Agenda - Planning Commission - 01/09/2014

Home

December 10, 2013 I Volume 7 I Issue 23 Zoning Bulletin 13, 2009, Sterling Park submitted a "notice of protest" to the City, claiming the prior agreements were signed under duress and arguing that the below market rate requirements were invalid. When the City failed to respond to the protest, Sterling Park filed an action in court on October 5, 2009. Sterling Park sought an injunction and a judicial declaration that the below market rate requirements were invalid and "the City may not lawfully impose such [below market rate] affordable housing fees or exactions as a condition of providing building permits or other approvals for the Project." Sterling Park cited Cal- ifornia's Mitigation Fee Act, section 66020, which provides that "[a]ny party may protest the imposition of any fees, dedications, reservations, or other exactions imposed on a development project . . . by a local agency by [meet- ing certain requirements]." The City asked the court to find there were no material issues of fact in dispute and to issue summary judgment in its favor on the law alone. The City argued that Sterling Park's action was untimely under section 66499.37 of Ca- lifornia's Subdivision Map Act. Section 66499.37 provides that "[a]ny action or proceeding to attack, review, set aside, void, or annul the decision of an ad- visory agency, appeal board, or legislative body concerning a subdivision, or any of the proceedings, acts, or determinations taken, done, or made prior to the decision, or to determine the reasonableness, legality, or validity of any condition attached thereto, . . . shall not be maintained by any person unless the action or proceeding is commenced and service of summons effected within 90 days after the date of the decision." It was undisputed that section 66499.37 of the Subdivision Map Act was broad enough to apply here. It was also undisputed that Sterling Park's action would be untimely under section 66499.37 because it was commenced More than 90 days after the decision being challenged. However, Sterling Park argued that section 66020 of the Mitigation Fee Act, and its 180-day statute of limitations, governed the case. It further argued that the action was timely under that statute because the City never provided the statutorily required no- tice to Sterling Park at the time of approval of the project or imposition of the fees —as required by section 66020. The trial court agreed with the City and granted its motion for summary judgment in the City's favor. Sterling Park appealed. The Court of Appeal also held that section 66020 of the Mitigation Fee Act did not apply to the case and that the action was untimely under section 66499.37 of the Subdivision Map Act. Sterling Park again appealed. DECISION: Judgment of Court of Appeal reversed, and matter remanded. The Supreme Court of California held that section 66020 of the Mitigation Fee Act, and its statute of limitations, applied. In so holding, the court explained that when section 66020 of the Mitiga- tion Fee Act does apply, its time limits govern the case, not those of the more general section 66499.37 of the Subdivision Map Act. In determining that sec- tion 66020 applied, the court noted that it would apply if the requirements at issue were "any fees, dedications, reservations, or other exactions" under sec- 8 2013 Thomson Reuters