Is the freezing of permits a proper exercise of police power under the California Community Redevelopment Act?

As hereinbefore noted, the act itself is a proper exercise of the police power. The implementation of the legitimate purposes of the act by the enactment of reasonable local legislation not in conflict with the act would likewise be proper. It is claimed by appellants that the 'freezing of permits' is unreasonable because there is no assurance that a redevelopment plan will ultimately be adopted--that the steps thus fartaken are merely in the 'study' and 'planning stage.' An integral part of community redevelopment programs is that entailed in planning and study. Without such preliminary studies, planning, analyses, and appraisals, a balanced, integrated plan could never be developed. The act contemplates a redesigning of areas, changes in zoning regulations, new street patterns, parks, and shopping centers. The particular uses to be made of the land, the participation in the plan by the present owners of property in the area, the appraised value of parcels to be taken--all these, and many more considerations, enter into the fruition of the ultimate plan. As said i Berman v. Parker, ultimate plan. As said in Berman v. Parker, 'community redevelopment programs need not, by force of the Constitution, be on a piecemeal basis--lot by lot, building by building.' It is difficult for us to conceive how an intelligent integrated plan can be formulated if, while it is under study and planning, the area is in a constant state of flux with new building construction and improvements and the resulting change in property values and appraisals. It seems to us that the intelligent approach is that adopted by the council in the form of the resolution adopted here. Its object was to keep the status quo for a little over one year. Such an objective is a reasonable one in view of the legitimate objects of the over-all program. The good faith of the council in carrying out the program has not been challenged. To the contrary, the federal government in granting substantial monies towards the implementation of the program has recognized the good faith of the agency and the council.

We are fortified in our conclusion by what we consider to be analogous situations. In Miller v. Board of Public Works, supra, 195 Cal. 477, 234 P. 381, 38 A.L.R. 1479, an emergency ordinance was enacted prohibiting the construction of fourflat dwellings in a designated area for the reason that a comprehensive[180 Cal.App.2d 521] zoning plan covering the entire city of Low Angeles was contemplated by the city council. The ordinance was held to be a valied exercise of the police power reserved to municipalities in section 11 of article XI of the California Constitution. The court, in determining that zoning laws were a legitimate object of the police power and that the purpose of comprehensive zoning in 'the attainment of unity in the construction and development of a city, along lines of reasonable regulations which tend to promote the health, safety, morals, and general welfare of the community * * *.' (195 Cal. at page 495, 234 P. at page 388), stated as follows, on page 496 of 195 Cal., on page 388 of 234 P.: '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. It follows, it seems to us, that the fact that comprehensive zoning

Page 783