Trinity Park, L.P. v. City of Sunnyvale
193 Cal. App. 4th 1014
| Cal. Ct. App. | 2011Background
- Trinity Park in Sunnyvale was approved in 2007 with a condition requiring below market rate (BMR) housing performance, including selling five houses below market price.
- In 2009 Trinity sued to invalidate the City’s BMR requirement, arguing it violated state law and was not supported by the ordinance or agreements.
- The City demurred, asserting the complaint was time-barred under 90-day limitations in §66499.37 and §65009(c)(1)(E).
- Trinity argued the Mitigation Fee Act §§66020–66021 applied, asserting a 180-day period, because notice to trigger that period had not been given.
- The trial court sustained the demurrer, holding Trinity’s action untimely, and dismissed the case without leave to amend.
- On appeal, the court held the BMR condition is not an ‘exaction’ under §66020–66021, so those provisions do not apply, and the action is time-barred under §66499.37 and §65009(c)(1)(E); the judgment of dismissal was affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether BMR exaction falls within §66020/66021 | Trinity: BMR exactions are exactions under the Mitigation Fee Act. | City: BMR condition is not a development fee or exaction under §66020/66021. | No; BMR is not an exaction under §66020/66021 |
| Proper limitations period for Trinity's challenge | Trinity: §66020/66021 apply; 180-day period began with notice. | City: §66020/66021 do not apply; §66499.37 governs. | §66499.37 applies; 90-day period governs |
| Timeliness under §66499.37 | N/A (not favorable to Trinity). | §66499.37 applies to subdivision decisions and conditions. | Untimely under §66499.37 |
| Timeliness under §65009(c)(1)(E) | N/A (not favorable to Trinity). | §65009(c)(1)(E) applies to permit conditions; 90-day period expired. | Untimely under §65009(c)(1)(E) |
| Whether amendment could cure the defect | Potential amendments could cure timing issues. | No reasonable amendment could cure the time-bar. | No; amendment not feasible |
Key Cases Cited
- Barratt American, Inc. v. City of Rancho Cucamonga, 37 Cal.4th 685 (Cal. 2005) (development exactions limited to costs defrayed by public facilities)
- Hensler v. City of Glendale, 8 Cal.4th 1 (Cal. 1994) (standard for reviewing demurrers and statutes of limitation)
- Fogarty v. City of Chico, 148 Cal.App.4th 537 (Cal. App. 4th 2007) (exactions not including land-use restrictions; limits of Mitigation Fee Act)
- Williams Communications v. City of Riverside, 114 Cal.App.4th 642 (Cal. App. 2003) (interpretation of exaction under Mitigation Fee Act)
- Branciforte Heights, LLC v. City of Santa Cruz, 138 Cal.App.4th 914 (Cal. App. 2006) (protest procedures for 66020—application of limitations period)
- Palmer/Sixth Street Properties, L.P. v. City of Los Angeles, 175 Cal.App.4th 1396 (Cal. App. 2009) (affordable housing provisions and preemption contexts)
- Building Industry Assn. of Central California v. City of Patterson, 171 Cal.App.4th 886 (Cal. App. 2009) (affordable housing in-lieu fees; reasonableness and relation to development)
- Travis v. County of Santa Cruz, 33 Cal.4th 757 (Cal. 2004) (90-day limit for permit conditions; philosophy of §65009)
- Friends of Riverside’s Hills v. City of Riverside, 168 Cal.App.4th 743 (Cal. App. 2008) (broad application of §66499.37 to subdivision decisions)
- Gardner v. County of Sonoma, 29 Cal.4th 990 (Cal. 2003) (Subdivision Map Act overview and timing)