Center Bay Gardens, LLC v. City of Tempe City Council

Center Bay Gardens, LLC, Wood River University Square, LLC, and University Pointe Limited Partnership (the apartment companies) (plaintiffs) each owned apartment complexes in Tempe, Arizona (the city). In April of 2003, the city received applications for a proposed mixed-use development to be built on the property directly across the street from the apartment buildings. The mixed-use proposal included replacing a mobile-home park owned by University Mobile Home Park, LLC (UMHP) with four stories of housing above three levels of parking and some retail space. The applications sought a zoning change, a general plan amendment, variances, and a use permit in connection with the proposed development. The Tempe City Council (defendant) unanimously approved the applications, and the apartment companies sued to challenge the zoning change, general plan amendment, and variances grant. UMHP intervened in the action and moved to dismiss the case, alleging that the apartment companies lacked standing to challenge the zoning change and general plan amendment because the apartment companies had not alleged any particularized harm that they would suffer from the city council’s decision. The apartment companies argued particularized harm based on their proximity to the proposed development and asserted that they were at risk of special damage based on the lack of setbacks and landscaping for the proposed development, the size and height of the proposed structure, and the proposed project density, among other things. However, the court disagreed and granted UMHP’s motion to dismiss. While the litigation was pending, UMHP submitted an application to the city that essentially proposed the same project as the original mixed-use proposal, including several of the same variances. The city council approved the application, and the apartment companies sued the city, the city council, and UMHP to challenge the grant of the variances. UMHP and the other defendants again moved to dismiss, asserting that the apartment companies lacked standing to challenge the grant of the variances. The apartment companies again asserted that their proximity to the proposed development put them at risk of special damage. However, the court found that the apartment companies had not alleged a particularized injury and granted the motion to dismiss. The apartment companies appealed.