ridgeline | ORANGE CITIZENS PREVAIL AT THE STATE SUPREME COURT (DEC 2016)
Filed 12/15/16
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA
S212800
ORANGE CITIZENS PREVAIL: CAL. SUPREME COURT AFFIRMS THE POWER OF THE GENERAL PLAN
We conclude that Orange Citizens has the better view (December 15, 2016)
San Francisco – The California Supreme Court today issued its decision in Orange Citizens for Parks and Recreation v. Superior Court. Theunanimous decision reaffirms decades of well-established planning law and supports the right of voters to use the referendum process to challenge local land use decisions.
“Today’s decision supports the rights of Californians to have a say in local land use decisions, whether through the process of updating a city or county’s general plan or through the initiative and referendum process,” said attorney Robert “Perl” Perlmutter of Shute, Mihaly & Weinberger LLP, who represented the Orange Citizens for Parks and Recreation and a second community group in the case. “The Supreme Court’s decision clarified key points for property owners, public officials, and the public, and should eliminate confusion moving forward if similar matters arise.”
The California Fourth District Court of Appeal issued a controversial decision in the case in July of 2013, which was the basis of the appeal that brought the case to the California Supreme Court.The appellate decision called into question a bedrock notion in state planning law: namely, that a city’s most recently-adopted General Plan serves as its local “constitution” and determines the permissible land uses for all property within the jurisdiction. The appellate decision also undermined the integrity of the referendum process by dismissing the results of a referendum that showed clear public intent to overturn a land use decision made by the Orange City Council.
The case stemmed from a proposal to develop one of the last remaining open spaces in the “Orange Park Acres” area of the City of Orange. The developer applied for – and the City Council approved – a General Plan amendment to change the property’s long-standing open space designation to allow residential development. When a community group took the issue to the voters, Orange residents voted overwhelmingly to reject the Council’s approval.
In the meantime, the developer sued the City and the Orange Citizens community group, trying to force the referendum off the ballot. When that tactic failed, the developer argued in court that the referendum was irrelevant based on a 40-year old document it had “discovered” in the City’s files. This document, the developer claimed, showed that the City had decided to allow residential development on the property back in 1973, and that the City’s General Plan amendment was therefore unnecessary, rendering both the referendum and the City’s recently updated General Plan meaningless.
Despite the fact that the current General Plan stated that no residential development was allowed on the property in question, the developer argued that its project could nevertheless go forward. The City ultimately sided with the developer, and so did the Court of Appeal.
In reversing this decision, the Supreme Court explained that, given the plain language of the City’s General Plan, “no reasonable person could conclude that the Property could be developed without a general plan amendment changing its land use designation.” The Supreme Court concluded its opinion by emphasizing that city councils are prohibited from taking action “with intent to evade the effect of [a] referendum.”
“Californians are passionate about how land is used in their communities,” said Laura Thomas, president of the Orange Park Association. “Today’s decision reaffirms the rights of community members to have their say when developers try to flout an established general plan.”
Orange Citizens for Parks and Recreation is a broad-based bipartisan coalition with members from all parts of Orange. The group’s central goal is to protect recreational open space within the City.
Orange Park Association is a non-profit organization, formed in 1960 to protect the rural-equestrian area that was established in 1928 known as Orange Park Acres. Orange Park Association was a co-petitioner in the case.
Shute, Mihaly & Weinberger LLP is a law firm specializing in land use, natural resource, environmental, and governmental law. Since 1980, the firm has provided public agencies and community groups with the highest quality legal representation, offering an array of litigation, counseling and planning services.
###
State Supreme Court review of Ridgeline opinion
Too much at stake for all Californians to let this decision stand
On July 10, 2013, the court of appeal affirmed the lower court’s ruling that the developer of the Ridgeline project did not need a general plan amendment to obtain approval for the project despite the fact that the general plans adopted in 1989 and 2010 provided that the Ridgeline property’s designation was open space. The appellate court relied on a 1973 planning commission resolution that they ruled controlled the land use designation for the property. That resolution was discovered in 2009 and was never recorded. The court disregarded the votes of Orange citizens on Measure FF that made clear that the people did not want the Ridgeline development to proceed.
This opinion not only would harm the quality of life in Orange, it endangers development throughout the state. The opinion, if it stands, creates uncertainty for property developments everywhere, for it is now impossible to determine, without sifting through decades of archived records what the land use designations for a given parcel are. Citizens can no longer rely on the published general plan.
Because of these issues, and after consultation with their attorneys, the Orange Park Association (OPA) Board determined to file a petition with the California Supreme Court to attempt to reverse the court of appeal’s opinion. On August 19, the petition for review was filed. If the Supreme Court grants the petition and accepts the case, there will be full briefing on the issues and an oral argument, likely a few months after the briefing is complete. OPA attorneys believe the case has a better chance than most to get the Supreme Court’s attention, both because it involves an election and because the opinion creates conflicts among appellate decisions throughout the state.
So many Orange citizens—in OPA and elsewhere—worked so hard and gave so much of themselves in the effort to fight unwise development at Ridgeline, that it would be a shame to give up before taking every reasonable step. We have a duty to protect our 85-year old community as those who came before us. Also we have an obligation to the voters that supported our effort. Thank you, everyone, for all your support!
Laura Thomas, OPA President
Don Bradley, OPA Board member
Tom Davidson, OCFPR Chair
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA
S212800
ORANGE CITIZENS PREVAIL: CAL. SUPREME COURT AFFIRMS THE POWER OF THE GENERAL PLAN
We conclude that Orange Citizens has the better view (December 15, 2016)
San Francisco – The California Supreme Court today issued its decision in Orange Citizens for Parks and Recreation v. Superior Court. Theunanimous decision reaffirms decades of well-established planning law and supports the right of voters to use the referendum process to challenge local land use decisions.
“Today’s decision supports the rights of Californians to have a say in local land use decisions, whether through the process of updating a city or county’s general plan or through the initiative and referendum process,” said attorney Robert “Perl” Perlmutter of Shute, Mihaly & Weinberger LLP, who represented the Orange Citizens for Parks and Recreation and a second community group in the case. “The Supreme Court’s decision clarified key points for property owners, public officials, and the public, and should eliminate confusion moving forward if similar matters arise.”
The California Fourth District Court of Appeal issued a controversial decision in the case in July of 2013, which was the basis of the appeal that brought the case to the California Supreme Court.The appellate decision called into question a bedrock notion in state planning law: namely, that a city’s most recently-adopted General Plan serves as its local “constitution” and determines the permissible land uses for all property within the jurisdiction. The appellate decision also undermined the integrity of the referendum process by dismissing the results of a referendum that showed clear public intent to overturn a land use decision made by the Orange City Council.
The case stemmed from a proposal to develop one of the last remaining open spaces in the “Orange Park Acres” area of the City of Orange. The developer applied for – and the City Council approved – a General Plan amendment to change the property’s long-standing open space designation to allow residential development. When a community group took the issue to the voters, Orange residents voted overwhelmingly to reject the Council’s approval.
In the meantime, the developer sued the City and the Orange Citizens community group, trying to force the referendum off the ballot. When that tactic failed, the developer argued in court that the referendum was irrelevant based on a 40-year old document it had “discovered” in the City’s files. This document, the developer claimed, showed that the City had decided to allow residential development on the property back in 1973, and that the City’s General Plan amendment was therefore unnecessary, rendering both the referendum and the City’s recently updated General Plan meaningless.
Despite the fact that the current General Plan stated that no residential development was allowed on the property in question, the developer argued that its project could nevertheless go forward. The City ultimately sided with the developer, and so did the Court of Appeal.
In reversing this decision, the Supreme Court explained that, given the plain language of the City’s General Plan, “no reasonable person could conclude that the Property could be developed without a general plan amendment changing its land use designation.” The Supreme Court concluded its opinion by emphasizing that city councils are prohibited from taking action “with intent to evade the effect of [a] referendum.”
“Californians are passionate about how land is used in their communities,” said Laura Thomas, president of the Orange Park Association. “Today’s decision reaffirms the rights of community members to have their say when developers try to flout an established general plan.”
Orange Citizens for Parks and Recreation is a broad-based bipartisan coalition with members from all parts of Orange. The group’s central goal is to protect recreational open space within the City.
Orange Park Association is a non-profit organization, formed in 1960 to protect the rural-equestrian area that was established in 1928 known as Orange Park Acres. Orange Park Association was a co-petitioner in the case.
Shute, Mihaly & Weinberger LLP is a law firm specializing in land use, natural resource, environmental, and governmental law. Since 1980, the firm has provided public agencies and community groups with the highest quality legal representation, offering an array of litigation, counseling and planning services.
###
State Supreme Court review of Ridgeline opinion
Too much at stake for all Californians to let this decision stand
On July 10, 2013, the court of appeal affirmed the lower court’s ruling that the developer of the Ridgeline project did not need a general plan amendment to obtain approval for the project despite the fact that the general plans adopted in 1989 and 2010 provided that the Ridgeline property’s designation was open space. The appellate court relied on a 1973 planning commission resolution that they ruled controlled the land use designation for the property. That resolution was discovered in 2009 and was never recorded. The court disregarded the votes of Orange citizens on Measure FF that made clear that the people did not want the Ridgeline development to proceed.
This opinion not only would harm the quality of life in Orange, it endangers development throughout the state. The opinion, if it stands, creates uncertainty for property developments everywhere, for it is now impossible to determine, without sifting through decades of archived records what the land use designations for a given parcel are. Citizens can no longer rely on the published general plan.
Because of these issues, and after consultation with their attorneys, the Orange Park Association (OPA) Board determined to file a petition with the California Supreme Court to attempt to reverse the court of appeal’s opinion. On August 19, the petition for review was filed. If the Supreme Court grants the petition and accepts the case, there will be full briefing on the issues and an oral argument, likely a few months after the briefing is complete. OPA attorneys believe the case has a better chance than most to get the Supreme Court’s attention, both because it involves an election and because the opinion creates conflicts among appellate decisions throughout the state.
So many Orange citizens—in OPA and elsewhere—worked so hard and gave so much of themselves in the effort to fight unwise development at Ridgeline, that it would be a shame to give up before taking every reasonable step. We have a duty to protect our 85-year old community as those who came before us. Also we have an obligation to the voters that supported our effort. Thank you, everyone, for all your support!
Laura Thomas, OPA President
Don Bradley, OPA Board member
Tom Davidson, OCFPR Chair
