Is a takings claim ripe when the government establishes a mandatory process requiring property owners to ask whether any development on their land is possible, and responds with a definitive and unappealable denial?

QUESTIONS PRESENTED Randy Ralston and Linda Mendiola (Ralstons) wish to build a retirement home on their residentiallyzoned land in San Mateo County, California. However, their property sits entirely within an overlay zone, the Montecito Riparian Corridor (Corridor), which categorically bans residential development. The County nonetheless instructs landowners who wish to build a home to submit their “intention” to the Community Development (Planning) Director and County Counsel, who must undertake a “takings analysis” to decide whether to “override” the Corridor’s absolute ban to prevent a taking. When the Ralstons followed this procedure, the Planning Director and County Counsel responded that there was no justification “to override the Local Coastal Plan limitations on development within wetland and riparian areas in order to accommodate a reasonable economic use.” No procedure exists to challenge this decision. In short, the answer was an unambiguous and unappealable “no.” The Ninth Circuit held that the Planning Director and County Counsel’s response, though they were speaking for the County, was “informal,” and that the Ralstons’ takings claim is ripe only if they submit—and the County formally denies—a Coastal Development Permit application. The questions presented are: 1. Is a takings claim ripe when the government establishes a mandatory process requiring property owners to ask whether any development on their land is possible, and responds with a definitive and unappealable denial? 2. Are takings complaints subject to a higher pleading standard than other civil rights complaints? ii STATEMENT OF