Sterling Park, L.P. v. City of Palo Alto
57 Cal. 4th 1193
| Cal. | 2013Background
- Sterling Park planned 96 condominiums on a 6.5-acre Palo Alto site.
- City required 10 below-market-rate units and an in-lieu payment as a condition of permit.
- Protest rights under Gov. Code, § 66020(a) allowed project to proceed while challenging exactions.
- City executed regulatory agreement and related documents in 2007–2009 reflecting the RMR requirements.
- Sterling Park protested in 2009; suit filed October 5, 2009 seeking injunction and invalidity of RMR requirements.
- Lower courts held the action untimely under § 66499.37 or not within § 66020’s scope; Court granted review to resolve which statute governs.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether § 66020 applies to the challenged exactions. | Sterling Park argues exactions include monetary and property interests. | City contends exactions fall outside § 66020’s scope as land‑use conditions. | § 66020 applies to the challenged exactions. |
| Timeliness under § 66020 vs § 66499.37 governs the action. | If § 66020 applies, the 180‑day period controls. | If § 66020 does not apply, § 66499.37 90‑day window governs. | Section 66020 governs this case; § 66499.37 does not. |
| Whether the challenged requirements are “fees, dedications, reservations, or other exactions.” | Exactions include the in‑lieu fee and purchase option for BMR units. | The requirements are land use restrictions not exactions. | The requirements are “other exactions,” not merely land use restrictions. |
| Scope of Trinity Park v. City of Sunnyvale as to “other exactions.” | Trinity Park’s narrow reading misinterprets the statute. | Trinity Park correctly limited § 66020 to fees defraying facility costs. | Overrules Trinity Park; § 66020 covers broader exactions. |
Key Cases Cited
- Trinity Park, L.P. v. City of Sunnyvale, 193 Cal.App.4th 1014 (Cal.App.4th 2011) (held § 66020 limited to fees defraying facility costs; later overruled here)
- Williams Communications v. City of Riverside, 114 Cal.App.4th 642 (Cal.App.4th 2003) (exaction concept broader than fee; includes non-fee exactions)
- Fogarty v. City of Chico, 148 Cal.App.4th 537 (Cal.App.4th 2007) (land-use restrictions can fall outside § 66020; limits apply)
- Ehrlich v. City of Culver City, 12 Cal.4th 854 (Cal.4th 1996) (statutory protest procedures align with Mitigation Fee Act intent)
- Barratt American, Inc. v. City of Rancho Cucamonga, 37 Cal.4th 685 (Cal.4th 2005) (limits of § 66020 vs. § 66022 for building fees; context differs)
- Shapell Industries, Inc. v. Governing Board, 1 Cal.App.4th 218 (Cal.App.4th 1991) (historical purpose of protest under protest statutes)
- Pfeiffer v. City of La Mesa, 69 Cal.App.3d 74 (Cal.App.3d 1977) (predecessor rationale for protest procedures)