Development Ruling a Win for Local Legislatures

ORANGE, CA-Court battles over development issues are nothing new, but the establishment of the power of local legislative bodies to determine the content of their own general plans is new and has just been reaffirmed by a recent California Court of Appeals ruling. GlobeSt.com caught up with attorney David Watson of law firm Duane Morris recently to discuss the details of this case and the bigger picture of what it means for the development and local legislative communities.

GlobeSt.com: What is the background of the land-use dispute surrounding Ridgeline Equestrian Estates in the city of Orange?

David Watson: Our client, Milan Capital Management of Anaheim, owns the 51-acre site of a former golf course and wants to build 39 one-acre, equestrian-themed single-family homes there. The proposal also includes public amenities like multi-use trails, open park space and a horseback riding arena, preservation of a creek, planting of nearly 200 trees and improvements to the site's storm water runoff system. The city attorney, city council and planning commission agreed that the project fit Orange's long-time general plan because the city council voted in 1973 to allow open space with low-density housing at that site.

What triggered the dispute is that some residents who opposed the project seized on a recent land-use map, which was attached to the general plan and which mistakenly referred to the site only as open space, accidentally omitting the part about low-density housing. Two years ago, when approving the project, the council agreed with the city attorney that the mistake was a clerical error and amended the general plan to correct the erroneous designation on the map. The objectors formed a political action committee and managed to get on the ballot a referendum to overturn the general plan amendment and block the development.

Milan sued to allow the project to move forward, and trial court ruled in our favor. Meanwhile, the referendum passed, and our opponents appealed the trial-court ruling. The California Court of Appeals just unanimously upheld that ruling, determining that the project could move forward.

GlobeSt.com: What does the court's ruling mean?

Watson: In a narrow sense, Milan is properly vindicated and gets to build Ridgeline Equestrian Estates, the city council's interpretation of the content of its own general plan was upheld, the general public gets some amazing amenities, and 39 fortunate families will get to own gorgeous homes in a breathtaking setting. Grading could begin in about 90 days, and the first homes may be ready for occupancy in two years.

But this case stands for something larger than what will become of 51 acres in Orange. In the big picture, this ruling is a significant victory for local legislative bodies—city councils and county boards of supervisors—to interpret and determine the correct content of their own general plans, even in the fact of error. It extends the authority of those legislative bodies to determine the true legal meaning of their general plans and ignore obvious errors when approving development projects. It means that well-considered and –vetted general plans remain valid and binding, even with inadvertent or clerical errors. It confirms that maps and charts are intended to illustrate controlling textual policies and land-use designations.

It puts substance over form and allows the spirit and intent of general plans to carry great weight by recognizing that documents may contain errors. Because the appellate court opinion was certified for publication—a term of art in the legal profession—it means that the ruling creates a precedent statewide. The Court here has made a good, logical, sensible land-use law.

GlobeSt.com: What's the takeaway for landowners and developers?

Watson: Don't turn and run in the face of opposition. Don't be intimidated by detractors, especially when their objections are based on innocent errors in planning documents. Retain a law firm that is proficient and skilled in negotiating and, if necessary, litigating these issues. Know the subjective intent and prior official actions of the legislative bodies with respect to their general plans. The law of the land—at least in California—is that prior legislative actions regarding general plans remain valid unless expressly modified by later legislative actions.