City of Santa Ana v. Board of Ed. of City of Santa Ana

• Decision Date: 18 October 1967
• Citation: 255 Cal.App.2d 178,62 Cal.Rptr. 863
• Court: California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
• Parties: CITY OF SANTA ANA, a Municipal Corporation, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. BOARD OF EDUCATION OF the CITY OF SANTA ANA, Respondent, Santa Ana Commercial Company, a California Corporation, Great Western Reclamation, Inc., a California Corporation, Defendants. Civ. 8764.

Page 863

62 Cal.Rptr. 863

255 Cal.App.2d 178

CITY OF SANTA ANA, a Municipal Corporation, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. BOARD OF EDUCATION OF the CITY OF SANTA ANA, Respondent Santa Ana Commercial Company, a California Corporation, Great Western Reclamation, Inc., a California Corporation, Defendants.

Civ. 8764.

Court of Appeal, Fourth District, Division 1, California.

Oct. 18, 1967.

Hearing Denied Dec. 13, 1967.

William L. Mock, City Atty., Santa Ana, for appellant.

Adrian Kuyper, County Counsel, James S. Okazaki, Deputy County Counsel, Santa Ana, respondent.

OPINION

GERALD BROWN, Presiding Justice.

Appealing from a summary judgment, declaratory relief plaintiff City of Santa Ana contests a trial court's determination defendant Board of Education of the City of Santa Ana is not subject to the City's garbage collection regulations. Plaintiff seeks to compel defendant to employ plaintiff's garbage collection services.

Plaintiff contends the state has imposed upon local political subdivisions the duty to regulate garbage collection within their territorial limits (Matula v. Superior Court, 146 Cal.App.2d 93, 303 P.2d 871); Article XI, Section 11, of the California Constitution vests in cities broad police power to regulate garbage collection (Matula v. Superior Court, supra, 146 Cal.App.2d 93, 303 P.2d 871); garbage collection is peculiarly a subject of municipal control, an important purpose of municipal government (In re Zhizhuzza, 147 Cal. 328, 81 P. 955; In re Santos, 88 Cal.App. 691, 264 P. 281). Plaintiff argues this power does not threaten defendant's management and control of public school education.

In Hall v. City of Taft, 47 Cal.2d 177, 302 P.2d 574, the California Supreme Court explained:

1) school districts are state agencies for the local operation of the state school system;

2) the state is the beneficial owner of public school property;

3) 'When it (the state) engages in such sovereign activities as the construction and maintenance of its buildings, as differentiated from enacting laws for the conduct of the public at large, it is not subject to local regulations unless the Constitution says it is or the Legislature has consented to such regulation. Section 11 of Article XI of the state Constitution, Supra, should not be considered as Conferring such powers on local Government agencies.' (47 Cal.2d at 183, 302 P.2d at 578.) (Italics ours.)

4) "'The principle is that the state, when creating municipal governments, does not cede to them any control of the state's property situated within them, nor over any property which the state has authorized another body or power to control. The municipal government is but an agent of the state--not an independent body. It governs in the limited manner and territory that is expressly or by necessary implication granted to it by the state. It is competent for the state to retain to itself some part of the government even within the municipality, which it will exercise directly, or through the medium of other selected and more suitable instrumentalities. How can the city have ever a superior authority to the state over the latter's own property, or in its control and management? From the nature of things it cannot have."' (47 Cal.2d 183--184, 302 P.2d 579, quoting In re Means, 14 Cal.2d 254, 258, 93 P.2d 105, 123 A.L.R. 1378, quoting Kentucky Institution for Education of Blind v. City of Louisville, 123 Ky. 767, 97 S.W. 402, 8 L.R.A., N.S., 553.)

This final principle is reiterated in Town of Atherton v. Superior Court, 159 Cal.App.2d 417, 428, 324 P.2d 328, and Vagim v. Board of Supervisors, 230 Cal.App.2d 286, 294, 40 Cal.Rptr. 760. Plaintiff's reliance on Article XI, Section 11 of the California Constitution is...