In the first published ruling on the subject, the Second District Court of Appeal has ruled that the newly incorporated City of Goleta had the discretion to reject a final subdivision map.

Ordinarily, approval of a final map is ministerial, and the city would have no discretion as long as the conditions of the tentative map were satisfied. But in this case, the new city had discretion because Santa Barbara County had approved the tentative map shortly before Goleta incorporated. A 1998 amendment to the Subdivision Map Act - Government Code § 66413.5 - “creates an exception to the general rule that approval of a final map is ministerial” and permits the city to deny the final map, the unanimous three-judge panel ruled.

In November 1999, Oly Chadmar Sandpiper General Partnership filed an application with the county for a vesting tentative subdivision map and a development plan for a 109-unit project. The site was within the proposed boundaries for the new city. Signature gathering on incorporation petitions had begun four months earlier.

On October 31, 2001, the county Planning Commission approved the vesting tentative map and development plan. Six days later, the citizens of Goleta voted for incorporation. Two citizens groups appealed the county Planning Commission decision to the Board of Supervisors, and Goleta's mayor-elect notified the board that the city wanted to review the project. Nevertheless, supervisors approved the project in January 2002, about two weeks before incorporation became effective.

In November 2002, the county engineer, working on behalf of the new city, brought the final subdivision map to the city. The City Council, however, refused to approve the final map.

Sandpiper sued, and Santa Barbara County Superior Court Judge J. William McLafferty ordered the city to approve the final map. The city appealed, quickly winning a stay of McLafferty's decision from the Second District. After hearing the case, the Second District overturned the lower court.

The 1998 amendment to the Subdivision Map Act states, in part, “When any area in a subdivision or proposed subdivision as to which a vesting tentative map meeting the criteria of this section has been approved by a board of supervisors is incorporated into a newly incorporated city, the newly incorporated city shall approve the final map and give effect to the vesting tentative map … .” The criteria require the application for the vesting tentative map to be submitted prior to the gathering of signatures on incorporation petitions, and approval of the vesting tentative map before the incorporation election.

Sandpiper acknowledged that its project did not meet the criteria. Instead, the developer argued that the statute did not apply because the city had not adopted the statute or taken any other affirmative action - an argument quickly dismissed by the court.

“We agree with the city that the plain language of § 66413.5 gives the city discretion to deny Sandpiper's final map,” Justice Paul Coffee wrote. “Section 66413.5 is a procedural statute. As such, it is not subject to modification by a local agency and requires no implementing legislation to be effective.”

Sandpiper further argued that, under the doctrine of equitable estoppel, the city was barred from rejecting the map. Under this theory, the city had to approve the map because it had taken actions indicating that it would grant approval. Sandpiper said it spent $90,000 to push the project forward because the city had continued to process the application. Again, this argument went nowhere with the Second District panel.

“There is no evidence in the record that any official, employee or agent of the city made any express representation that the city would approve the map,” Coffee wrote. “To the contrary, the undisputed evidence shows that city officials publicly voiced their concerns about the project both before and after incorporation became effective. The city was required by law to continue processing Sandpiper's application after incorporation.”

The Case:
City of Goleta v. Superior Court, No. B175054, 04 C.D.O.S. 8973, 2004 DJDAR 12225. Filed September 30, 2004.
The Lawyers:
For the city: Julie Hayward Biggs, Burke, Williams & Sorenson, (909) 788-0100.
For Oly Chadmar Sandpiper General Partnership: Patrick Breen, Allen, Matkins, Leck, Gamble &Mallory, (213) 622-5555.