‘Example’ Set by City of Monterey v. Del Monte Dunes at Monterey, Ltd., 119 Supreme Court 624 (1999)

ABSTRACT: In his lawsuit against the City of Carmel-by-the-Sea, John Mandurrago aims to “set an example to other cities that delaying qualified housing development projects based on animus, ill will and wholly arbitrary and irrational subjective requirements is not an accepted practice, particularly when Petitioner’s due process rights protected by Fifth Amendment and Fourteen Amendment are deprived under the color of state action.” However, the “example” was set by City of Monterey v. Del Monte Dunes at Monterey, Ltd., 119 Supreme Court 624 (1999). Important facts regarding City of Monterey v. Del Monte Dunes at Monterey, Ltd. are presented and comparisons with Mandurrago v. City of Carmel-by-the-Sea are made. COMMENTS are made about the City’s treatment and actions regarding John Mandurrago and his proposed Plaza del Mar Project.

In his lawsuit against the City of Carmel-by-the-Sea, John Mandurrago aims to “set an example to other cities that delaying qualified housing development projects based on animus, ill will and wholly arbitrary and irrational subjective requirements is not an accepted practice, particularly when Petitioner’s due process rights protected by Fifth Amendment and Fourteen Amendment are deprived under the color of state action.” However, the “example” was set by City of Monterey v. Del Monte Dunes at Monterey, Ltd., 119 Supreme Court 624 (1999). In that case, Del Monte Dunes sought to develop property it owned within the City of Monterey, was denied development of the property on five separate occasions and finally, after 17 years of rejection, filed a lawsuit again the City of Monterey in federal court under 42 USC Section 1983, alleging that the denial of their final proposal was a violation of due process and equal protection under the Fourteenth Amendment.

On October 7, 1998, during Oral Argument, Justice Antonin Scalia and Justice Anthony M. Kennedy stated, as follows:

Monterey’s counsel described it as "not atypical in some respects"; Justice Scalia’s disembodied "Five times"; Justice Scalia further said "And this is typical, you say?"

Justice Scalia: "The landowner here essentially thinks that it was getting jerked around, … isn’t here some point at which… you begin to smell a rat, and at that point can’t we say,… this is simply unreasonable."

Justice Kennedy: Even if the property has value, if the city is unreasonable and there is bad faith, isn’t "the city still liable in damages for that unreasonable treatment of the landowner?"

On May 24, 1999, the United States Supreme Court upheld a jury verdict of $1.45 million in damages in favor of Del Monte Dunes and against the City of Monterey, “reaffirming the rights of property owners to obtain money judgments in Civil Rights actions against municipalities and counties in cases involving takings and other violations of property rights.”

Similarly, John Mandurrago sought to develop property he owns within the City of Carmel-by-the-Sea, was denied development of the property on at least three separate occasions and finally, after more than 7 years of rejection, filed a lawsuit against the City of Carmel-by-the-Sea in Monterey County Superior Court involving 42 USC Section 1983, alleging that the denials were a violation of due process under the Fifth Amendment and Fourteenth Amendment.

COMMENTS:
• Unfortunately for residents and taxpayers of Carmel-by-the-Sea, the “example” set by the City of Monterey v. Del Monte Dunes at Monterey, Ltd., 119 Supreme Court 624 (1999) was not taken seriously by the City of Carmel-by-the-Sea and now Carmel-by-the-Sea taxpayers face the possibility of an unprecedented damages verdict against the City of Carmel-by-the-Sea for the City’s actions regarding John Mandurrago’s Plaza del Mar Project.

• An objective analysis of the record shows that the City of Carmel-by-the-Sea “jerked around” John Mandurrago for seven long years.

• Both groups of individuals, those who favor the preservation of the Palo Alto Savings and Loan Building and those who favor demolition and new construction, should recognize that whether or not the City violated any laws, the City’s treatment of John Mandurrago was egregious and unconscionable.

ADDENDUM:
Series of Denials:
City of Monterey v. Del Monte Dunes at Monterey, Ltd.
344 units (Planning Commission suggested 264)
264 units (Planning Commission suggested 224)
224 units (Planning Commission denied; appeal Council; remanded to consider 190)
190 units (no, yes and then no)

Series of Approvals/Denials:
Mandurrago, John et al. vs. City of Carmel-by-the-Sea et al. (M97273)
Historic Resources Board (HRB): (vote contradicted 2005 Environmental Impact Report (EIR) that the Palo Alto Savings & Loan building designed by architect Walter Burde in the 1970s was not historic)

City Council: (voted to overturn HRB’s decision, 2006)

Planning Commission: (directed staff to revise the EIR to conclude demolition would result in a “loss of great architecture,” and would therefore have a significant impact on the environment.)

Planning Commission: (adopted “findings of overriding consideration” and approved permits and design, 2008)

City Council: (appeal of Planning Commission’s decision by Carmel Residents Association President Barbara Livingston; voted to remand to Planning Commission, December 2008)

Planning Commission: (asked Mandurrago to “reexamine the possibility of incorporating the bank building into his plans.”)

City Bad Faith Plus Jury Trial Equals Verdict For Property Owners: City Of Monterey v. Del Monte Dunes, Brigit S. Barnes of Law Office of Brigit S. Barnes

UPDATE: Case Management Conference 9/3/2009 09:00:00 Courtroom 15

NOTE:
A Case Management Conference is scheduled for Friday, March 20, 2009 at 9:00 A.M. in Courtroom 15 at the Monterey Courthouse, 1200 Aguajito Rd. Monterey, CA.