Stubblefield Construction Co. v. City of San Bernardino

• Decision Date: 27 January 1995
• Docket Number: E010088,Nos. E009749,s. E009749
• Citation: 38 Cal.Rptr.2d 413,32 Cal.App.4th 687
• Court: California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
• Parties: STUBBLEFIELD CONSTRUCTION CO., et al., Plaintiffs and Appellants, v. CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO, Defendant and Respondent. .

Page 413

38 Cal.Rptr.2d 413

32 Cal.App.4th 687

STUBBLEFIELD CONSTRUCTION CO., et al., Plaintiffs and Appellants, v. CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO, Defendant and Respondent [And Related Cross-Appeals].

Nos. E009749, E010088.

Court of Appeal, Fourth District, Division 2, California.

Jan. 27, 1995.

As Modified on Denial of Rehearing

Feb. 23, 1995.

Review Denied April 20, 1995.

Hill, Farrer & Burrill, Darlene Fischer Phillips and Dean E. Dennis, Los Angeles, for plaintiffs and appellants Stubblefield Const. Co. and Stubblefield Properties

MacLachlan, Burford & Arias, Christopher D. Lockwood and Joseph Arias, San Bernardino, James F. Penman, City Atty., and Henry Empeno, Jr., Deputy City Atty., for defendant and respondent City of San Bernardino.

OPINION

HOLLENHORST, Associate Justice.

This is an action for violation of plaintiffs' civil rights under 42 U.S.C.A. section 1983. The action arose out of defendant City's handling of plaintiffs' application to build apartment buildings on a 29.3-acre parcel in the northeastern foothills of the City. Plaintiffs contend that the City violated their substantive due process and equal protection rights by allegedly deliberately inflicting harm "when [City officials] irrationally and arbitrarily manipulated City processes and procedures, for no legitimate reason, so as to prevent Stubblefield from building a development Project it was unquestionably entitled to build."

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

On April 18, 1988, plaintiffs Stubblefield Construction Company and Stubblefield Properties (herein "plaintiffs" or "Stubblefield") filed a petition for writ of mandate and complaint for declaratory relief, preliminary and permanent injunctions and damages against the City of San Bernardino, the members of its Common Council, the mayor, and Steve Marks, a former councilman (case no. 242998; herein "Stubblefield I "). Eleven causes of action were alleged, including an eighth cause of action for deprivation of civil rights under 42 U.S.C.A. section 1983.

On November 4, 1988, the City filed an amended cross-complaint for apportionment of fault and indemnification.

On September 29, 1989, plaintiffs filed an action challenging the validity of the City's revised General Plan (case no. 252058; herein "Stubblefield II "). The action was based on events occurring after events in Stubblefield I. Plaintiffs then filed a motion to consolidate Stubblefield I and Stubblefield II. The motion was granted and the cases were consolidated for trial.

At the commencement of trial, the court initially ordered a jury trial on the eighth cause of action in Stubblefield I (alleged violation of civil rights under 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983) and the seventh cause of action in Stubblefield II (insofar as it related to damages sustained under 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983). All other causes of action in both cases were to be tried to the court sitting without a jury after the jury trial.

The case was submitted to the jury for a special verdict on six questions. The first three questions related to plaintiffs' claim that the City violated plaintiffs' substantive due process rights. The remaining three questions related to the issue of whether the City violated plaintiffs' equal protection rights in connection with plaintiffs' proposed apartment project.

The jury found that defendant City of San Bernardino's actions with regard to Stubblefield's proposed apartment project were (1) not taken for a purpose substantially related to the public health, safety, morals, or general welfare ¹ and (2) were motivated with a purpose of intending to discriminate against Stubblefield. It further found that the City's actions caused plaintiffs damages in excess of 11.5 million dollars.

Judgment on the jury's special verdict was entered on April 10, 1991, and plaintiffs dismissed the remaining causes of action in Stubblefield I with prejudice.

The trial court subsequently granted the City's motion for new trial on the issue of the amount of damages. It denied the City's motion for a new trial on the liability issues.

APPEALS

1. The City's Appeals.

Following the jury's verdict, the City filed a motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict. The trial court denied the motion and the City appeals. The City also filed a cross-appeal from the judgment.

The trial court also made an interim award of attorney fees to plaintiffs. The City appeals that order.

2. Plaintiffs' Appeals.

The City also filed a motion for new trial. As noted above, the trial court granted the motion on the issue of damages only. Plaintiffs appeal the granting of the motion for new trial on the damages issue.

Plaintiffs also requested review of rulings of the trial court (1) denying their motion to file a supplemental pleading and (2) granting defendant's motion for a nonsuit as to defendant Steve Marks, a former councilman.

Plaintiffs filed a notice of cross-appeal from the judgment, including the order granting defendant's motion for a nonsuit as to defendant Steve Marks.

3. Rulings of this Court.

In response to a motion filed by the City on September 20, 1991, this court dismissed plaintiffs' cross-appeal from the judgment by an order filed October 21, 1991, and a partial remittitur was issued on December 24, 1991. Ruling was reserved on other orders made on March 5, 1991. This court said: "The effect of the dismissal of [Stubblefield's] purported cross-appeal is to bar any appeal of the order of dismissal of Steve Marks, who is, therefore, not a party to this appeal. Any review of the order of March 5, 1991, is limited to its effect, if any, on the granting of the motion for new trial Stubblefield appealed by its notice filed July 9, 1991."

FACTS

Under plaintiffs' theory of the case, which was apparently accepted by the jury, the City officials arbitrarily acted to prevent plaintiff from developing its property. Plaintiffs alleged a number of actions which the City officials took to allegedly further this plan. Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to plaintiffs, the factual basis for plaintiffs' claim is summarized in this section. ²

Arnold Stubblefield testified that his company purchased approximately 600 acres of land in the foothills northeast of the City of San Bernardino in the early 1960's. He commenced planning a community to be known as Mountain Shadows. Homes were built in the area from 1964 through 1968.

In 1968, Mr. Stubblefield consented to the annexation of the property by the City. Mr. Stubblefield and a former mayor testified that Mr. Stubblefield was promised the zoning necessary to implement the master plan if he consented to the annexation. The City knew that Stubblefield would rely on its assurances and the City intended that it do so. ³ The subject parcel was zoned R-3 for multi-family housing pursuant to the master plan for the property.

In 1983, planning began for an apartment project in the foothills. After numerous meetings with City staff, an application for review of plans was submitted to the City on May 30, 1986. The application was considered a development application. A former planning director testified that the City's policy was to review development applications under the procedures in effect at the time the plans were submitted. This policy was stated to Stubblefield a number of times. Development applications were reviewed by the Planning Department, including review by an Environmental Review Committee and the Development Review Committee. Final approval is by the Planning Commission and/or City Council. ⁴

The city council member representing the area at the time was Steve Marks. Although originally a supporter of the project, he subsequently became a powerful opponent. Plaintiffs alleged that Councilman Marks orchestrated a number of actions in the Fall of 1986 to block the project. The City contended that Councilman Marks was merely reflecting the concerns of his constituents, many of whom testified against the project.

A revision of the City's R-3 multi-family housing zoning ordinance was pending at that time. The revised multi-family housing zoning ordinance was adopted on October 22, 1986. It potentially affected Stubblefield's project in two respects. First, it limited the height of apartments to two stories on the perimeter of the project. Second, it required a conditional use permit for any project which did not comply with the new ordinance. If the new ordinance were applied to the Stubblefield project, which contemplated three-story units, the project would require a conditional use permit. There was testimony that these requirements were aimed at the Stubblefield project. However, Mr. Stubblefield was assured that the new ordinance would not apply to his project.

Since revision of the zoning ordinance would not affect the Stubblefield project under the City's existing approval policy (i.e., that development plans were reviewed under the rules in effect at the time of application, rather than the time of approval), Councilman Marks proposed an urgency ordinance to change the policy. The urgency ordinance was adopted on October 20, 1986. It provided that the revised R-3 ordinance would apply to "all projects for which plans have not been approved by the Development Review Committee as of thirty days following date of adoption of this section." ⁵ No justification for an urgency ordinance existed, except the desire to block approval of the Stubblefield project.

Stubblefield could still have received approval within the 30-day period. At that time, it had received approval from the Environmental Review Committee for using a negative declaration under the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") on the project. However, Councilman Marks had previously sponsored an ordinance that allowed any person, not just the applicant, to appeal such a decision to the Planning Commission. ⁶ The ordinance passed on September 10, 1986, and Councilman Marks subsequently appealed the Environmental Review...