Agenda - Planning Commission - 08/07/2008

Home

Zoning Bulletin Time for Determination-Developer alleges city imposed unreasonable delays in approving its permit application It argues delays violated its substantive due process rights and permit condition violated its equal protection rights Citation: North Pacifica LLC v. City of Pacifica, 526 F.3d 478 (9th Cir. 2008) The 9th U.S. Circuit has jurisdiction over Alaska, Arizona, California, Guam, Hawaii, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, Oregon, and Washington. '. CALIFORNIA (05/13/08) - North Pacifica, LLC (NP) owned a 4.3 acre parcel in the city. On August 1, 1999, NP submitted an applica- tion for a permit to develop a proposed condominium project on the parcel. During the course of the next two years, the city made a num- ber of requests to NP for additional information. The city said the additional information was necessary to assess and evaluate NP's ap.:. plication. The city deemed the application complete on June 5, 2001. In December 2001, NP filed an action against the city. NP alleged that the city unreasonably imposed the processing delays of its appli- cation in violation of its substantive due process rights. It also alleged that a condition in the city's eventual approval of NP's development permit was imposed in violation of equal. protection. Condition 1'3(b) required NP to make condominium purchasers "jointly and several- ly" liable for the maintenance of common areas. The condition was apparently an attempt by the city to never again have to litigate about maintenance of an abandoned road that abutted NP's property. The condition applied only to NP's permit; it had never been imposed on another development project. NP alleged that the condition wasdis- criminatory and therefore violated its equal protection rights under the u.s. Constitution. The district court dismissed the substantive due process claim. It found that claim was not ripe for review because NP had not first ex- hausted the claim in state court. On the equal protection claim, the dis- trict court found for NP and awarded damages to NP of $156,741.19, plus attorney's fees of $453,810.75, and costs of $55,322.40. NP appealed challenging the denial of its substantive due process claim. The city appealed, challenging the award of damages on the Condition 13 (b) equal protection claim. DECISION: Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded. . 10 @ 2008 Tholl1son ReutersJWest 46 .~ . ) }' ----'