The court therefore rejected the contention that the ordinances prevented all use of the land. California courts may take judicial notice of municipal ordinances. In this case, the State Supreme Court merely rejected allegations inconsistent with the explicit terms of the ordinance under review. The appellants' objection to the State Supreme Court's application of state law does not raise a federal question appropriate for review by this Court. The State also recognizes that the preservation of open space is necessary for the assurance of the continued availability of land for the production of food and fiber, for the enjoyment of scenic beauty, for recreation and for the use of natural resources.
Appellants also claim that the city's pre-condemnation activities constitute a taking.
The State Supreme Court correctly rejected the contention that the municipality's good faith planning activities, which did not result in successful prosecution of an eminent domain claim, so burdened the appellants' enjoyment of their property as to constitute a taking. See also City of Walnut Creek v. Even if the appellants' ability to sell their property was limited during the pendency of the condemnation proceeding, the appellants were free to sell or develop their property when the proceedings ended.