Gleason v. City of Santa Monica

• Citation: 207 Cal.App.2d 458,24 Cal.Rptr. 656
• Court: California Court of Appeals
• Decision Date: 06 September 1962
• Parties: Edith Ann GLEASON et al., Plaintiffs and Appellants, v. The CITY OF SANTA MONICA et al., Defendants and Respondents. Civ. 25995.

Page 656

24 Cal.Rptr. 656

207 Cal.App.2d 458

Edith Ann GLEASON et al., Plaintiffs and Appellants, v. The CITY OF SANTA MONICA et al., Defendants and Respondents.

Civ. 25995.

District Court of Appeal, Second District, Division 2, California.

Sept. 6, 1962.

Rehearing Denied Oct. 2, 1962.

Hearing Denied Oct. 31, 1962.

Phill Silver, Hollywood, for appellants.

Robert G. Cockins, City Atty., Robert D. Ogle, Asst. City Atty., for respondents.

FOX, Presiding Justice.

This is an appeal by plaintiffs from a judgment of dismissal entered after a demurrer to plaintiffs' fifth amended complaint was sustained without leave to amend.

Plaintiffs' complaint for declaratory relief sought a declaration that: certain provisions of the California Redevelopment Law are unconstitutional; appropriations made by the City of Santa Monica to the Redevelopment Agency are ultra vires and illegal expenditures of municipal funds; the Redevelopment Agency of Santa Monica has received funds from the City of Santa Monica without any authority of law; an ordinance approving and adopting a redevelopment plan in the City of Santa Monica is unconstitutional; and the use of any federal or municipal funds derived from the sale of bonds or otherwise, in furtherance of the redevelopment plan adopted by the City Council of the City of Santa Monica is in violation of section 1460 of the Federal Urban Renewal Act, 42 U.S.C.A.

The sole basis upon which the demurrer was sustained without leave to amend was on the ground that 'the amended complaint does not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action in that the alleged cause of action appears to be barred by the provisions of the Health & Safety Code, section 33746.' The facts show that ordinance 497, which is the ordinance approving the redevelopment plan, was adopted by the Council on June 30, 1960, and the complaint was filed by plaintiffs on September 20, 1960.

Section 33746 of the Health & Safety Code, as amended in 1959, states: ¹ 'The findings and determinations of an agency and of a legislative body or of either of them, in the adoption and approval of any redevelopment plan may be judicially reviewed by a court of competent jurisdiction. Such action must be brought within 60 days after the date of adoption of the ordinance approving the plan. No action shall be brought prior to the adoption of the final redevelopment plan.' (Emphasis added.)

The trial court computed the time within which the action should have been brought from the date the Council voted in adopting the ordinance as opposed to its effective date, i. e., 30 days after such adoption. The sole issue on this appeal is: does the word 'adoption' in the clause 'such action must be brought within 60 days after the date of adoption of the ordinance approving the plan' mean the date of voting and passage of such ordinance or does it mean the 'effective' date? It must be pointed out that if the date of adoption is to be deemed the date of passage, then the complaint was filed more than 60 days after adoption and therefore was not timely filed. On the other hand, if the date of adoption is to be construed as the effective date of the ordinance, then the complaint filed on September 20, 1960, was timely filed.

'The fundamental rule of statutory construction is that the court should ascertain the intent of the Legislature so as to effectuate the purpose of the law. California Toll Bridge Authority v. Kuchel, 40 Cal.2d 43, 53, 251 P.2d 4; County of Alameda v. Kuchel, 32 Cal.2d 193, 199, 195 P.2d 17; Dickey v. Raisin Proration Zone No. 1, 24 Cal.2d 796, 802, 151 P.2d 505, 157 A.L.R. 324; 82 C.J.S., Statutes § 321 p. 560; 45 Cal.Jur.2d, Statutes § 126, p. 634.' (Select Base Materials v. Board of Equal., 51 Cal.2d 640, 645, 335 P.2d 672, 675.)

While interpretation of similar words in other statutes is not controlling, such interpretation is helpful in arriving at the legislative intent. (Los Angeles Met. Transit Authority v. Brotherhood of Railroad Trainmen, 54 Cal.2d 684, 688-689, 8 Cal.Rptr. 1, 355 P.2d 905.) In Ross v. Board of Retirement, 92 Cal.App.2d 188, at 193, 206 P.2d 903, at 907 the court stated that 'the date of 'adoption' is the date of passage of the ordinance * * * [and] the date of 'adoption' or passage of an ordinance or statute is not the date the enactment becomes of actual force and power, that is, effective, unless the enactment should specifically so declare. [Citation.]'

'Moreover, 'every statute should be construed with reference to the whole system of law which it is a part so that all may be harmonized and have effect.' Stafford v. Los Angeles County Employees' Retirement Board, 42 Cal.2d 795, 799, 270 P.2d 12, 14.)' (Select Base Materials v. Board of Equal., supra, 51 Cal.2d 640, 645, 335 P.2d 672, 675.) A study of the entire chapter on Community Development Law (Division 24, Part I, Chapter 4, of the Health & Safety Code) leads to the conclusion that the word 'adoption' is used in the sense of 'passage' of an act rather than to mean its effective date. This conclusion becomes apparent by setting out several sections in which either the word 'adopt' or 'adoption' is used.

Section 33700: 'Each agency shall prepare or cause to be prepared, or adopt, a redevelopment plan * * *.

'Before the adoption of a redevelopment plan by the agency, the agency shall conduct a public hearing on it.' (Emphasis added.)

Section 33705: 'If the planning commission recommends against the approval of the redevelopment plan, the legislative body may adopt such plan by a two-thirds vote of its entire membership. If the planning commission recommends approval or fails to make any recommendation within the time allowed, the legislative body may adopt the redevelopment plan by a majority vote of the entire membership.' (Emphasis added.)

Section 33732 provides that if no objections in writing have been delivered, etc. 'the legislative body may proceed to adopt the plan. * * *'

Section 33733: 'If the legislative body determines that the redevelopment plan conforms to the master or general plan of the community, that it is economically sound and feasible, and that the carrying out of the plan would promote the public peace, health, safety, and welfare of the community and would effectuate the purposes and policy of this part, by ordinance adopted by a majority vote of all the members it may adopt...