a temporary taking. The trial court granted the injunctive and declaratory relief. The Appellate Division reversed, holding that Penn Central had failed to prove deprivation of all reasonable beneficial use. The New York Court of Appeals affirmed, concluding that the Terminal could still earn a reasonable return and that transferable development rights provided significant compensation. The Supreme Court noted probable jurisdiction.

The Village of Euclid is an Ohio municipal corporation that adjoins and is practically a suburb of the City of Cleveland. Its estimated population is between 5,000 and 10,000, and its area spans from twelve to fourteen square miles, with the greater part consisting of farm lands or unimproved acreage. It lies roughly in the form of a parallelogram measuring approximately three and one-half miles each way and is traversed east and west by three principal highways and two railroads. Ambler Realty Co. owns a tract of land containing 68 acres situated in the westerly end of the village. This tract abuts on Euclid Avenue to the south and the Nickel Plate railroad to the north. Adjoining this tract on both the east and the west, restricted residential plats have been laid out upon which residences have been erected. On November 13, 1922, the Village Council adopted an ordinance establishing a comprehensive zoning plan. The ordinance divides the village into six use districts denominated U-1 to U-6, three height districts denominated H-1 to H-3, and four area districts denominated A-1 to A-4. Appellee's tract is classified as U-2 for the first 620 feet north of Euclid Avenue, U-3 for the next 130 feet, and U-6 for the remainder. Enforcement of the ordinance is entrusted to the inspector of buildings under rules and regulations of the board of zoning appeals. The board holds public meetings, keeps minutes of its proceedings, and possesses authority to interpret the ordinance in cases of practical difficulty or unnecessary hardship, while penalties are prescribed for violations. Ambler Realty Co. filed suit alleging that the tract has been held for years for sale and development for industrial uses for which it is especially adapted. The bill further alleged that unrestricted market value is about $10,000 per acre but limited to residential purposes the value does not exceed $2,500 per acre, that the first 200 feet back from Euclid Avenue has a value of $150 per front foot if unrestricted but not in excess of $50 per front foot if limited to residential uses, and that the ordinance confiscates and destroys a great part of its value while deterring prospective buyers. The bill sought an injunction restraining enforcement of the ordinance. The district court overruled a motion to dismiss on the ground that the suit was premature. The district court held the ordinance unconstitutional and void and enjoined its enforcement.

The City of Petaluma is located in southern Sonoma County, about 40 miles north of San Francisco. In the 1950s and 1960s, Petaluma experienced steady population growth from 10,315 in 1950 to 24,870 in 1970. By November 1972, unofficial figures placed its population at about 30,500. From 1964 to 1971, the following numbers of residential housing units were completed each year: 270 in 1964, 440 in 1965, 321 in 1966, 234 in 1967, 379 in 1968, 358 in 1969, 591 in 1970, and 891 in 1971. In 1970 and 1971 combined, builders won approval of 2,000 permits although only 1,482 were completed. Alarmed by the accelerated rate of growth in 1970 and 1971 and the sprawl eastward, the City adopted a temporary freeze on development in early 1971 to study housing and zoning patterns. In 1972 the City adopted the Petaluma Plan. The Plan fixed a housing development growth rate not to exceed 500 dwelling units per year for projects of five units or more. This limit applied over the five-year period from 1972 to 1977. The Plan positioned a 200-foot-wide greenbelt around the City as a boundary for urban expansion. It established a Residential Development Control System using a point system for awarding permits based on conformity with general and environmental design plans, architectural design, and provision of low- and moderate-income units and recreational facilities. The Plan directed even division of allocations between east and west sections and between single-family and multiple units. It required infilling of close-in vacant areas first and mandated that 8 to 12 percent of approved units be for low- and moderate-income persons. The City also solicited Sonoma County to establish stringent subdivision controls outside the urban extension line. The City described the Plan's purpose as ensuring development would occur in a reasonable, orderly, attractive manner and protecting its small town character and surrounding open space. The Construction Industry Association of Sonoma County argued, and the district court found, that the Plan was primarily enacted to limit Petaluma's demographic and market growth rate in housing and immigration of new residents. Housing permits had been allotted at the rate of about 1,000 annually in 1970 and 1971. The 500-unit limitation applied only to projects of five units or more and exempted all projects of four units or less. Expert testimony indicated that if the Plan were adopted by municipalities throughout the region, the shortfall in needed housing for the decade 1970 to 1980 would be about 105,000 units. Two landowners and the Construction Industry Association of Sonoma County instituted suit under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1343 and 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against the City and its officers and council members. The district court ruled that aspects of the Plan limiting the natural population growth of the area unconstitutionally denied the right to travel and enjoined the City and its agents from implementing the unconstitutional elements. The order was stayed by Justice Douglas pending appeal. The City appealed to the Ninth Circuit, challenging the district court's jurisdiction, the standing of the Association and Landowners, and the merits of the remaining claims on the record.