Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
10 California opinions name it 1 courts 2011–2026 3 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by California courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Families Unafraid to Uphold Rural El Dorado County v. Board of Supervisorsgreen2 sentences2021It is enough that the proposed project will be compatible with the objectives, policies, general land uses and programs specified in the applicable plan.’ ” (Holden, at p. 412.) A project will nevertheless be “inconsistent if it conflicts with a general plan policy that is fundamental, mandatory, and clear.” (Endangered Habitats League, Inc. v. County of Orange (2005) 131 Cal.App.4th 777, 782 ; see also FUTURE, supra, 62 Cal.App.4th at p. 1338 .) “ ‘[T]he nature of the policy and the nature of the inconsistency are critical factors to consider’ ” because “general consistencies with plan police 2016(Families Unafraid to Uphold Rural etc. County v. Board of Supervisors (1998) 62 Cal.App.4th 1332, 1336 [ 74 Cal.Rptr.2d 1 ] (Families).) “A project is consistent with the general plan ‘ “if, considering all its aspects, it will further the objectives and policies of the general plan and not obstruct their attainment.” ’ [Citation.] A given project need not be in perfect conformity with each and every general plan policy. [Citation.] To be consistent, a subdivision development must be ‘compatible with’ the objectives, policies, general land uses and programs specified in the general plan.” (Ib | 5 | 8 |
Clover Valley Foundation v. City of Rocklingreen2 sentences2016(Clover Valley Foundation v. City of Rocklin (2011) 197 Cal.App.4th 200, 239 [ 128 Cal.Rptr.3d 733 ]; Families Unafraid, at p. 1342.) Despite Wal-Mart’s contrary assertion, IM 7.1.1.4 is specific, mandatory and fundamental. 2016(Clover Valley Foundation v. City of Rocklin (2011) 197 Cal.App.4th 200, 239 [ 128 Cal.Rptr.3d 733 ]; Families Unafraid, at p. 1342.) Despite Wal-Mart’s contrary assertion, IM 7.1.1.4 is specific, mandatory and fundamental. | 2 | 2 |
Spring Valley Lake Assn. v. City of Victorville CA4/1green2 sentences2026(See Orange Citizens, supra, 2 Cal.5th at pp. 156-158 [concluding project that included low-density residential development was facially inconsistent with general plan where a land use element in the general plan designated project site to be open space].) This is because “in determining whether a project conflicts with a 20 general plan, ‘the nature of the policy and the nature of the inconsistency are critical factors to consider.’ A project is inconsistent with a general plan ‘if it conflicts with a general plan policy that is fundamental, mandatory, and clear.’ In other words, a project’s 2022When we apply the abuse of discretion standard of review “in determining whether a project conflicts with a general plan, ‘the nature of the policy and the nature of the inconsistency are critical factors to consider.’ [Citation.] A project is inconsistent with a general plan ‘if it conflicts with a general plan policy that is fundamental, mandatory, and clear.’ [Citations.] In other words, a project’s consistency with a general plan’s broader policies cannot overcome a project’s inconsistency with a general plan’s more specific, mandatory and fundamental policies.” (Spring Valley Lake Assn. v | 1 | 3 |
Sequoyah Hills Homeowners Ass'n v. City of Oaklandgreen2 sentences2016(See Sequoyah Hills Homeowners Assn. v. City of Oakland (1993) 23 Cal.App.4th 704, 719 [ 29 Cal.Rptr.2d 182 ].) An approval must be set aside, however, where there is an inconsistency with a mandatory policy. 2016(See Sequoyah Hills Homeowners Assn. v. City of Oakland (1993) 23 Cal.App.4th 704, 719 [ 29 Cal.Rptr.2d 182 ].) An approval must be set aside, however, where there is an inconsistency with a mandatory policy. | 1 | 3 |
Joshua Tree Downtown Bus. Alliance v. County of San Bernardino CA4/2green2 sentences2026(See Orange Citizens, supra, 2 Cal.5th at pp. 156-158 [concluding project that included low-density residential development was facially inconsistent with general plan where a land use element in the general plan designated project site to be open space].) This is because “in determining whether a project conflicts with a 20 general plan, ‘the nature of the policy and the nature of the inconsistency are critical factors to consider.’ A project is inconsistent with a general plan ‘if it conflicts with a general plan policy that is fundamental, mandatory, and clear.’ In other words, a project’s 2022When we apply the abuse of discretion standard of review “in determining whether a project conflicts with a general plan, ‘the nature of the policy and the nature of the inconsistency are critical factors to consider.’ [Citation.] A project is inconsistent with a general plan ‘if it conflicts with a general plan policy that is fundamental, mandatory, and clear.’ [Citations.] In other words, a project’s consistency with a general plan’s broader policies cannot overcome a project’s inconsistency with a general plan’s more specific, mandatory and fundamental policies.” (Spring Valley Lake Assn. v | 1 | 2 |
San Francisco Tomorrow v. City & County of San Franciscogreen2 sentences2026(See San Francisco Tomorrow v. City & County of San Francisco (2014) 229 Cal.App.4th 498, 520 [use of “must” or “shall” in a general plan policy indicates it is mandatory].) The lot size restrictions also appear fundamental to the General Plan. 2021(See San Francisco Tomorrow v. City and County of San Francisco (2014) 229 Cal.App.4th 498, 518 .) A public agency’s determination that a development approval is consistent with its general plan is “fundamentally adjudicatory.” (Orange Citizens for Parks & Recreation v. Superior Court (2016) 2 Cal.5th 141, 155 .) “In such circumstances, a consistency determination is entitled to deference as an extension of a planning agency’s ‘ “unique competence to interpret [its] policies when applying them in its adjudicatory capacity.” ’ [Citation.] Reviewing courts must defer to a procedurally proper con | 1 | 2 |
Endangered Habitats League, Inc. v. County of Orangegreen2 sentences2021It is enough that the proposed project will be compatible with the objectives, policies, general land uses and programs specified in the applicable plan.’ ” (Holden, at p. 412.) A project will nevertheless be “inconsistent if it conflicts with a general plan policy that is fundamental, mandatory, and clear.” (Endangered Habitats League, Inc. v. County of Orange (2005) 131 Cal.App.4th 777, 782 ; see also FUTURE, supra, 62 Cal.App.4th at p. 1338 .) “ ‘[T]he nature of the policy and the nature of the inconsistency are critical factors to consider’ ” because “general consistencies with plan police 2016(Families Unafraid to Uphold Rural etc. County v. Board of Supervisors (1998) 62 Cal.App.4th 1332, 1341 [ 74 Cal.Rptr.2d 1 ] (Families Unafraid).) Rather, in determining whether a project conflicts with a general plan, “the nature of the policy and the nature of the inconsistency are critical factors to consider.” {Ibid.) A project is inconsistent with a general plan “if it conflicts with a general plan policy that is fundamental, mandatory, and clear.” (Endangered Habitats League, Inc. v. County of Orange (2005) 131 Cal.App.4th 777, 782 [ 32 Cal.Rptr.3d 177 ], *101 citing Families Unafraid, s | 1 | 2 |
Holden v. City of San Diegogreen1 sentence2021(See San Francisco Tomorrow v. City and County of San Francisco (2014) 229 Cal.App.4th 498, 518 .) A public agency’s determination that a development approval is consistent with its general plan is “fundamentally adjudicatory.” (Orange Citizens for Parks & Recreation v. Superior Court (2016) 2 Cal.5th 141, 155 .) “In such circumstances, a consistency determination is entitled to deference as an extension of a planning agency’s ‘ “unique competence to interpret [its] policies when applying them in its adjudicatory capacity.” ’ [Citation.] Reviewing courts must defer to a procedurally proper con | 1 | 1 |
No Oil, Inc. v. City of Los Angelesgreen2 sentences2011(Ibid.) As for this substantial evidence prong, it has been said that a determination of general plan consistency will be reversed only if, based on the evidence before the local governing body, ‘. . . a reasonable person could not have reached the same conclusion.’ (No Oil, Inc. v. City of Los Angeles (1987) 196 Cal.App.3d 223, 243 [ 242 Cal.Rptr. 37 ].)” (FUTURE, supra, 62 Cal.App.4th at p. 1338 .) When we apply this standard, “the nature of the policy and the nature of the inconsistency are critical factors to consider.” (FUTURE, supra, 62 Cal.App.4th at p. 1341 .) In addition, general cons 2011(Ibid.) As for this substantial evidence prong, it has been said that a determination of general plan consistency will be reversed only if, based on the evidence before the local governing body, ‘. . . a reasonable person could not have reached the same conclusion.’ (No Oil, Inc. v. City of Los Angeles (1987) 196 Cal.App.3d 223, 243 [ 242 Cal.Rptr. 37 ].)” (FUTURE, supra, 62 Cal.App.4th at p. 1338 .) When we apply this standard, “the nature of the policy and the nature of the inconsistency are critical factors to consider.” (FUTURE, supra, 62 Cal.App.4th at p. 1341 .) In addition, general cons | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in California. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Orange Citizens for Parks & Recreation v. Superior Court of Orange Cnty.
green
2 sentences2022General Plan.” (Orange Citizens, supra, 2 Cal.5th at p. 154 .) We “must defer to a procedurally proper consistency finding unless no reasonable person could have reached the same conclusion.” (Id. at p. 155.) 14 II. 2021(See San Francisco Tomorrow v. City and County of San Francisco (2014) 229 Cal.App.4th 498, 518 .) A public agency’s determination that a development approval is consistent with its general plan is “fundamentally adjudicatory.” (Orange Citizens for Parks & Recreation v. Superior Court (2016) 2 Cal.5th 141, 155 .) “In such circumstances, a consistency determination is entitled to deference as an extension of a planning agency’s ‘ “unique competence to interpret [its] policies when applying them in its adjudicatory capacity.” ’ [Citation.] Reviewing courts must defer to a procedurally proper con | 2 | 2021–2022 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.