|
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...
|
Pleasanton has won a tentative favorable ruling in the its legal battle with landowners Jennifer and Fredric Lin who have sued the city for the right to build 51 houses on 600 acres they own in the southeast hills.
The family is suing the city after its plan to build the homes was scuttled by voters, with 54.3% opposing the measure.
At issue is what’s known as a “poison pill.” The lawsuit claims that last year’s referendum only concerned Ordinance No. 1961 adopted by the City Council, which called for a Planned Unit Development (PUD) for the number of lots allowed and where they would be placed. The Lin family claims the vote did not affect the development agreement specifying various aspects of the project, authorized by Ordinance No. 1962 and also approved by the City Council.
In simple terms, a poison pill is language inserted into each approval which says that if one of the two ordinances is invalid, the other ordinance is also invalid.
In a tentative ruling released Monday, Alameda County Superior Court Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers said “she is inclined to sustain the city’s demurrer as to all causes of action.”
A demurrer is a legal mechanism to have a complaint filed by an opposing party dismissed by the court, in this case, the city asking the court dismiss the Lin family’s lawsuit.
Rogers cited a 2010 ruling in a comparable case, Mammoth Lakes Land Acquisition LLC v. Town of Mammoth Lakes, in which the developer made a similar claim. Her tentative ruling stated, “the Court interprets Ordinance No. 1961, Ordinance No. 1962, and the development agreement to constitute an integrated contract designed to be read and interpreted together.”
She said, “(b)asic principals of contract law can be applied to interpretation of the ordinances and the development agreement,” and “the plain terms of Ordinance No. 1962 state that it shall be of no force and effect if Ordinance No. 1961 is set aside by referendum.”
The case is not over, according to Pleasanton City Attorney Jonathan Lowell.
The judge has directed that the parties appear for further argument. Rogers says she “will wait until after oral argument to decide whether the demurrer is sustained with leave to amend or not.”
That means the judge will listen to oral arguments Thursday before deciding whether the Lins will be allowed to amend their complaint and fix the defects the city identified in its demurrer.
The judge further wrote:
“Once the referendum petition was submitted, Ordinance No. 1961 was suspended and such suspension, combined with the “poison pill” language likewise suspended Ordinance No. 1962 and the development agreement.”
Her conclusion that mere submission of the referendum “suspended Ordinance No. 1962” is the heart of the issue. She is assuming that this was implied because there is no language in No. 1961 saying that this would be the case.
A negative ruling against the Lin’s ability to proceed with their lawsuit is almost certain to be appealed.
“the Court interprets Ordinance No. 1961, Ordinance No. 1962, and the development agreement to constitute an integrated contract designed to be read and interpreted together.”
This is an interesting legal interpretation, that is, where laws (ordinances are laws passed by a legislative body) are components of “an integrated contract” and subject to contract law interpretations without looking at actual codified law that governs ordinances. There is no language in California law regarding the referending of ordinances that supports the judge’s interpretation. To cite contract law as the guiding principal is weak.
It is my opinion that the complexity of this case is over the head of this politically appointed judge (and her law clerks), who has essentially no judicial experience in her resume, particularly in this field of law.
Frank, do you have judicial experience in your resume, particularly in this field of law?
Perhaps you are the one who is lacking in understanding…just saying: )
MAMMOTH LAKES LAND ACQUISITION, LLC v. TOWN OF MAMMOTH LAKES
C059239
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT
191 Cal. App. 4th 435; 2010 Cal. App. LEXIS 2172
December 30, 2010, Filed
From History of Developer Agreements:
In 1984, the Legislature added a declaration that development agreements would also allow municipalities to extract promises from the developers concerning financing and construction of necessary infrastructure. (Gov. Code, § 65864, subd. (c); Stats. 1984, ch. 143, § 1, p. 431.) This declaration makes it clear that the scope of development agreements need not be limited to freezing land use rules, regulations, and policies but can include other promises between the municipality and the developer. Thus, a legislatively approved development agreement gives both parties vested contractual rights.
From Appellate Court decision:
A development agreement is treated as a legislative act for the purpose of a challenge to the agreement either (1) by referendum or (2) an action concerning the municipality’s authority to enter into the agreement. In SMART, supra, 84 Cal.App.4th at pages 227 and 228, the court summarized the effect of the “legislative act” language. It said: “A development agreement is a legislative act ([Gov. Code,] § 65867.5) and the County’s board of supervisors has the discretion to determine what legislation is necessary and appropriate. A reviewing court will not set aside a legislative act unless it is arbitrary, capricious, or unlawful.”
Here, the question does not concern the validity of the Development Agreement as a legislative act of the Town. Instead, this is an action between the parties of the Development Agreement concerning the interpretation of the agreement. As to that question, the Development Agreement is a contract between the parties. Therefore, canons of statutory interpretation do not apply.
How many millions is this “citizens initiative” going to cost us before this is over?
A big thanks to all the voters in Pleasanton who voted down Measure G! I now have a semi-private mountain paradise up here in the hills to hike, bike & enjoy the beautiful early-spring weather we’ve been having. Best part is none of you pesky people from the “flatlands” will be driving through our neighborhood, clogging up our streets with extra traffic, littering, taking valuable parking spaces etc.
Thanks again Carla for saving “Our Hills.”
A. Morgan,
Measure G was the last attempt at a parcel tax.