Orange Citizens for Parks & Recreation v. Superior Court of Orange Cnty.
211 Cal. Rptr. 3d 230
Cal.2016Background
- Milan REI IV purchased ~51 acres (former Ridgeline Golf Course) in Orange Park Acres and proposed a 39-unit residential project requiring a general plan amendment.
- The 1973 Orange Park Acres (OPA) Plan and related 1973 Planning Commission resolution (PC-85-73) recommended designating the Property as "Other Open Space and Low Density (1 acre)," but the City Council resolution adopting the OPA Plan (Res. 3915) did not incorporate the Planning Commission’s amendment into the publicly available plan text or maps.
- Subsequent City materials (including the 1989 and 2010 General Plans) and the publicly available OPA Plan showed the Property as "Open Space/Golf," and the 2010 General Plan land use policy map designated the site as Open Space (areas that should not be developed).
- Milan and the City initially treated a formal general plan amendment as required; Milan later argued the 1973 Planning Commission resolution effectively authorized one-acre residential lots and therefore no amendment was necessary. The City adopted an amendment in 2011, but a referendum placed the amendment on the ballot and voters rejected it in November 2012.
- The central legal dispute: whether the 1973 Planning Commission amendment (PC-85-73) is part of the City’s operative general plan such that the Project was consistent with the general plan without the 2011 amendment. Trial court sided with Milan; Court of Appeal deferred to the City's findings; the California Supreme Court granted review and reversed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the 1973 Planning Commission resolution is part of the operative general plan such that the Property was designated for low‑density residential use | The 1973 amendment was lawfully adopted and continuously effective, so the Property permitted one‑acre residential lots | The 2010 General Plan (its text and policy map) is the controlling integrated general plan and designates the Property as Open Space; the 1973 amendment was not incorporated into the publicly available plan | Held: No. The 2010 General Plan unambiguously designates the Property as Open Space; the 1973 amendment was not part of the operative plan and cannot be used to authorize the Project without amendment |
| Whether the City’s consistency finding merited judicial deference despite conflicting documents and the referendum | Milan/City: Defer to the City’s legislative/adjudicatory judgment; the City may correct clerical errors and honor prior council intent | Orange Citizens: Courts should overturn consistency findings if no reasonable person could find consistency with the general plan as written | Held: The court must defer only if a reasonable person could reach the same conclusion; here no reasonable person could find consistency because the 2010 plan’s policy map and text unambiguously precluded development |
| Whether an "administrative correction" could be used to change the general plan designation post‑referendum | Milan/City: A clerical correction can fix the omission and is permissible to reflect original council intent | Orange Citizens: Using an administrative correction to evade a referendum defeats the public process and the enacted general plan controls | Held: The City may not use an unreasonable administrative correction to evade the referendum; the public 2010 plan governs and the referendum’s rejection of the amendment stands |
| Whether ambiguity in long‑running planning records justified upholding the Project | Milan/City: Historical inconsistencies create ambiguity and counsel deference to the City | Orange Citizens: The 2010 General Plan is clear; historical documents not incorporated do not create ambiguity | Held: Historical inconsistencies do not create sufficient ambiguity; the 2010 General Plan is the operative, integrated document and must be read as such |
Key Cases Cited
- Goleta Valley v. Board of Supervisors, 52 Cal.3d 553 (discusses general plan primacy and public participation in planning)
- deBottari v. City Council, 171 Cal.App.3d 1204 (explains internal consistency requirement for general plans)
- Lesher Communications, Inc. v. City of Walnut Creek, 52 Cal.3d 531 (zoning conflicting with a general plan is invalid)
- Las Virgenes Homeowners Federation, Inc. v. County of Los Angeles, 177 Cal.App.3d 300 (maps and area plans may clarify general plan designations where plan directs users to them)
- Friends of Lagoon Valley v. City of Vacaville, 154 Cal.App.4th 807 (consistency review need not require perfect conformity but must not contradict fundamental specific land use policies)
- Assembly v. Deukmejian, 30 Cal.3d 638 (referendum power cannot be nullified by legislative maneuvering to evade its effect)
- San Franciscans Upholding the Downtown Plan v. City & County of San Francisco, 102 Cal.App.4th 656 (discusses deference to local agencies on consistency findings and the standard of review)