Court Opinion

ID: 9732397
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 16:19:04.175274+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:23:25.081504
License: Public Domain

SIMS, J.
I respectfully dissent.
In the first place I question whether the two cases of Beyer v. City of Palo Alto et al. (1 Civ. 34134) and Eldridge v. City of Palo Alto (1 Civ. 33517) should have been consolidated for appeal. It is true that each involves a claim that damages must be paid on the theory of inverse condemnation because of actions taken by the governing board of the city over a period of years prior to the filing of the complaint in each action, and that each of such claims is predicated on the same course of conduct by the city. On the one hand, however, Eldridge claims that the action of the city was proper under its police power, but nevertheless gave rise to a cause of action for damages. Beyer on the other hand claims that the action of the city exceeded the bounds of its authorized police power, and seeks, as alternative relief, a declaration that the regulatory ordinance of the city is illegal, unconstitutional and void. The latter claim raises many issues not raised by Eldridge. Moreover, the city has moved to dismiss Beyer’s appeal because he has disposed of the land which is the subject of the city’s regulatory ordinance.
In disposing of the Beyer case, the majority opinion reaches the paradoxical, illogical and unwarranted conclusion that since Beyer’s property was taken by the city’s exercise of its regulatory powers, he was entitled to compensation, but he was not entitled to secure an adjudication that the ordinance was invalid. That decision flies in the face of Penna. Coal Co. v. Mahon (1922) 260 U.S. 393 [67 L.Ed. 322, 43 S.Ct. 158, 28 A.L.R. 1321] on which the majority relies, and all of the cases which have recognized that a property owner is entitled to be relieved of the burden of a regulatory law or ordinance which so restricts the use of his property as to constitute a taking. (See fns. 2, 3 and 4 below.)
For the foregoing reasons I would treat the cases separately.
Eldridge v. City of Palo Alto
It is no secret that this case was heretofore the subject of a split decision of this court which was Vacated by a grant of hearing by the Supreme Court. That court further ordered, “The cause is trans*636ferred to this court and retransferred to the Court of Appeal, First District, Division One, for reconsideration in the light of HFH, Ltd. v. Superior Court (1975) 15 Cal.3d 508.” (Supreme Court Minutes, Jan. 21, 1976. Official Advance Sheets of the Supreme Court No. 5, Feb. 17, 1976, p. (1)0
In my opinion HFH, Ltd. does support the action of the lower court which sustained the demurrer in Eldridge, and my view that the judgment in favor of the city should be affirmed. I reluctantly must concede, however, that the decision leaves loopholes through which the plaintiff, as manifested from the present majority opinion, can pursue his claim for a cause of action in inverse condemnation.
It is clear that HFH, Ltd. holds (1) that inverse condemnation does not lie in zoning actions in which the complaint alleges mere reduction in market value (15 Cal.3d at pp. 513-518); (2) that plaintiffs may not seek damages in a mandate action for interim damages in the event they successfully secure an adjudication that the rezoning is invalid (id., at pp. 518-520); and (3) that constitutional values of “fairness” do not require a ruling that inverse condemnation lies for any zoning action which reduces the market value of any tract of land, but that considerations of policy and the limitations of judicial instructions lead to a contrary conclusion (id., at pp. 520-523). Nevertheless, the court in footnotes recognized that there were situations not covered by the facts as alleged in the cause of action in HFH, Ltd., which was before the court.
The court stated, “Neither Selby [Selby Realty Co. v. City of San Buenaventura (1973) 10 Cal.3d 110 (109 Cal.Rptr. 799, 514 P.2d 111)] nor this case presents the distinct problems arising from inequitable zoning actions undertaken by a public agency as a prelude to public acquisition (Klopping v. City of Whittier (1972) 8 Cal.3d 39 . . .; Peacock v. County of Sacramento (1969) 271 Cal.App.2d 845 . . .); or from zoning classifications invoked in order to evade the requirement that land used by the public must be acquired in eminent domain proceedings (Sneed v. County of Riverside (1963) 218 Cal.App.2d 205 . . .). Thus in Flopping the city in question made public announcements that it intended to acquire the plaintiff’s lánd, then unreasonably delayed commencement of eminent domain proceedings, with the predictable result that the property became commercially useless and suffered a decline in market value. We held only that the plaintiff should be able to include in his eminent domain damages the decline in value attributable to this *637unreasonable precondemnation action by the city. The case thus in no way resembles the instant one, in which plaintiffs make no allegations that the city intends to condemn the tract in question.
“Similarly in Peacock the county had refused to permit any development of the land in question (barring even the growth of most vegetation), while assuring the owner that the restrictions were of no consequence because the county intended to acquire the land for an airport. When, after denying the owner any use of his property for five years, the county renounced its intent to acquire the land, the Court of Appeal affirmed a trial court finding that ‘ “[t]he exceptional and extraordinary circumstances heretofore enumerated . . . constituted a take [szc] of the subject property by inverse condemnation.” ’ (271 Cal.App.2d at p. 854.) Again one sees that the downzoning rises to a taking only in connection with inequitable precondemnation actions by the public agency.
“Finally, the cases hold that a public agency may not use a zoning ordinance to evade the requirement that the state acquire property which it uses for public purposes. Thus in Sneed, the county, rather than acquiring land for an air navigation easement, simply enacted a zoning ordinance forbidding any structure or vegetation more than three inches high and proceeded to operate flights over the area thus restricted. The Court of Appeal held that the plaintiff had stated a cause of action in inverse condemnation. Unlike the instant case, Sneed involved a zoning ordinance creating an actual public use of the property." (15 Cal.3d at p. 517, fn. 14.) It also noted, “This case does not present, and we therefore do not decide, the question of entitlement to compensation in the event a zoning regulation forbade substantially all use of the land in question. We leave the question for another day.” (Id., p. 518, fn. 16.)
In Eldridge, and in Beyer as well, the plaintiff relied upon a course of conduct by the city which he claims brought his case within the exceptions noted above. In my judgment neither plaintiff has done so, but I do not believe either case may be summarily disposed of by reference to HFH, Ltd. v. Superior Court. I have accordingly reiterated what I said before in connection with Eldridge v. City of Palo Alto, with slight editorial changes, and added my views with respect to Beyer v. City of Palo Alto, et al.
*638A review of the record reflects that the plaintiff-landowner has stipulated himself out of court.1 He contends that a valid exercise of the police power may give rise to an action for damages and that the plans, ordinances and actions of the city as alleged fall within that category. Nevertheless, with exceptions noted below, he relies upon authorities which, in reference to governmental action in the fields of planning and rezoning, hold that regulations which are confiscatory are invalid and not a proper exercise of the police power. By his refusal to seek declaratory relief,2 mandate3 or other recognized remedies for relief against govem*639mental restrictions on the use of his property,4 he has left himself without a remedy. He seeks to retain his property, which has not been subjected to any physical appropriation, or invasion, and to be compensated for it too.
I
The keystone of plaintiff’s attack is found in Penna. Coal Co. v. Mahon, supra, 260 U.S. 393, where Justice Holmes in ringing words pronounced, “We are in danger of forgetting that a strong public desire to improve the public condition is not enough to warrant achieving the desire by a shorter cut than the constitutional way of paying for the change. ... [1] We assume, of course, that the statute was passed upon the conviction that an exigency existed that would warrant it, and we assume that an exigency exists that would warrant the exercise of eminent domain. But the question at bottom is upon whom the loss of the changes desired should fall. So far as private persons or communities have seen fit to take the risk of acquiring only surface rights, we cannot see that the fact that their risk has become a danger warrants the giving to them greater rights than they bought.” (260 U.S. at p. 416 [67 L.Ed. at p. 326].) The court, however, did not award the coal company compensation for the inroads which the state had made into the company’s mining rights by legislation which purported to require that the company support the surface of land which it had granted subject to mineral rights, including the right to mine without liability for subsidence.5 It *640merely declared the legislation unconstitutional and reversed a decision of the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania which had directed that an injunction be issued against the coal company’s violation of the regulation. It is clear from the decision that the confiscatory nature of the regulation is not grounds for a cause of action for damages, but the measure of the constitutional power to regulate.6
In Beverly Oil Co. v. City of Los Angeles (1953) 40 Cal.2d 552 [254 P.2d 865], the court recognized the essential distinction as follows: “ . . . the very essence of the police power as differentiated from the power of eminent domain is that the deprivation of individual rights and property cannot prevent its operation, once it is shown that its exercise is proper and that the method of its exercise is reasonably within the meaning of due process of law.” (40 Cal.2d at p. 557. See also Consolidated Rock Products Co. v. City of Los Angeles (1962) 57 Cal.2d 515, 530 [20 Cal.Rptr. 638, 370 P.2d 342].) In the case last cited the court referred with approval to decisions which indicated that the Pennsylvania Coal Co. case was inapplicable to comprehensive zoning (57 Cal.2d at p. 529).
II
Plaintiff alleges that he has not been able to find a single decided case passing on the compensability of a claimed taking by a particular local government application of a state mandated open-space conservation planning and zoning project. By stating the problem in such limited form he seeks to escape the general rules, reviewed below, that planning itself can give rise to no right of action, and that zoning, if not confiscatory, is not actionable merely because it precludes the most profitable use of *641property. He also disavows finding a case passing on the compensability of government-compelled contribution of all development rights as a condition of owning undeveloped but developable land in the compelling jurisdiction. The absence of such authority is indicative that such action, if arbitrary and confiscatory, is to be attacked directly as unconstitutional, and, since it cannot bind the property, no compensation is in order unless the public body elects to proceed to condemn the interests which are so protected.
The problems posed by this case are not as ephemeral as plaintiff would have us believe. They may be resolved by examination of his contention that a continued series of cumulative regulatory activities prohibiting or “freezing” all private and beneficial use of private property, in the implementation of a local public project, gives rise to a right of action in inverse condemnation. Plaintiff seeks support for this position in a series of cases beginning with Kissinger v. City of Los Angeles (1958) 161 Cal.App.2d 454 [327 P.2d 10].
Kissinger was not a claim for damages, but an action for declaratory relief. The court recognized, “. . . it is the duty of the courts to set aside an ordinance which under the facts is clearly unreasonable and oppressive or discriminatory. [Citations.]” (161 Cal.App.2d at p. 460.) The court found that the ordinance in question restricted plaintiff’s property alone, while it left all similarly situated property subject to the provisions of the comprehensive zoning ordinance which formerly controlled plaintiff’s property (id., at p. 460); that there had been no change in the character of the subject property or the surrounding area since the original zoning (id., pp. 460-461); that the sole reason assigned for the exercise of the police power in rezoning the property was to prevent an undue congestion of population in the area and thus expose fewer people to the hazards arising from the operation of a nearby airfield, which hazards had existed at the time the property was originally zoned, and remained common hazards to other property within the flight pattern which was not rezoned; and that the city intended to condemn the property it had rezoned (id., p. 461). The court concluded: “The inference is clear that the true purpose of the ordinance was to prevent the improvement of the subject property in order that it might be acquired at a lesser price for airport purposes” (id., pp. 461-462); and “In short the ordinance arbitrarily rezoned the plaintiffs’ property to a use to winch it could not economically be put, lying as it does between multiple-dwelling development and commercial development and discriminates against the plaintiffs by preventing the use of *642their property for the use for which it is best fitted, while permitting all other property similarly situated and zoned to be used as R-3 property.” (Id., pp. 462-463.) Insofar as this case is concerned, the court, in declaring the ordinance invalid, observed, “A zoning ordinance may not be used as a device to take property for public use without the payment of compensation. [Citations.]” (Id., p. 462.) This would assist plaintiff if he was seeking a similar declaration and could show that the city was discriminating against his property to lower its value with the intent to condemn it for a park or other uses.7 It in no way creates an election to sue the offending public body for damages.8
Plaintiff’s next pillar is Sneed v. County of Riverside (1963) 218 Cal.App.2d 205 [32 Cal.Rptr. 318], in which the court found that the plaintiff had stated a cause of action for inverse condemnation under the following circumstances: “. . . the zoning law and the zoning ordinance *643permit elimination of airport hazards in approaches to airports through the exercise of the police power ‘to the extent legally possible’ (Gov. Code, § 50485.2); where ‘constitutional limitations’ prevent the necessary approach protection under the police power, the necessary property right may be acquired by purchase, grant, or condemnation in the manner provided by law.” (218 Cal.App.2d at p. 209.) The court observed, “The basic controversy is whether the Riverside County Ordinance is in reality a height limit ordinance authorized under the police power or whether it takes an air easement over plaintiff’s property without payment of compensation therefor.” (Id., p. 208.) It stated, “We believe there is a distinction between the commonly accepted and traditional height restriction zoning regulations of buildings and zoning of airport approaches in that the latter contemplates actual use of the airspace zoned, by aircraft, whereas in the building cases there is no invasion or trespass to the area above the restricted zone.” (Id., at p. 209, italics added.) It concluded: “In his complaint plaintiff seeks to set forth two bases upon which he is entitled to compensation, (1) upon an easement obtained through the ordinance, and (2) on the ground that large numbers of aircraft take off and land, fly at low altitudes over plaintiff’s property ‘pursuant to instructions from the employees of defendant county. We believe that a cause of action has been stated on each ground.” (Id.) This is a far step from saying that a plan or rezoning which affects the value of a landowner’s property is a taking when it is not accompanied by an invasion of his property. Sneed is generally limited to its factual situation.9
We approach a step closer to plaintiff’s claim with Peacock v. County of Sacramento (1969) 271 Cal.App.2d 845 [77 Cal.Rptr. 391]. Herd a judgment for the landowner in inverse condemnation was sustained. The opinion states, “The controversy centers upon the impact on plaintiffs’ property rights of a series of actions taken by the Sacramento County Board of Supervisors, which actions were based upon what was initially an assumption and subsequently became a publicly stated intention that the county would eventually purchase Phoenix Field for use as a public aviation facility. The ‘take’ area with which we are concerned was *644included in that additional property which the county would have had to purchase in order to operate the facility in accordance with their expressed plans. The activities of the board, involved in this case, commenced in 1958 and had not been concluded at the time the subject proceeding was initiated.” (271 Cal.App.2d at p. 847.) Neither the trial court nor the reviewing court found all of these activities actionable. The opinion points out, “Significantly, the trial court did not find that any of the county’s enactments or actions, standing alone, constituted inverse condemnation. Rather, the court agreed with the position of the county at trial that Ordinance 697 was enacted as and was an interim study ordinance, and that the period between its enactment and the adoption of the general plan for Phoenix Field was a reasonable time for completion of such study. Nor did the court hold that the rezoning of the property in June of 1963 furnished a basis for relief, although of the five private airports referred to in the Leigh-Fisher reports only property adjacent to Phoenix Field was so reclassified. [Citation.] Further, the court did not consider the enactment and adoption of the general plan, per se, as constituting inverse condemnation, but reached its conclusion partly on the basis of the continuation of the restrictive measures beyond what was found to be a reasonable time for their existence.” (271 Cal.App.2d at p. 856.) In distinguishing metro Realty v. County of El Dorado (1963) 222 Cal.App.2d 508 [35 Cal.Rptr. 480], and Morse v. County of San Luis Obispo (1967) 247 Cal.App.2d 600 [55 Cal.Rptr. 710], the court highlighted the significant factors which led it to affirm that there was a taking on November 13, 1963, when the county adopted a general plan continuing the restrictions it had adopted before, and thereafter authorized the prosecution of the plan including negotiations for the purchase of the property involved. (See 271 Cal.App.2d at pp. 849-850 and 855.) In Peacock, as in Sneed, the plaintiff was singled out as a lonely object of regulation, the ordinance was not of general application as in Metro. Peacock’s lands were usable and subdividable, and attempts to secure approval of a subdivision map had been thwarted by the county, whereas in Metro the lands were unused and unusable, and no subdivisions were located in the vicinity. In the latter case the restrictions were temporary and had not jelled into permanency. In Peacock there was, as in Sneed, an attempt to take the airspace without compensation. Moreover, there was an express purpose (later revoked) to take the particular property involved and to affect the value of that property by the restrictions. (See 271 Cal.App.2d atpp. 859-863.)
As a result, Peacock has been referred to by the Supreme Court as a case which “upheld a claim of inverse condemnation because the county *645had announced its intention to condemn plaintiff’s land for an airport, rezoned and restricted the use of that property so that its value would be depressed in the event of future public acquisition, refused permission to subdivide, and finally abandoned the airport project altogether.” (Selby Realty Co. v. City of Buenaventura (1973) 10 Cal.3d 110, 120 [109 Cal.Rptr. 799, 514 P.2d 111]. See also HFH, Ltd. v. Superior Court, supra, 15 Cal.3d 508, 508, 517, fn. 14; Klopping v. City of Whittier (1972) 8 Cal.3d 39, 44 and 46 [104 Cal.Rptr. 1, 500 P.2d 1345]; Aaron v. City of Los Angeles (1974) 40 Cal.App.3d 471, 481 [115 Cal.Rptr. 162]; Turner v. County of Del Norte (1972) 24 Cal.App.3d 311, 315 [101 Cal.Rptr. 93]; and Candlestick Properties, Inc. v. San Francisco Bay Conservation etc. Com. (1970) 11 Cal.App.3d 557, 572 [89 Cal.Rptr. 897]. Cf. Gisler v. County of Madera (1974) 38 Cal.App.3d 303, 306 [112 Cal.Rptr. 919]; and People ex rel. Dept. Pub. Wks. v. Southern Pac. Trans. Co. (1973) 33 Cal.App.3d 960, 965-966 [109 Cal.Rptr. 525].)
Klopping v. City of Whittier, supra, 8 Cal.3d 39, is a case of similar tenor. There the court ruled, “Accordingly we hold that a condemnee must be provided with an opportunity to demonstrate that (1) the public authority acted improperly either by unreasonably delaying eminent domain action following an announcement of intent to condemn or by other unreasonable conduct prior to condemnation; and (2) as a result of such action the property in question suffered a diminution in market value.” (8 Cal.3d at p. 52.) In Selby Realty Co. v. City of San Buenaventura, supra, the court observed, “Neither Flopping nor any other decision of which we are aware holds that the enactment of a general plan for the future development of an area, indicating potential public uses of privately owned land, amounts to inverse condemnation of that land.” (10 Cal.3d at p. 119. See also HFH, Ltd. v. Superior Court, supra, 15 Cal.3d 508, 517, fn. 14; Navajo Terminals, Inc. v. San Francisco Bay Conservation & Development Com. (1975) 46 Cal.App.3d 1, 4 [120 Cal.Rptr. 108]; Redevelopment Agency v. Del-Camp Investments, Inc. (1974) 38 Cal.App.3d 836, 842 [113 Cal.Rptr. 762]; and People ex rel. Dept. Pub. Wks. v. Southern Pac. Trans. Co., supra, 33 Cal.App.3d 960, 965.)
People ex rel. Dept. Pub. Wks. v. Southern Pac. Trans. Co., supra, 33 Cal.App.3d 960, states, “Since the condemnee has its rights of recovery against the city, there is no compelling need that the same damage be compensated in the eminent domain proceeding brought by the state.” (33 Cal.App.3d at p. 966.) That statement is predicated on the premise, “A zoning restriction imposed to depress value with a view to future *646eminent domain proceedings itself creates a cause of action in inverse condemnation against the governmental unit enacting the zoning ordinance. [Citations.] The zoning restriction may be invalidated by a direct attack. [Citation.]” (33 Cal.App.3d at p. 966.) In my opinion the Court of Appeal erred in not permitting the trial court to determine the validity of the city zoning in the action by the state, just as a party may introduce evidence tending to show the possibility of a higher zoning permitting greater value. The court has attempted to shift the cost of the state improvement to the city taxpayers, when in fact the state, and not the city, acquired the property. If the zoning had been contested before the action and declared invalid, the state would have been forced to pay the full price.
In Dahl v. City of Palo Alto (N.D.Cal. 1974) 372 F.Supp. 647, the plaintiff sought damages by reason of the same actions of the city as are the subj ect of the complaint in this case. The court held that allegations that the regulation imposed by the city “is arbitrary and capricious and that it allows no reasonable use of plaintiff’s property” were sufficient to raise a factual issue as to whether the zoning regulations were a proper exercise of the police power. (372 F.Supp. at pp. 648-649.) With this I can agree, and it would be applicable here if the plaintiff had not stipulated to the contrary.
The district court also found that there were sufficient allegations to establish that the moratorium on the use of her land constituted a taking under principles enunciated in Peacock v. City of Sacramento, supra. For reasons set forth herein, I cannot reach a similar conclusion in this case. That court also found that there were facts alleged which created an equitable estoppel against the city sustaining the plaintiff’s claim of breach of contract and misrepresentation (id., p. 649). With respect to the claim that the plaintiff had not exhausted her administrative remedies the court observed that a claim had allegedly been filed, and that the allegations reflected that it would be a useless course to require the landowner to seek a variance. (Id.)
The opinion fails to confront the issue of whether the plaintiff’s recourse is limited to having the regulation invalidated and her property restored to its former status. It assumes that there was a taking despite the alleged improper exercise of the regulatory power. I, therefore, find the opinion unpursuasive and inconsistent with the opinions of the Supreme Court of this state which have denied a right to inverse condemnation under similar circumstances.
*647In Arastra Limited Partnership v. City of Palo Alto (N.D.Cal. 1975) 401 F.Supp. 962, the federal court again upheld a landowner’s right to recover damages for inverse condemnation on the basis of the actions of the City of Palo Alto, many of which have a common effect on the lands of Eldridge and of Beyer. In my opinion the complaint in this action fails to fall within the framework of that case because plaintiff has failed to allege that he ever had initiated or secured approval of any development plan which was foreclosed by the series of actions taken by the city, or that the city ever designated his particular parcel for acquisition to the extent shown in the cited case. Moreover, in my opinion the district court erred in not relegating the landowner to his right to develop the property under the prior zoning if, as it found, the new zoning was confiscatory. I express no opinion as to whether under the circumstances related in the cited case, the landowner would be entitled to some compensation under Klopping for the period commencing with the determination to take its property and terminating with the abandonment of that type of action.
Other cases which recognize an action for inverse condemnation where the plaintiff’s property has been physically invaded, or has been diminished in value because of actual use of the airspace,10 are not controlling or pursuasive on the issues raised by the plaintiff’s complaint.
Ill
According to the complaint, plaintiff’s property consists of an undeveloped parcel of approximately 750 contiguous acres on Skyline Boulevard and Page Mill Road in the San Francisco peninsula foothills overlooking San Francisco Bay. He acquired the property March 15, 1968, for the sum of $2,050,000, plus assumption of an assessment balance of $406,662.38 for municipal sewer and water utilities which had *648been financed by an assessment district in 1963,11 four years after the city in 1959 had annexed an area of approximately 6,000 acres of which the property subsequently purchased by plaintiff was a part. At the time of the annexation of the property, the improvements on the property were limited to some old ranch buildings, electric and telephone utility service and public road on two sides. Títere is no mention that any improvements other than those mentioned above were constructed before or after the acquisition by plaintiff. At the time of acquisition the property was zoned R-E.A (Residential Estate—Agricultural) for low density single-family residential development on minimum one-acre lots with one primary dwelling unit per lot. The plaintiff purchased the property for the purposes of long term investment and planned development, intending to make use of its many rolling hills, wooded glens and spectacular panoramic views of the entire San Francisco Bay area.
The gravamen of plaintiff’s complaint is found in allegations that a series of public acts and transactions commencing in 1969, and “in particular those of defendant CITY occurring between February 28, 1972, and August 14, 1972, constitute a taking of plaintiff’s private property for public use as permanent open space without prior payment of just compensation as required by Article I, section 14, of the Constitution of the State of California.” A second cause of action seeks recovery under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution of the United States, and alleges, “Said series of acts and transactions of defendant CITY have devalued plaintiff’s land by more than three-fourths of its fair market value and to substantially below its actual cost, which is a wholly unreasonable degree in that it is thus impossible to reasonably develop the said property with a fair return or otherwise.” A third cause of action alleges, “Said series of act's and transactions of the defendant CITY amount to a damaging according to proof of plaintiff’s private property for public use without just compensation having first been paid, in violation of Article I, Section 14, of the Constitution of the State of California.” Plaintiff seeks $4 million which he alleges was the fair market value of his property prior to the alleged taking. Claim for damages was made to the city as required by law on September 14, 1972, and the action was filed December 18, 1972, after the city failed to act on the claim.
*649The acts complained of fall into three categories—planning, moratorium on development, and 'rezoning. The complaint alleges that in 1969 the city commenced a series of environmental and land use studies; that in 1970 the city began to publicly discuss the purchase of foothill properties for the preservation of open space; that on June 7, 1971, the city adopted an amendment to its general plan reclassifying over 90 percent of the undeveloped foothills (over 5,900 acres, including plaintiff’s property) to “Open Space and/or Conservation and Park” uses; that on April 17, 1972, the general plan was amended by the addition of an open space element.12 Plaintiffs also recognize that in 1970 the state Legislature mandated the preparation of such plans. (See Gov. Code, §§ 65560-65570, particularly § 65563, as adopted Stats. 1970, ch. 1590, § 15, p. 3316.)13
Selby Realty Co. v. City of San Buenaventura, supra, makes it clear that the adoption of a plan itself, even though it may designate areas to be appropriated for public use in the future, gives no right of action for inverse condemnation. The court rejected such a contention as follows: “The deleterious consequences of haphazard community growth in this state and the need to prevent further random development are evident to even the most casual observer. The Legislature has attempted to alleviate the problem by authorizing the adoption of long-range plans for orderly progress. Thus, it has provided not only for the adoption of general plans but also regional plans (§ 65060 et seq.), specific plans (§ 65450 et seq.), district plans (§ 66105 et seq.), and a comprehensive plan for the conservation of San Francisco Bay (§ 66650 et seq.). In addition, the *650voters recently passed an initiative measure providing the mechanism for adoption of plans to preserve and protect the state’s coastline. (Pub. ' Resources Code, § 27000 et seq.)
“If a governmental entity and its responsible officials were held subject to a claim for inverse condemnation merely because a parcel of land was designated for potential public use on one of these several authorized plans, the process, of community planning would either grind to a halt, or deteriorate to publication of vacuous generalizations regarding the future use of land. We indulge in no hyperbole to suggest that if eveiy landowner whose property might be affected at some vague and distant future time by any of these legislatively permissible plans was entitled to bring an action in declaratory relief to obtain a judicial declaration as to the validity and potential effect of the plan upon his land, the courts of this state would be inundated with futile litigation. It is clear, under all the circumstances, that plaintiff has not stated a cause of action against the county defendants for either declaratory relief or inverse condemnation.” (10 Cal.3d at pp. 120-121, see also pp. 127-128; and HFH, Ltd. v. Superior Court, supra, 15 Cal.3d 508, 516; and Navajo Terminals, Inc. v. San Francisco Bay Conservation & Development Com., supra, 46 Cal.App.3d 1, 3-5; and Hilltop Properties v. State of California (1965) 233 Cal.App.2d 349, 354-361 [43 Cal.Rptr. 605, 37 A.L.R.3d 109].)
Nor did the delays attendant to the adoption of the plan and the ensuing zoning ordinance give rise to a cause of action. At any time up to the effective date of the moratorium ordinance adopted July 1971, the plaintiff could have applied for all permits necessary for the development of his property, and in the absence of any contrary legislation had a right to secure them. The subsequent delays during the planning process gave rise to no cause of action. In Miller v. Board of Public Works (1925) 195 Cal. 477 [234 P. 381, 38 A.L.R. 1479], the court pointed out, “It is a matter of common knowledge that a zoning plan of the extent contemplated in the instant case cannot be made in a day. Therefore, we may take judicial notice of the fact that it will take much time to work out the details of such a plan and that obviously it would be destructive of the plan if, during the period of its incubation, parties seeking to evade the operation thereof should be permitted to enter upon a course of construction which might progress so far as to defeat in whole or in part the ultimate execution of the plan.” (195 Cal. at p. 496.) Recognition of that necessity has often been applied to sustain moratoria on development and construction activity without compensation to the owner. (See Gov. Code, § 65858 [former § 65804]; State of California v. *651Superior Court (Veta Company) (1974) 12 Cal.3d 237, 252-255 [115 Cal.Rptr. 497, 524 P.2d 1281]; Candlestick Properties, Inc. v. San Francisco Bay Conservation etc. Com., supra, 11 Cal.App.3d 557, 570-573; Metro Realty v. County of El Dorado, supra, 222 Cal.App.2d 508, 511-519; and Hunter v. Adams (1960) 180 Cal.App.2d 511, 523-524 [4 Cal.Rptr. 776].)
The fact, as alleged, that on April 17, 1972, the city authorized the purchase of 43 acres of privately owned foothills land for open space at a price of approximately $12,000 an acre is of no significance. According to the complaint 6,000 acres are involved, and no particular 43 acres are designated in the complaint. Five thousand nine hundred acres were classified as for “Open Space and/or Conservation and Park” uses on June 7, 1971. Such a classification was certainly not directed to the 43 acres, much less directly at plaintiff’s 750 acres. Plaintiff allegedly acquired the property at a gross price of about $3,275 per acre on March 15, 1968. He claims damages of approximately $5,333 per acre, whether for the whole of his property, or solely for the alleged restrictions on the use of his property is not clear. In any event, the $12,000 per acre offered by the city in no way shows a studied attempt at planning, moratorium and rezoning to drive down the price of property.
The kernel of plaintiff’s complaint must be the rezoning which on June 5, 1972, added open space regulations to the zoning code, and on August 14, 1972, classified plaintiff’s property in that category. This changed the classification of the property from “R-E:A (Residential Estate—Agricultural), for low-density single-family residential development on minimum one-acre lots with one primary dwelling unit per lot” to “O-S (Open Space).” Under the new zoning “construction of one-family dwellings on the property ... is expressly limited to 10-acre minimum lots with a maximum of impervious area and building coverage of 3.5 per cent. . . .” Uses are limited to “(1) Public recreation (2) Enjoyment of scenic beauty (3) Conservation of use of natural resources (4) Production of food or fiber (5) Protection of man and his artifacts (buildings, property, etc.) (6) Containment and structuring of urban development.”
There may well be a justiciable issue as to whether this zoning meets the test of the regulatory power as limited in Penna. Coal Co. v. Mahon, supra. Plaintiff has alleged, “The aforesaid acts and transactions of defendant CITY have deprived plaintiff of all private uses of his said property and appropriated his private property rights therein” and “The *652aforesaid acts and transactions of defendant CITY have deprived plaintiff of any reasonable or economically feasible use of his said property.” These statements are legal conclusions and not allegations of ultimate fact. (See Hilltop Properties v. State of California, supra, 233 Cal.App.2d 349, 354.) Nevertheless they contain the germ of facts which might render the new ordinance invalid if it can be shown to be confiscatory. (See G & D Holland Construction Co. v. City of Marysville (1970) 12 Cal.App.3d 989, 994-997 [91 Cal.Rptr. 227]; Munns v. Stenman (1957) 152 Cal.App.2d 543, 552-555 [314 P.2d 67]; and Bernstein v. Smutz (1947) 83 Cal.App.2d 108, 117-125 [188 P.2d 48], Cf. Consolidated Rock Products Co. v. City of Los Angeles, supra, 57 Cal.2d 515, 530-532; McCarthy v. City of Manhattan Beach (1953) 41 Cal.2d 879, 890 [264 P.2d 932]; Gisler v. County of Madera, supra, 38 Cal.App.3d 303, 307-309; Morse v. County of San Luis Obispo (1967) 247 Cal.App.2d 600, 602-603 [55 Cal.Rptr. 710]; Smith v. County of Santa Barbara (1966) 243 Cal.App.2d 126, 132 [52 Cal.Rptr. 292]; Anderson v. City Council (1964) 229 Cal.App.2d 79, 88-90 [40 Cal.Rptr. 41]; and Mang v. County of Santa Barbara (1960) 182 Cal.App.2d 93, 101-102 [5 Cal.Rptr. 724].)
The combination of the moratorium, plan and rezoning does not establish an illegal whole which entitles the plaintiff to relief despite the legality of its parts. Nor is he aided by the allegation that more than two months after he filed his claim the city publicly announced “that the open space rezoning enacted on said August 14, 1972, ‘signified that one of Palo Alto’s greatest assets—its green and golden foothills—would be conserved as backdrop to the city for generations to come,’ ” and declared “ ‘the 1,400 acres which the City owns in Foothills Park and a public trails and path system, which is being designed for the foothills, will allow Palo Altans to enjoy the open space.’ ” If the plaintiff’s property is condemned for parks, trails or paths, or if the city attempts to use it for such purposes without condemnation he has his legal remedies, and in an action for condemnation, direct or indirect, he may assert his contention that the property is illegally zoned and seek compensation on a value free from the zoning. He also had the right to seek a declaration that the actual restrictions placed on his property were illegal, or, in the alternative, a right to seek to force the city to permit him to develop his property in a manner consistent with the prior zoning. He has elected not to pursue those remedies. (See fn. 1 above.) He is not entitled to compensation on the facts alleged in his complaint. (See HFH, Ltd. v. Superior Court, supra, 15 Cal.3d 508, 513-523; State of California v. Superior Court (Veta Company), supra, 12 Cal.3d 237, 252-255; and Selby *653Realty Co. v. City of San Buenaventura, supra, 10 Cal.3d 110, 118, 121 and 127-128.)
The trial court properly sustained the demurrer to the complaint on the ground that no cause of action was stated for inverse condemnation. Plaintiff’s failure to attack the zoning ordinance directly renders it unnecessary to determine whether he has alleged facts sufficient to show that it was not a valid exercise of the police power, and I express no opinion on that ground, or on the issue of whether plaintiff should have applied for a variance before so attacking the ordinance. Because plaintiff so restricted his prayer and failed to produce, on rehearing, any amended complaint, there was no error in denying his request to amend. I would affirm the judgment in Eldridge v. City of Palo Alto.
Beyer v. City of Palo Alto et al.
For the reasons set forth above I am of the opinion that the plaintiff in this action failed to set forth facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action to recover damages for inverse condemnation. He did, however, unlike Eldridge, seek a declaration that the open space ordinance was illegal, unconstitutional and void. Those allegations suggested many interesting issues which have been thoroughly briefed by the litigants and two amici curiae.14 Because of intervening developments brought to the attention of the court by the city’s motion to dismiss the appeal as moot, it is, in my opinion, unnecessary to reach those issues.
The judgment of dismissal was entered July 12, 1973, and Beyer appealed .on July 25, 1973. The city has asked us to, and I do, take *654judicial notice of certain public records which indicate that by deeds dated April 3, 1974, and recorded May 8, 1974, the Beyer property was conveyed to one Harrington. Prior thereto on March 11, 1974, Harrington had secured approval of the city council for his application to divide the property into two lots. Thereafter on May 13, 1974, the council, upon recommendation of the planning commission approved Harrington’s application for site and design approval of a single family residence on one of the lots. On August 12, 1974, a building permit was issued to him and thereafter various inspections of the work were made and supplementary permits issued. Meanwhile, by deed dated June 24, 1974, and. recorded January 20, 1975, Harrington conveyed away a portion of the property. Neither Harrington nor his grantees have intervened or been substituted in the Beyer’s action, and for all that appears they are satisfied to have acquired and developed the property under the open space zoning.
Beyer does not contest the foregoing facts, but he claims he is still entitled to a declaration that the ordinance is invalid. He relies upon Millbrae Assn, for Residential Survival v. City of Millbrae (1968) 262 Cal.App.2d 222 [69 Cal.Rptr. 251], wherein this court observed, in connection with a similar motion, “[Wjhen one acts under compulsion or coercion in compliance with a judgment, he does not lose his right of appeal from that judgment.” (262 Cal.App.2d at pp. 232-233.) There is nothing in the record except a bare statement in plaintiff’s reply brief to show that he was under compulsion to sell his land to realize cash in order to meet his debts and remain solvent. In the case cited it also appeared that there was a continuity of interest between the vendor and vendee, and that the former had undertaken to continue the litigation for the benefit of the latter (id., at p. 232). No such showing was made here. It would appear that the plaintiff no longer has a pecuniary or other interest in having the open space zoning declared unconstitutional, illegal and void. (See Goldman v. County of Santa Barbara (1962) 203 Cal.App.2d 454, 456-458 [21 Cal.Rptr. 532].)
Plaintiff also seeks to equate his position with plaintiff Sarff in Klopping v. City of Whittier, supra, 8 Cal.3d 39. Sarff filed his suit in inverse condemnation on March 26, 1968, and lost his property through foreclosure the following May 16. The court stated, “Certainly this fortuity does not preclude him from recovering for any damages caused by the city in making the two announcements in question. Sarff complains that he was unable to rent the property in the period following the precondemnation announcements. Under the rules discussed above *655rental loss is a proper element of recovery. In the petition for hearing filed herein, it also appears that he seeks recovery for damages occasioned by the fact that his property was ultimately foreclosed because the condemnation resolution prevented him from deriving income from his land in order to make mortgage payments. The availability of this element of damage can be more fully explored on remand.” (8 Cal.3d at p. 58.) As we have seen, Flopping involves the depressive effect of improper steps toward condemnation. Beyer has failed to show that the city was attempting to condemn his property. He claims damages from the moratoria and the ultimate open space zoning. No damages may be recovered on either ground. (Selby Realty Co. v. City of San Buenaventura, supra, 10 Cal.3d 110, 118-119; and HFH, Ltd. v. Superior Court, supra, 15 Cal.3d 508, 513-523.)
I would, therefore, dismiss the Beyer appeal because events occurring after the judgment have rendered the appeal moot. (See Goldman v. County of Santa Barbara, supra, 203 Cal.App.2d 454, 457-458.)
The petition of respondent City of Palo Alto for a hearing by the Supreme Court was denied July 15, 1976. Wright, C. J., Tobriner, J., and Mosk, J., were of the opinion that the petition should be granted.

 The complaint alleges that the plaintiff’s real property had a fair market value of $4 million prior to the alleged taking. His prayer is for “compensation in the sum of $4,000,000.00; his costs, disbursements and expenses, including reasonable attorney, appraisal, and engineering fees actually incurred herein; legal interest thereon from the date of taking or damaging; and for such further relief as the Court deems proper.”
In support of the complaint, plaintiff’s attorney advised the trial court, “TTie validity and public purpose of defendant’s transactions in implementing its Open-Space project is unquestioned.” In his closing brief he states, “. . . appellant believes, as respondent does, that the States 1970-72 open-space legislation and respondents thereby enabled open-space activities pursued during the same period legally constitute a valid exercise of the police power.”
At the hearing on the demurrer plaintiff’s counsel requested that in the event the demurrer should be sustained he be granted leave to amend to put in “a tremendous amount of evidentiary factual material surrounding” the transactions involved. The order sustaining the demurrer without leave to amend was signed and filed on March 16, 1973, and judgment of dismissal was filed and entered March 26. On the same day plaintiff prepared, and on the following day filed, a notice of motion for reconsideration of ruling on demurrer. No date was noted for hearing but a request was made for setting a time and place convenient for the court. The notice states, “Said motion is made in the furtherance of justice and on the grounds that the Court should reconsider its ruling upon consideration of plaintiff’s proposed amended complaint.” It refers to a proposed amended complaint. No such complaint is attached to the notice of motion in the record, nor does plaintiff’s request for a clerk’s transcript designate any such proposed amended complaint as a part of the record. The city filed a memorandum in opposition, but so far as appeared from the record, no amended complaint was ever prepared, nor was the noticed motion, or any other motion seeking review of the order and/or judgment, ever brought on for hearing. There is no suggestion that plaintiff ever sought relief other than that set forth in his original prayer.

 See: State of California v. Superior Court (Veta Company) (1974) 12 Cal.3d 237, 250-252 and cf. 248-250 [115 Cal.Rptr. 497, 524 P.2d 1281]; Consolidated Rock Products Co. v. City of Los Angeles (1962) 57 Cal.2d 515, 517 [20 Cal.Rptr. 638, 370 P.2d 342]; Beverly Oil Co. v. City of Los Angeles (1953) 40 Cal.2d 552, 554 [254 P.2d 865]; and Kissinger v. City of Los Angeles (1958) 161 Cal.App.2d 454, 455 and 460 [327 P.2d 10], Cf. Selby Realty Co. v. City of San Buenaventura (1973) 10 Cal.3d 110, 117-118 and 126-127 [109 Cal.Rptr. 799, 514 P.2d 111].

 See HFH, Ltd. v. Superior Court, supra, 15 Cal.3d 508, 513, fn. 5 [125 Cal.Rptr. 365, 542 P.2d 237], and accompanying text; State of California v. Superior Court (Veta Company), supra, 12 Cal.3d 237, 244-248; Selby Realty Co. v. City of San Buenaventura, supra, 10 Cal.3d 110, 121-125 and 128; G & D Holland Construction Co. v. City of Marysville (1970) 12 Cal.App.3d 989, 992 [91 Cal.Rptr. 227]; Candlestick Properties, Inc. v. San Francisco Bay Conservation etc. Com. (1970) 11 Cal.App.3d 557, 562 [89 Cal.Rptr. *639897]; Munns v. Stenman (1957) 152 Cal.App.2d 543, 556 [314 P.2d 67]; and Bernstein v. Smutz (1947) 83 Cal.App.2d 108, 113-114 [188 P.2d 48],

 See: State of California v. Superior Court (Veta Company), supra, 12 Cal.3d 237, 252 [injunction]; Consolidated Rock Products Co. v. City of Los Angeles, supra, 57 Cal.2d 515, 517 [injunction]; Beverly Oil Co. v. City of Los Angeles, supra, 40 Cal.2d 552,, 554 [injunction]; and Metro Realty v. County of El Dorado (1963) 222 Cal.App.2d 508, 509 [35 Cal.Rptr. 480] [review Bus. & Prof. Code, former § 11525, see § 11525.1],

 The lone voice of Justice Brandéis appears more attuned to modem concepts. He stated in dissent, “. . . where the police power is exercised, not to confer benefits upon property owners, but to protect the public from detriment and danger, there is, in my opinion, no room for considering reciprocity of advantage. There was no reciprocal advantage to the owner prohibited from using his oil tanks [citation]; his brickyard [citation]; his livery stable [citation]; his billiard hall [citation]; his oleomargarine factory [citation];' his brewery [citation]; unless it be the advantage of living and doing business in a civilized community. That reciprocal advantage is given by the act to the coal operators.” (260 U.S. at p. 422 [67 L.Ed. at p. 329].) Concepts of what constitutes a civilized community are ever changing. Justice Lennon over 50 years ago recognized, “Thus it is apparent that the police power is not a circumscribed prerogative, but is elastic and, in keeping with the growth of knowledge and the belief in the popular mind of the need for its application, capable of expansion to meet existing conditions of modern life and thereby keep pace with the social, economic, moral, and intellectual *640evolution of the human race.” (Miller v. Board of Public Works (1925) 195 Cal. 477, 485 [234 P. 381, 38 A.L.R. 1479]. See also Consolidated Rock Products Co. v. City of Los Angeles (1962) 57 Cal.2d 515, 522 [20 Cal.Rptr. 638, 370 P.2d 342].)

Holmes stated, “Government hardly could go on if to some extent values incident to property could not be diminished without paying for every such change in the general law. As long recognized, some values are enjoyed under an implied limitation and must yield to the police power. But obviously the implied limitation must have its limits, or the contract and due process clauses are gone. One fact for consideration in determining such limits is the extent of the diminution. When it reaches a certain magnitude, in most if not in all cases there must be an exercise of eminent domain and compensation to sustain the act. So the question depends upon the particular facts. The greatest weight is given to the judgment of the legislature, but it always is open to interested parties to contend that the legislature has gone beyond its constitutional power.” (260 U.S. at p. 413 [57 L.Ed. at p. 325]. See also Dobbins v. Los Angeles (1904) 195 U.S. 223, 241 [49 L.Ed. 169, 177, 25 S.Ct. 18]; and HFH, Ltd. v. Superior Court, supra, 15 Cal.3d 508, 513-518.)

 Whether distinguished or applied Kissinger is generally limited to that principle. In Selby Realty Co. v. City of San Buenaventura, supra, 10 Cal.3d 110, the court distinguished Kissinger, referring to it as a case which “involved an unconstitutional attempt to rezone the plaintiff’s property so that it could be acquired for a public use upon payment of a lower price.” (10 Cal.3d at p. 120. See also Morse v. County of San Luis Obispo (1967) 247 Cal.App.2d 600, 604 [55 Cal.Rptr. 710]; Smith v. County of Santa Barbara (1966) 243 Cal.App.2d 126, 129-130 and 131 [52 Cal.Rptr. 292]; and Metro Realty v. County of El Dorado, supra, 222 Cal.App.2d 508, 516. Cf. Klopping v. City of Whittier (1972) 8 Cal.3d 39, 46 [104 Cal.Rptr. 1, 500 P.2d 1345]; Aaron v. City of Los Angeles (1974) 40 Cal.App.3d 471, 481 [115 Cal.Rptr. 162] [cert. den., 419 U.S. 1122 (42 L.Ed.2d 822, 95 S.Ct. 806)]; People ex rel. Dept. Pub. Wks. v. Southern Pac. Trans. Co. (1973) 33 Cal.App.3d 960, 965-966 [109 Cal.Rptr. 525]; G & D Holland Construction Co. v. City of Marysville, supra, 12 Cal.App.3d 989, 994; and Peacock v. County of Sacramento (1969) 271 Cal.App.2d 845, 856 [77 Cal.Rptr. 391].)

It is established that the provisions of sections 818.4 and 821.2 of the Government Code immunize the public entity and the public employee from liability caused by the erroneous refusal to issue a permit where the issuance of such permit is discretionaiy. The person injured is limited to his action to require the issuance of the permit if discretion was abused. (State of California v. Superior Court (Veta Company), supra, 12 Cal.3d 237, 245-247; Selby Realty Co. v. City of San Buenaventura, supra, 10 Cal.3d 110, 127; and O’Hagan v. Board of Zoning Adjustment (1974) 38 Cal.App.3d 722, 728-732 [113 Cal.Rptr. 501].) Analogous provisions protect the public entity and the public employee from liability for an injury caused by the adoption or failure to adopt an enactment. (Gov. Code, § 818.2 and § 821. See HFH, Ltd. v. Superior Court, supra, 15 Cal.3d 508, 519-520; Old Town Dev. Corp. v. Urban Renewal Agency (1967) 249 Cal.App.2d 313, 334-335 [57 Cal.Rptr. 426].) Nor can a public employee be held liable for damages resulting from acts in good faith under an enactment which is unconstitutional, invalid or inapplicable. (Gov. Code, § 820.6. See Brown v. City of Los Angeles (1968) 267 Cal.App.2d 849, 851 [73 Cal. Rptr. 364].)
It is unnecessary to determine the applicability of the foregoing provisions to the facts upon which plaintiff Eldridge seeks to recover. They have not been referred to by either party, and for reasons set forth below it is otherwise clear that plaintiff has no action for damages. They were raised by the city in the Beyer case.

 See: HFH, Ltd. v. Superior Court, supra, 15 Cal.3d 508, 517, fn. 14; Gisler v. County of Madera (1974) 38 Cal.App.3d 303, 306 [112 Cal.Rptr. 919]; Turner v. County of Del Norte (1972) 24 Cal.App.3d 311, 315 [101 Cal.Rptr. 93]; and Morse v. County of San Luis Obispo, supra, 247 Cal.App.2d 600, 603-604. Cf. Klopping v. City of Whittier, supra, 8 Cal.3d 39, 46; Aaron v. City of Los Angeles, supra, 40 Cal.App.3d 471, 481; People ex rel. Dept. Pub. Wks. v. Southern Pac. Trans. Co., supra, 33 Cal.App.3d 960, 965-966; City of Oakland v. Nutter (1970) 13 Cal.App.3d 752, 763 and 769, fn. 14 [92 Cal.Rptr. 347]; and Peacock v. County of Sacramento, supra, 271 Cal.App.2d 845, 858 and 861.

 See Nestle v. City of Santa Monica (1972) 6 Cal.3d 920, 925-928 [101 Cal.Rptr. 568, 496 P.2d 480]; Holtz v. Superior Court (1970) 3 Cal.3d 296, 302-311 [90 Cal.Rptr. 345, 475 P.2d 441]; Albers v. County of Los Angeles (1965) 62 Cal.2d 250, 261-264 [42 Cal.Rptr. 89, 398 P.2d 129]; House v. L. A. County Flood Control Dist. (1944) 25 Cal.2d 384, 391 [153 P.2d 950]; Aaron v. City of Los Angeles, supra, 40 Cal.App.3d 471, 477-484 and 493; City of Oakland v. Nutter, supra, 13 Cal.App.3d 752, 765-768; and Beckley v. Reclamation Board (1962) 205 Cal.App.2d 734, 747-748 [23 Cal.Rptr. 428].) Allegations that the city, without the permission of plaintiff, constructed certain access improvements of plaintiff’s property, are admittedly without foundation, and are not themselves relied upon by plaintiff as giving him right to a cause of action for inverse condemnation, because no claim was filed for any specific damage so occasioned.

 The complaint alleges that on October 10, 1972, following rezoning of the property (see text below), the amount of the assessment was reduced to one-third of the original amount, $451,734.29, by the city.

Plaintiff has requested that the court take judicial notice of a “Staff Report on Regulation to Preserve Foothill Open-Space” prepared by the Director of Planning and Community Development of the City of Palo Alto because it reflects the basis for the action of the planning commission and city council of which plaintiff complains. Recognition and perusal of the report does not affect the legal principles discussed in these provisions. It would only be material on the issue of determining whether or not the zoning, which plaintiff concedes is valid, is constitutional; an issue I would not reach on this record.

Plaintiff also refers to section 65912 of the Government Code which provides with respect to open-space zoning, as follows; “The Legislature hereby finds and declares that this article is not intended, and shall not be construed, as authorizing the city or the county to exercise its power to adopt, amend or repeal an open-space zoning ordinance in a manner which will take or damage private property for public use without the payment of just compensation therefor. This section is not intended to increase or decrease the rights of any owner of property under the Constitution of the State of California or of the United States.”
As pointed out above and below plaintiff has expressly elected not to question the validity of the zoning ordinance, nor to seek to have his property relieved of any unconstitutional restraint.

Among the arguments raised by Beyer, in support of his contention that the open space zoning ordinance is illegal, unconstitutional and void, are the following: It will not and cannot achieve its legislative objective of preserving open space; it forces the 17 persons who owned the land so restricted to furnish benefits of open space to the public without compensation; it conflicts with the State of California’s open space zoning laws; it is inconsistent with the City of Palo Alto General Plan; it was improperly enacted to reduce the price of land to be acquired by the city or by a regional park district; it benefits the wealthy and excludes housing for low and moderate income people; and because of exceptional circumstances the city is estopped to adopt such restrictive zoning. One amicus curiae has supported the theory that the ordinance is invalid because it excludes low and moderate cost housing in an area of need, and unconstitutionally discriminates against persons with low incomes and unconstitutionally impinges on the right to travel. (See Construction Ind. Ass’n. of Sonoma Co. v. City of Petaluma (9th Cir. 1975) 522 F.2d 897, 904-905 and 905-909, particularly fn. 16, p. 908 [cert. den. 2/23/76 424 U.S. 934 (47 L.Ed.2d 342,96 S.Ct. 1148-1149)]. Cf. Concord Township Appeal (1970) 439 Pa. 466, 470-476 [268 A.2d 765, 766-770], with Just v. Marinette County (1972) 56 Wis.2d 7, 14-18 [201 N.W.2d 761, 767-768].)