United States District Court, C.D. California
ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO ENFORCE THE
SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT [183]
OTIS
D. WRIGHT, II UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
I.
INTRODUCTION
Before
the Court is Defendant City of Palm Spring’s Motion to
Enforce the Settlement Agreement. (ECF No. 183.) Following a
three-year dispute between the City and Plaintiff
Intervention911 over the proper zoning classification for two
sober living facilities, the parties agreed to a one and
one-half page “Mediation Plan” that lays out a
complex path to settlement. The Mediation Plan required,
among other things, that “[t]he City’s clerk,
manager, and attorney . . . recommend a waiver of any
requirement of upgrades under the current state fire
code.” The question now is to whom that
recommendation must be made-the City contends that the
recommendation must be made to the City Council, whereas
Intervention911 contends that the recommendation must be made
to the State of California. Because neither the words of the
agreement nor the context in which the agreement was made
clarifies the issue, the Court concludes that the Mediation
Plan is void and unenforceable. As a result, the Court DENIES
the City’s Motion. (ECF No. 183.)
II.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
A.
Pre-Litigation Dispute
Between
2011 and 2012, Intervention911 opened two sober living
facilities in Palm Springs, California. (Mot. for Summ. J.
Order at 2-3, ECF No. 92.) Soon after, persons living near
the facilities lodged complaints with the City, most of which
focused on the residents’ fear that the facilities
would increase crime in the neighborhood, or would otherwise
cause a nuisance. (Id. at 6-9.)
The
sober living facilities are located on land zoned for
“R2” use.[1] On R2-zoned land, hotels are permitted to
operate as a matter of right, while other uses, such as
assisted living facilities, must obtain a conditional use
permit (“CUP”). (Id. at 10- 11.) The
terms “hotel” and “assisted living
facility” are defined in the City’s zoning code,
and where a facility does not fit neatly within either
definition, the code grants the City’s Planning
Director authority to determine its classification.
(Id. at 11.)
In
April 2012, the City informed Intervention911 that it
considered the facilities to be “assisted living
facilities, ” and thus that Intervention911 was
required to apply for a CUP. (Id. at 11-12.) In June
2012, Intervention911 applied for the CUP. (Id. at
12.) The City declined to recommend approval of the CUP
applications. (Id.) Intervention911 then withdrew
its applications and sent a letter to the City, arguing that
the facilities be treated as “hotels” rather than
“assisted living facilities, ” thereby allowing
them to operate as a matter of right in the R2 zone.
(Id.) The City again declined to treat them as
hotels instead of assisted living facilities. (Id.)
Separately,
in December 2012, the City’s Fire Department decided to
reclassify the facilities as drug abuse recovery and
treatment facilities. (Id. at 14-16.) This required
Intervention911 to upgrade certain fire safety equipment on
the premises, including installing automatic fire sprinkler
systems and fire alarm and detection systems. (Id.)
The Fire Department has the discretion to waive the upgrade
requirement if it determines that the new use is less
hazardous than the prior use. Here, it determined that a drug
abuse recovery and treatment facility was not less hazardous
than the prior use. (Id.)
B.
Pre-Settlement Procedural History
In June
2013, Intervention911 filed suit against the City, alleging
intentional discrimination and failure to provide a
reasonable accommodation under the Fair Housing Act, the Fair
Employment and Housing Act, and the Americans with
Disabilities Act. (ECF No. 1.) On July 7, 2014, the Court
granted summary judgment on Intervention911’s
reasonable accommodation claims. (ECF No. 92.) The remaining
claims were set for trial in September 2014. However, on
August 21, 2014, after an extensive mediation, the parties
agreed to the Mediation Plan and the Court vacated the trial
date. (ECF Nos. 155-56.)
C.
The Mediation Plan
The
Mediation Plan is a one and one-half page document that lays
out a complex path to resolution of the lawsuit. Under the
Mediation Plan, the City would first reactivate
Intervention911’s CUP applications for consideration.
(Kaufman Decl. Ex. C. ¶ 2, ECF No. 183-3.) In addition,
“[t]he City’s clerk, manager, and attorney will
also recommend a waiver of any requirement of upgrades under
the current state fire code and that the Fire Department
rescind the December 26, 2012, memorandum.”
(Id. ¶ 3.)
Moreover,
the City’s clerk, manager, and attorney
“shall” recommend to the City Planning Commission
and City Council approval of the CUP applications “with
any conditions deemed appropriate.” (Id.
¶ 2.) However, before any submission to the City
Planning Commission and City Council, the City must first
submit the conditions to Intervention911’s counsel for
review. (Id. ¶ 2.) Intervention911’s
counsel “may” accept or reject any of the
conditions. (Id. ¶ 6.) If the “final
authority” (presumably the City Council) approves the
permits without modifications, then
Intervention911’s acceptance of the conditions
“will be final.” (Id.) If, however, the
“final authority” approves the permits
with modifications, then Intervention911 shall still
have “the sole and absolute discretion to reject the
permits.” (Id.) If Intervention911 accepts the
modifications, then the Mediation Plan becomes a final
settlement agreement, and the parties must move ...