This summary was computer-generated without any editorial revision. It is not official, has not been checked for accuracy, and is NOT citable.
Facts
The case concerns the City of Albuquerque's 1995 amendment to the Uptown Sector Plan (95USP), which introduced new zoning regulations for the Uptown Sector, including the creation of an "intense urban core" with stricter development requirements. Albuquerque Commons Partnership (ACP), a leaseholder of a 28-acre parcel in the Uptown Sector, alleged that the amendments effectively downzoned its property, restricting its development plans and resulting in economic harm (paras 2, 8-10, 15-16).
Procedural History
- District Court, July 23, 1999: The court found that the 95USP amendments constituted a downzoning of ACP's property, violating procedural due process and Resolution 270-1980. It ordered the City to consider ACP's development plan under the prior 1981 Uptown Sector Plan (81USP) (paras 2, 32).
- District Court, November 1999: On remand, the City denied ACP's development plan under the 81USP. The district court later ordered the plan to be approved, finding it compliant with the 81USP (paras 26-27).
- Jury Trial, February 2003: A jury awarded ACP $8,349,095 in damages, finding that the City's actions violated ACP's constitutional rights, including due process and takings claims (para 28).
Parties' Submissions
- Appellant (City of Albuquerque): Argued that the 95USP amendments were legislative actions aimed at strengthening the Uptown Sector's urban center character and were consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. The City contended that the amendments did not constitute a downzoning and were not subject to Resolution 270-1980 or the "change or mistake" rule (paras 36-39, 64-66).
- Respondent (ACP): Claimed that the 95USP amendments targeted its property, effectively downzoning it without due process. ACP argued that the amendments violated Resolution 270-1980, were quasi-judicial in nature, and required compliance with the "change or mistake" rule. ACP also alleged that the amendments deprived it of all economically viable use of its property (paras 32-33, 68-69, 72).
Legal Issues
- Was the adoption of the 95USP a legislative or quasi-judicial action?
- Did the 95USP amendments constitute a downzoning of ACP's property?
- Was the City required to comply with Resolution 270-1980 in adopting the 95USP?
- Did the "change or mistake" rule apply to the 95USP amendments?
- Did the City's actions violate ACP's constitutional rights, including due process and takings claims?
Disposition
- The Court of Appeals reversed the district court's findings that the 95USP amendments constituted a downzoning and violated Resolution 270-1980.
- The Court held that the adoption of the 95USP was a legislative action and not subject to the "change or mistake" rule.
- The Court reversed the jury's verdict awarding damages to ACP (paras 78-79).
Reasons
Per Castillo J. (Bustamante C.J. and Pickard J. concurring):
Legislative vs. Quasi-Judicial Action: The Court held that the adoption of the 95USP was a legislative action establishing areawide policy for the Uptown Sector. The amendments applied generally to all properties within the intense core and were not targeted solely at ACP's property. The City's decision was based on public policy considerations, including air quality and urban development goals, and was supported by substantial evidence (paras 36-39, 55-62).
Downzoning: The Court found that the 95USP did not constitute a downzoning because the zoning designation (SU-3) remained unchanged. The amendments merely quantified existing policy objectives in the 81USP and the Comprehensive Plan. The restrictions applied uniformly to all properties in the intense core and were consistent with the City's urban center vision (paras 68-71).
Resolution 270-1980: The Court determined that Resolution 270-1980 applied only to zone map changes, not text amendments like the 95USP. The City's actions complied with the procedural requirements for text amendments under the zoning code (paras 63-66).
"Change or Mistake" Rule: The Court held that the "change or mistake" rule did not apply to text amendments. The rule is traditionally limited to rezoning by map amendments, and extending it to text amendments would unduly restrict the City's legislative authority (paras 74-76).
Constitutional Claims: The Court reversed the jury's verdict on due process and takings claims, finding that ACP failed to prove that the 95USP deprived it of all economically viable use of its property. The evidence showed that ACP's proposed development was inconsistent with both the 81USP and the 95USP (paras 85-87).