Oakland, Calif., September 29, 2003 -Meyers Nave attorney David Skinner recently won the final, major decision in a three-year-long bifurcated trial of his defense of actions taken by the city of South San Francisco regarding proposed development on Sign Hill. The plaintiffs in Aetna Realty and James Tucker vs. the City of South San Francisco claimed that the city's planning department had prevented them from developing condominiums on 25.4 acres of raw land since the plaintiffs' first application in 1990. Superior Court Judge Carol L. Mittlesteadt ruled the plaintiffs "have never sought entitlements for a proposed project in accord with the existing General Plan and zoning designations" and that the city had provided the same treatment to the plaintiffs as to other developers.

"The court agreed with our arguments that the developers had never filed a complete application and followed through on the city's requests for additional information," said Steven T. Mattas, city attorney for South San Francisco and a principal with the Oakland firm Meyers Nave. "We asserted throughout the trial that the city had acted properly all along. The plaintiffs may still submit a complete development plan to the planning department."

The concrete letters which spell out "South San Francisco"The Industrial City" constitute the city's only national historic landmark. From May 1990 to May 1997, Aetna Realty and Tucker submitted four applications for development on their privately-owned property on the north side of Sign Hill. Each of the applications were deemed incomplete and exceeded the city's zoning of the property as an open space district with a density factor of one residential unit maximum per net acre. In October 1999, the city of South San Francisco updated its General Plan to include a clause that states a preference against clustering of development on Sign Hill.
In the lawsuit filed on January 28, 2000, the plaintiffs alleged, among other claims, that the General Plan update was invalid.

In August 2002, Judge Mittlesteadt dismissed the plaintiff's claim to invalidate portions of the city's 1999 General Plan Update. This year, the judge addressed the three remaining plaintiff's claims for equal protection, takings and inverse condemnation. After three and one-half weeks of trial from June 23 to July 17, 2003, Judge Mittlesteadt sided with the defense and determined that the three claims were not ripe for judicial review and that the city had not treated the plaintiffs' development applications different than other development applications. The decision became final on September 25, 2003.

Julia Bond, of counsel with Meyers Nave, and Amrit L. Kulkarni, an associate with Meyers Nave, assisted Skinner on the trial.

For information about Meyers Nave, or attorneys David Skinner and Steve Mattas, please visit the firm's web site at www.meyersnave.com.

ABOUT MEYERS NAVE
Founded in 1986, Meyers Nave is recognized for its work with all types of public entities in California and provides the full scope of legal services to cities, counties, redevelopment agencies and special districts statewide.

Meyers Nave's areas of practice include labor/employment; torts; redevelopment; city attorney/general counsel representations; eminent domain; litigation; writs and appeals; public contracts and land use; and environmental law. # # #

For more information, contact:
Steven T. Mattas
Meyers Nave
(510) 808-2000
smattas@meyersnave.com

Mary Tressel
AVISO, Inc.
(925) 798-9421
mary@avisoinc.com

or

Dianne Newton-Shaw
AVISO, Inc.
(510) 865-5100
di@avisoinc.com