<p><b>SMALL PROPERTY OWNERS OF SAN FRANCISCO v. CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO</b></p> <br /> <p align="center"><b> </b></p> <br /> <h2>Filed 8/9/06</h2> <br /> <p align="center"><b> </b></p> <br /> <p align="center"><b> </b></p> <br /> <p align="center"><b>CERTIFIED FOR PARTIAL PUBLICATION</b><a href="#_ftn1" name="_ftnref1">*</a></p> <br /> <p align="center"> </p> <br /> <p align="center"> </p> <br /> <p align="center">IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA</p> <br /> <p align="center"> </p> <br /> <p align="center"> </p> <br /> <p align="center">FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT</p> <br /> <p align="center"> </p> <br /> <p align="center"> </p> <br /> <p align="center"> </p> <br /> <p align="center">DIVISION FIVE</p> <br /> <p align="center"> </p> <br /> <p align="center"> </p> <br /> <p align="center"> </p><br /> <table border="0" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0"><br /> <tr><br /> <td width="321" valign="top"> <br /> <p><b>SMALL PROPERTY OWNERS OF SAN FRANCISCO et al.,</b><b></b></p> <br /> <p><b> Plaintiffs and Appellants,</b><b></b></p> <br /> <p><b> v.</b><b></b></p> <br /> <p><b>CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO,</b><b></b></p> <br /> <p><b> Defendant and Respondent.</b><b></b></p><br /> </td><br /> <td width="319" valign="top"> <br /> <p><b> </b></p> <br /> <p><b> </b></p> <br /> <p><b> A108924</b><b></b></p> <br /> <p><b> </b></p> <br /> <p><b> (San Francisco County</b><b></b></p> <br /> <p><b> Super. Ct. No. 406692)</b><b></b></p> <br /> <p> <b></b></p><br /> </td><br /> </tr><br /> </table> <br /> <p><b>Story continue from Part II …….</b><b></b></p> <br /> <p>3. <u>Takings Clause Analysis</u></p> <br /> <p> In the matter before us, the Ordinance did not effect a <a href="http://www.mcmillanlaw.us/">permanent appropriation of real property</a> or an ouster therefrom. Nor did it involve a physical invasion of real property. Furthermore, as appellants stipulated, the Ordinance did not deprive them of all beneficial economic use of their residential rental properties.<a href="#_ftn2" name="_ftnref2">[1]</a> Appellants have not established a per se taking. (See <i>Lingle, supra,</i> 125 S.Ct. at p. 2081.)</p> <br /> <p> Thus, we turn to the multifactor test as set forth in <i>Penn Central, supra, </i>438 U.S. 104. Under that test, three primary factors determine whether a regulation has effected a taking: (1) the <a href="http://www.fearnotlaw.com/">economic impact</a> of the regulation on the plaintiff; (2) the extent to which the regulation has interfered with the plaintiff's investment-backed expectations; and (3) the character of the governmental action, including whether there has been a physical invasion or merely an adjustment of the benefits and burdens of economic life to promote the common good. (<i>Id</i>. at p. 124.) <i></i></p> <br /> <p> <i>a. Economic impact</i><i></i></p> <br /> <p> Appellants' evidence of the <a href="http://www.mcmillanlaw.us/">Ordinance's economic impact</a> was that, during a 16‑month period, the bank and money market accounts in which they placed their tenants' security deposits paid interest at a rate of less than 5 percent. Despite this evidence, the trial court found that the Ordinance did not result in a net negative economic impact for appellants, because â€