## Facts

- Oceanside adopted a general plan stating housing for all income levels was a high priority and expressly opposing direct numerical controls on new housing units.
- In April 1987, voters approved Proposition A, codified as Chapter 32A of the Oceanside Municipal Code, creating a Residential Development Control System (RDCS).
- Proposition A imposed a citywide annual cap on the number of dwelling units the City could approve and used a point-based allocation system to rank projects for the limited allotment.
- The Building Industry Association of San Diego, Inc. (BIA), representing residential developers and builders, filed suit seeking declaratory and related relief, alleging Proposition A conflicted with the general plan and California’s State Planning and Zoning Law (Gov. Code § 65000 et seq.).
- Before trial, an earlier appellate writ decision addressed whether BIA was entitled to summary adjudication on the same conflict theories.
- After a multi-phase bench trial, the superior court treated the earlier writ decision as “law of the case” and entered judgment for the City, upholding Proposition A.
- BIA appealed.

## Issues

1. Whether the trial court improperly applied the law-of-the-case doctrine by treating an earlier writ decision concerning summary adjudication as dispositive of the general-plan and state-law conflict claims.
2. Whether Proposition A was facially inconsistent with Oceanside’s general plan because it imposed direct numerical limits on residential approvals.
3. Whether Proposition A conflicted with California’s State Planning and Zoning Law, including the statutory requirement that implementing land-use controls be consistent with the general plan and state housing policies.

## Decision

- The Court of Appeal reversed the judgment for the City.
- The trial court erred by treating the prior writ decision as law of the case; the writ proceeding did not finally determine the merits after a full trial record.
- Under controlling standards for general-plan consistency, Proposition A was facially inconsistent with Oceanside’s general plan because it imposed a quantitative cap on housing in direct contradiction to the plan’s policy against numerical growth controls.
- Because state law requires consistency between the general plan and implementing regulations, the facial inconsistency rendered Proposition A invalid.

## Legal Principles

- Local land-use regulations, including voter-adopted initiatives functioning as zoning or growth-control measures, must be consistent with the jurisdiction’s general plan.
- A measure that is facially inconsistent with explicit general plan policies is void; a court may decide invalidity from the face of the plan and the ordinance without waiting for an as-applied dispute.
- The State Planning and Zoning Law requires general-plan primacy and consistency between the plan and local implementing controls; local measures cannot defeat state housing objectives through inconsistent growth caps.
- Law of the case does not arise from an interlocutory writ decision addressing entitlement to summary adjudication where the merits remain to be tried on a complete record.

## Conclusion

The Court of Appeal held that Oceanside’s voter-approved residential growth cap was invalid because it facially conflicted with the city’s general plan and, by violating the statutory consistency requirement, conflicted with California’s planning and zoning law; the trial court’s reliance on law of the case from earlier writ proceedings was reversible error.


Building Indus. Ass'n of San Diego, Inc. v. City of Oceanside, 27 Cal. App. 4th 744, 33 Cal. Rptr. 2d 137 (Cal. Ct. App. 1994)