## Facts

- A private developer submitted a vesting tentative subdivision map to Santa Barbara County for a multi-unit residential project in territory that later became the City of Goleta.
- County voters approved Goleta’s incorporation, but incorporation did not become effective until a later date.
- The County approved the vesting tentative map after incorporation was approved by the electorate but before incorporation became effective.
- Upon incorporation, the City adopted an ordinance continuing previously applicable county ordinances for continuity, largely by substituting references to the City and City Council for the County and Board of Supervisors.
- After incorporation, the developer sought approval of a final subdivision map; the City ultimately denied the final map.
- The developer sued, asserting the City was required to approve the final map and that the City’s adoption of county ordinances and related conduct eliminated the City’s discretion or estopped the City from denying approval.

## Issues

1. Whether a newly incorporated city retains discretion under the Subdivision Map Act to disapprove a final subdivision map when the county previously approved a vesting tentative map for the same project before incorporation became effective.
2. Whether the City’s post-incorporation actions, including adopting county ordinances for continuity, divested the City of discretion or equitably estopped the City from denying the final map.

## Decision

- The California Supreme Court held the City retained discretion to disapprove the final subdivision map notwithstanding the County’s prior approval of the vesting tentative map.
- The Court held the City’s statutory adoption of county ordinances and its conduct regarding the project did not convert the City’s role into a ministerial one and did not estop the City from exercising its discretion.
- The Court approved the Court of Appeal’s disposition granting writ relief in the City’s favor and rejecting the developer’s effort to compel approval.

## Legal Principles

- A vesting tentative map confers limited vested rights to proceed under certain ordinances and standards, but it does not automatically require unconditional approval of a later final map by a successor local government.
- Government Code § 66413.5 does not strip a newly incorporated city of its Subdivision Map Act discretion merely because a county approved the vesting tentative map before incorporation became effective.
- A new city’s temporary adoption of previously applicable county ordinances to maintain legal continuity does not constitute a novation of the county’s discretionary land-use decisions and does not, by itself, impose a ministerial duty to approve a final map.
- Equitable estoppel against a public entity is disfavored and requires extraordinary circumstances; mandatory, continuity-based municipal actions are not reasonably treated as representations surrendering statutory discretion.

## Conclusion

The court ruled that Goleta could deny the developer’s final subdivision map despite the county’s earlier approval of a vesting tentative map, and that the City’s continuity ordinance and related conduct neither eliminated its statutory discretion nor justified estoppel compelling approval.


City of Goleta v. Superior Court, 40 Cal. 4th 270, 147 P.3d 1037 (Cal. 2006)