Court Rules City Erred in Project OK : Calabasas: The decision finds council violated land-use plan by approving the 250-house Micor development.

A state appeal court ruled this week that the Calabasas City Council erred in its first major land-use decision--a case that could have far-reaching effects on the way new cities develop.

The 2nd District Court of Appeal ruled Tuesday that council members violated the city’s land-use plan when they approved a 250-house development in a secluded canyon in the Las Virgenes Valley.

Although the decision does not appear to directly affect plans by Micor Ventures to build, it does provide ammunition for a pending legal challenge to the project.

In a larger context, however, the ruling could have profound effects on the way newly incorporated cities such as Calabasas grow in their first few years, land-use experts said Thursday. Justices ruled that unless a new city specifically rejects county land-use rules, those rules apply until the community adopts its own.

That process can take several years and the reason most communities incorporate is to gain control over land-use decisions within their borders. Calabasas, for instance, incorporated in 1991 and is still writing its citywide land-use plan.

The court upheld a 1993 Superior Court ruling, which held that the Calabasas council was bound by the rules of Los Angeles County because it had not adopted its own plans when it voted on the Micor project. Los Angeles County would have permitted only 81 residences on the site.

“Despite the convoluted and protracted efforts of Micor and the City to view the matter otherwise, City ordinances . . . simply adopted virtually all the county ordinances, including the County General Plan, and put the City’s name on the General Plan,” the court wrote. “As the trial court aptly observed it would be unreasonable to conclude that the City had adopted all other county land use procedures but not the General Plan.”

The lawsuit over the Micor project was filed by the environmental group Save Open Space, which wanted to halt the project to protect the canyon, which serves as a wildlife corridor.

After the group’s first court victory, the city appealed but also adjusted its land-use codes to specifically repudiate county zoning laws.

Of the second court defeat, Calabasas Mayor Marvin Lopata complained: “This takes away the ability of a new city to make changes and approve projects. It takes planning away from new cities.”

But attorney Frank Angel, who represents the environmental group suing the city over the Micor project, disagreed, saying the decision encourages new cities to think through development decisions carefully.

“Contrary to the spin put by the City Council on the trial judge’s ruling, the judge did not interfere with local control over land-use,” Angel said. “Rather, both judicial decisions in this case legitimize local control as they enforce a recalcitrant City Council’s public duty to follow the land-use and zoning laws which it adopted as its own.”

Woodie Tescher, a consultant who helps new cities draw up their land-use plans, said one way to avoid the problem encountered by Calabasas is for cities not to approve anything until guidelines are in place.