People ex rel. Mosk for and on Behalf of State Lands Commission v. City of Santa Barbara
| Decision Date | 22 May 1961 |
| Citation | 192 Cal.App.2d 342,13 Cal.Rptr. 423 |
| Parties | PEOPLE of the State of Callfornia Upon the Relation of Stanley MOSK, Attorney General, acting for and on behalf of the STATE LANDS COMMISSION, and Upon the Relation of the County of Santa Barbara, a political subdivision, and Upon the Relation of Pacific Lighting Gas Supply Company, a corporation, Plaintiffs and Respondents, v. CITY OF SANTA BARBARA, a municipal corporation, Defendant and Appellant. Civ. 24823. |
| Court | California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
Stanley T. Tomlinson, City Atty. for the City of Santa Barbara, John T. Rickard, Santa Barbara, for appellant.
Stanley Mosk, Atty. Gen., Bonnie Lee Martin, Deputy Atty. Gen., Vern B. Thomas, Dist. Atty., Robert Curiel, Deputy Dist. Atty., Santa Barbara, for respondent County of Santa Barbara.
Oscar C. Sattinger, J. R. Elliott, R. D. Twomey, Jr., Los Angeles, for respondent Pacific Lighting Gas Supply Co.
This is an appeal by the City of Santa Barbara from a summary judgment (Code of Civil Procedure Section 437c) entered on October 1, 1959, adjudging that 'The annexation proceedings and the ordinances of annexation passed pursuant thereto * * * are null and void. * * *'
A resume of the facts is as follows:
The annexation proceedings were initiated by the legislative body of the City of Santa Barbara (i. e., Council) on its own motion by Resolution No. 3162 adopted April 11, 1957. Both public and private owners of property were involved in the area to be annexed.
The State of California (hereinafter called 'State'), owned certain lands (no assessed value) within the territory to be annexed which were under the exclusive jurisdiction and control of the State Lands Commission. The Regents of the University of California (hereinafter called 'Regents'), also owned certain lands (no assessed value) within the territory to be annexed. The County of Santa Barbara (hereinafter called 'County'), owned certain property within the territory to be annexed (no assessed value). The Pacific Lighting Gas Supply Company (hereinafter referred to as 'Company') owned 'property' which was assessed on the pertinent assessment roll and which was within the territory to be annexed. Finally, the City of Santa Barbara (hereinafter referred to as 'City'), also owned property (some of which was assessed on the pertinent assessment roll and some of which was not assessed) within the territory to be annexed.
Before the hour set for hearing objections to the annexation, the State, the County, and the Company filed written protests with the Clerk of the City of Santa Barbara.
The record discloses that at the hearing on the protests the Council heard and passed upon all the protests made and that the protests of the State, County, and Company were accepted by the Council as valid protests.
In the 'Findings and Determination of the Council of the City of Santa Barbara in the Matter of the Uninhabited Annexation of 'The Sanctuary and Airport Lands" (Exhibit XVIII), dated May 23, 1957, it was found in pertinent part:
'3. That protestant Pacific Lighting Gas Supply Company owns underground storage and mineral property, a portion of which lies in the territory to be annexed, which portion is assessed in the last equalized County assessment roll available on the date proceedings were initiated at $782,930.00. 1 (Emphasis added).
'4. That the Regents of the University of California, a corporation, is the owner of public property within the territory proposed to be annexed and has filed no protest herein. The value of such property included within the territory * * * is determined to be $28,000.00, including the land and improvements thereon.
'5. That the State of California through the State Lands Commission is owner of public property within the territory proposed to be annexed and has filed a written protest against annexation. The Council * * * determines the value to be given said public property for protest purposes to be $1,600,000.00, including the land and improvements thereon.
'6. * * *
'7. That the value of the land and improvements thereon of all other property within the territory to be annexed, the owners of which have filed written protest against this annexation is $ none as appears from the last equalized assessment roll of the County of Santa Barbara.
'8. That the value of public property owned by the City * * * within the territory to be annexed including the land and airport and industrial improvements thereon is determined to be $5,121,000.00.
'9. That the value of the entire territory to be annexed, including private and public property and the lands and improvements thereon, is determined to be $7,531,930.00.
'10. That the value of all protested public and private property within the territory proposed to be annexed is $2,382,930.00 including the land and improvements thereon.
'11. That protest has not been made by public and private owners of land equal in value to one-half of the value of the territory proposed to be annexed.
'12. That protests have been made by both public and private owners within the territory proposed to be annexed.
'Dated this 23rd day of May, 1957.'
The Council then enacted Ordinance No. 2615 entitled, 'An Ordinance Approving the Annexation to the City of Santa Barbara of Certain Uninhabited Territory Designated as the 'Sanctuary and Airport Lands' and Providing that This Ordinance Shall Take Effect as an Emergency Measure', and Ordinance No. 2618 entitled, 'An Ordinance Approving the Annexation to the City of Santa Barbara of Certain Uninhabited Territory Designated as The 'Sanctuary and Airport Lands." (Exhibits XIX and XX.)
Thereafter, on August 15, 1957, an action in Quo Warranto was filed by the State of California to challenge the aforesaid annexation. The State Lands Commission, Pacific Lighting Gas Supply Company, and the County of Santa Barbara were relators.
On February 13, 1958, a 'First Amended Complaint in Quo Warranto' was filed. The City filed a 'Notice of Motion to Strike' and a 'Demurrer to First Amended Complaint' on March 13, 1958.
The appellant's (City) demurrer to the first amended complaint was overruled. Portions of the complaint were stricken and subsequently amended, but are not pertinent to the issues before this court.
The learned trial judge, on June 5, 1958, filed a 'Memorandum' pertaining to the aforesaid demurrer and motion to strike. Therein he stated in part:
Thereafter, on July 19, 1958, the City filed its 'Answer to First Amended Complaint in Quo Warranto as Amended.' On May 15, 1959, the plaintiff, in accordance with the trial court's suggestion, filed its 'Notice of Motion for Summary Judgment and Motion to Strike Portions of Answer.'
Certified copies of all of the pertinent pages of the assessment roll were attached to plaintiff's (i. e. Company) affidavits in support of the motion. These exhibits contain the assessments for all of the assessed land and improvements within the territory to be annexed and establish that the total assessed values of all taxable property within the territory to be annexed, except for the property owned by the Company, was $84,520 (i. e., total taxable land $39,020 and total taxable improvements $45,500).
As heretofore indicated, the 'Assessed Value for Purposes of Taxation' of Pacific's (i. e. Company) property was $2,950,000 (see footnote No. 1). The assessment of Company's property appears in the 'Board Roll of State Assessed Property Prepared by the State Board of Equalization State of California Santa Barbara County 1956 Vol. 500' and the pertinent page thereof indicates in pertinent part as follows:
"Description of Property Assessment 1 2 3
Number Land ...
Real Estate
Except
Improvements
"Min Rts Only ... $2,950,000"
As shown above, the figure of $2,950,000 appears under the heading
The 'Affidavit of Broley E. Travis Concerning the Administrative Practice of the State Board of Equalization in Assessing Mineral Rights as Land' (Emphasis added) discloses that Mr. Travis is the 'duly appointed, acting, and qualified Chief of the Valuation Division of the State Board of Equalization.' This affidavit provides in pertinent part as follows:
'5. Since the State Board of Equalization began assessing public utility property in 1935, that Board has continuously and at all times during the period 1935-1953 shown such property on the Board Roll in only four columns: Land, Improvements, Personal Property, and Solvent Credits; and from 1954 to the present, that Board has consistently and at all times shown such property on the Board Roll in only three columns: Land, Improvements, and Personal Property, with Solvent Credits being shown on separate sheets as the last pages of the Board Roll; and from 1935 to the present, the period during which the State Board of Equalization has assessed public utility property, it has...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Gonzales v. State of California
...(2d ed. 1971) pp. 3584--3585; see Palmquist v. Palmquist, 212 Cal.App.3d 340, 344, 27 Cal.Rptr. 756; People ex rel. Mosk v. City of Santa Barbara, 192 Cal.App.2d 342, 356, 13 Cal.Rptr. 423.) A collateral attack is made, not in a proceeding brought for the specific purpose of attacking the j......
-
Walsh v. Glendale Fed. Sav. & Loan Assn.
...Whether a triable issue of fact exists is determined from the affidavits of the parties. People ex rel. Mosk, etc. v. City of Santa Barbara, 192 Cal.App.2d 342, 349, 13 Cal.Rptr. 423 (1961); Enos v. Foster, 155 Cal.App.2d 152, 157, 317 P.2d 670 (1957). The affidavits of the moving party mus......
-
Vallejo v. Montebello Sewer Co.
...1 The rules relating to summary judgment are set forth in People ex rel. Mosk for and on Behalf of State Lands Commission v. City of Santa Barbara, 192 Cal.App.2d 342, 349, 13 Cal.Rptr. 423, 426 as ' The function of the trial court in considering a motion for summary judgment is to determin......
-
Prudential Ins. Co. v. City and County of San Francisco
...Manual which is "designed to promote uniformity in assessment of property for taxation...." (People ex. rel. Mosk v. City of Santa Barbara (1961) 192 Cal.App.2d 342, 348, 13 Cal.Rptr. 423.) The manual aids assessors in interpreting the law as formulated by the Legislature through statutes a......