CA Appeals Court Holds Vesting Tentative Maps Did Not Supersede Subsequent Development Agreement

This post was authored by Matthew Loescher, Esq.

Appellant, North Murrieta Community, LLC was the master developer of a large development project in the City of Murrieta called the Golden City Project. In July 1999, North Murrieta was approved for a vesting tentative map on part of the Golden City Project property. The map locked in place fees the City could charge the developer until the vesting tentative map expired two years later. Four months before the map would expire, North Murrieta and the City entered a development agreement covering the entire Golden City Project property. The agreement extended the term of the vesting tentative map for 15 years and locked-in regulations and fees the City could enforce against the developer on the entire project for the same period. Additionally, the development agreement explicitly allowed the City to impose new fees on North Murrieta to mitigate the effects of development, provided the new fees were generally applicable and designed to address effects not fully mitigated by fees or exactions in place when the parties entered the development agreement. The City subsequently passed the Western Riverside County Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee Program Ordinance (“TUMF ordinance”), which was designed for that purpose.

In 2017, the City charged the new mitigation fees to a subsequent purchaser and developer of a subset of the affected properties. The builder made $541,497 in TUMF payments from July to October 2017, and the City transferred the bulk of those funds to respondent, Western Riverside Council of Governments (“WRCOG”). Both the developer and North Murrieta protested the fees. The purchaser assigned their rights to North Murrieta, who brought a petition for writ of mandate, and asked the trial court to order return of the TUMF payments and requested declarations that the City could not impose the new mitigation fees under the extended vesting tentative map until it expired in 2019 and could not impose those fees under the development agreement until it expired in 2021. The trial court held the development agreement established the parties’ rights and permitted the City to impose the new fees under the TUMF ordinance.

On appeal, North Murrieta claimed the trial court erred in finding the development agreement governed the rights of the parties. It further argued the vesting tentative map statutes provided a way of fixing a developer’s rights that operated beyond the reach of any development agreement. Here, the terms of the development agreement demonstrated the City did not agree to extend all the rights conveyed by the vesting tentative map. However, by entering the development agreement, North Murrieta agreed the City could impose fees already in place by March 6, 2001, and also agreed the City could impose other generally applicable fees the City determined were needed, beyond existing fees, to mitigate effects of development. As the law sets forth development agreements are contracts, enforceable like normal contracts, North Murrieta failed to show any authority in support of its claim that vesting tentative maps imparted a species of super rights that could not be negotiated away. Accordingly, the trial court’s holding was affirmed.

 North Murrieta Community, LC v City of Murrieta, 2020 WL 304600093 (CA App. 6/8/2020)