Resource Defense Fund v. County of Santa Cruz

• Decision Date: 14 July 1982
• Citation: 133 Cal.App.3d 800,184 Cal.Rptr. 371
• Court: California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
• Parties: RESOURCE DEFENSE FUND et al., Plaintiffs and Appellants, v. COUNTY OF SANTA CRUZ, Defendant and Respondent; T. E. SCHMIDT et al., Real Parties in Interest and Respondents. Civ. 47999.

Page 371

184 Cal.Rptr. 371

133 Cal.App.3d 800

RESOURCE DEFENSE FUND et al., Plaintiffs and Appellants, v. COUNTY OF SANTA CRUZ, Defendant and Respondent;

T. E. SCHMIDT et al., Real Parties in Interest and Respondents.

Civ. 47999.

Court of Appeal, First District, Division 3, California.

July 14, 1982.

As Modified Aug. 5, 1982.

Mitchell Page, Page & Coben, Santa Cruz, for plaintiffs and appellants.

George Deukmejian, Atty. Gen., R. H. Connett, Asst. Atty. Gen., Daniel P. Selmi, Mark I. Weinberger, Roderick Walston, and Mary E. Hackenbracht, Deputy Attys. Gen., San Francisco, amicus curiae for plaintiffs and appellants.

Clair A. Carlson, County Counsel, Dwight L. Herr, Chief Deputy County Counsel, Santa Cruz, for defendant and respondent County of Santa Cruz.

Dennis J. Kehoe, Adams, Levin, Kehoe, Bosso, Sachs & Bates, Santa Cruz, for respondent T. E. Schmidt.

Samuel S. Stevens, Murphy, Williams, Stevens & Book, Santa Cruz, for respondents William & Jean Packard.

BARRY-DEAL, Associate Justice.

Summary

We hold that issuance by the state Office of Planning and Research of an extension of time for completion of an adequate general plan (GOV.CODE, § 65302.6 )¹ does not validate or immunize a city's or county's prior approval of land use permits from the requirement of conformity to a valid general plan.

Statement of the Case

On May 15, 1979, ² petitioners (Resource Defense Fund, an environmental association, and Mary Hammer, a citizen taxpayer of respondent county) filed a petition for writ of mandate and injunctive relief. In their first cause of action petitioners alleged that respondent County of Santa Cruz (hereafter respondent) had failed to adopt a general plan as mandated by section 65302 and that therefore respondent had improperly approved "Minor Land Divisions" of property owned by real parties in interest Schmidt and Packard. ³ In their second cause of action petitioners alleged that respondent could not properly enact zoning ordinances without the requisite general plan. Petitioners sought writ of mandate commanding respondent to rescind its approval of the "Minor Land Division" maps and to cease allowing land divisions and enacting zoning ordinances. They also sought injunctive relief until respondent brings its general plan into compliance with state law. ⁴

On June 8, respondent both demurred to and answered the petition. The demurrer was on three grounds: (1) the petition failed to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action because respondent had been granted an extension of time by the state Office of Planning and Research (hereafter OPR) which had rendered moot the question whether respondent had a general plan which met the requirements of state law; (2) laches; and (3) the statute of limitations.

In its answer respondent admitted that its general plan "needs to be revised and amended to conform to current standards ...," but alleged that it had adopted all mandatory elements of a general plan. The answer alleged affirmative defenses raised in the demurrer (mootness, laches, and statute of limitations). Schmidt and Packard raised similar defenses by way of answer and demurrer.

On June 20, the court sustained demurrers as to Schmidt and Packard only. On July 25, the court denied a motion to reconsider and filed its order sustaining the demurrer without leave to amend. The court ruled that as to Schmidt and Packard the OPR extension rendered the petition moot; the court expressly declined to reach the issues of laches and the statute of limitations.

On July 25, the court filed its judgment dismissing the action as against Packard and Schmidt and awarding them costs. Petitioners filed timely notice of appeal on August 9.

Statement of the Facts

Real party in interest T. E. Schmidt owns real property which was the subject of minor land division No. 77-1172-MLD, approved by the county planning commission on November 1, 1978. Approval provided for creation of three parcels, composed of six acres, eight acres, and eighteen and one-half acres. The county board of supervisors denied appeal of this approval on December 19, 1978.

Real parties in interest William and Jean Packard own a single family dwelling situated on 20 acres of land. On November 8, 1978, the planning commission approved minor land division No. 77-852-MLD, dividing their property into three parcels. Appeal of this approval was also denied December 19, 1978.

On March 20, 1979, the county board of supervisors adopted resolution No. 157-79, requesting an extension of time to adopt general plan amendments. The resolution recited that the county's general plan "needs to be updated and revised to conform with current standards; ..." and authorized the county director of the community resources agency to apply, pursuant to section 65302.6, for an extension of time to adopt amendments to the following elements of the general plan: (1) land use; (2) housing; (3) circulation; and (4) parks, recreation, and open space.

On May 11, the deputy director of OPR approved the request and granted an extension "from the date of your [director, community resources agency] receipt of this letter to May 1, 1980." The extension carried four conditions restricting approval of applications for tentative and final subdivision maps, parcel maps, rezonings, and use permits. On May 21, OPR informed the county of its intentions to revise its extension conditions contingent upon the county revising its "Rural Development Matrix" in specified particulars. A final amended extension was promulgated on June 7, after OPR was satisfied with the county's revision of its "Rural Development Matrix." This final amended extension contained conditions effective from receipt of the letter to May 1, 1980, including conditions on approval of applications for tentative subdivision maps, tentative parcel maps, rezonings, and use permits. It does not mention such conditions on final map approvals. ⁵

Other pertinent facts are developed in the discussion.

Discussion

Each county is required to adopt a "comprehensive, long-term general plan for ... [its] physical development ...." (§ 65300.) The plan must include, inter alia, a statement of policies and nine specified elements: land use, circulation, housing, conservation, open-space, seismic safety, noise, scenic highway, and safety. (§ 65302.)

Under state law, the propriety of virtually any local decision affecting land use and development depends upon consistency with the applicable general plan and its elements. In particular, any action affecting open-space land must be consistent with the local open-space plan (§§ 65563, 65566, 65567; Save El Toro Assn. v. Days (1977) 74 Cal.App.3d 64, 141 Cal.Rptr. 282); local zoning ordinances must be consistent with the general plan (§ 65860); and approvals pursuant to the Subdivision Map Act (§ 66410 et seq.) must be consistent with the general plan (§§ 66473.5, 66474).

Applicable local law also requires consistency with the general plan. The Santa Cruz County Subdivision Ordinance provides that no tentative map shall be approved "... unless it is found that the proposed subdivision, together with the provisions of its design and improvements, is consistent ..." with the applicable general or specific plan. (Santa Cruz County Subdivision Ordinance, § 13.08.402.) ⁶

Since consistency with the general plan is required, absence of a valid general plan, or valid relevant elements or components thereof, precludes enactment of zoning ordinances and the like. See Save El Toro Assn. v. Days, supra, 74 Cal.App.3d 64, 141 Cal.Rptr. 282; accord Camp v. Board of Supervisors (1981) 123 Cal.App.3d 334, 348-353, 176 Cal.Rptr. 620.) However, absence of a valid general plan does not preclude all development activity. Section 65302.6 establishes a procedure whereby local governments can proceed with development pending completion of a valid general plan. The local governing body (here the county board of supervisors) may apply to the director of the OPR for an extension of time for the preparation and adoption of one or more general plan elements required by statute.

Subdivision (d) of section 65302.6 provides that "[d]uring the extension of time specified in this section, the city or county is not subject to the requirement that a complete and adequate general plan be adopted or the time within which it must be adopted or the requirement that the land use be compatible or consistent with the general plan as required by [the statutes which we have cited above]...."

The trial court held that the OPR's grant of an extension pursuant to this section rendered moot (1) any challenge to the county's ability to approve further land divisions and zoning or rezoning pending revisions of the general plan; and (2) petitioners' challenge to the validity of the "Minor Land Divisions" in question, since the extension exempted previously approved tentative maps from its requirements, including the map already recorded. The propriety of this retroactive application of the OPR extension is the primary focus of the briefs filed in this appeal. However, we deem it necessary to first examine the issues which the trial court declined to reach--laches and the statute of limitations--since resolution of them in a manner adverse to petitioners might render it inappropriate for us to address the extension question. (Holt v. County of Monterey (1982) 128 Cal.App.3d 797, 180 Cal.Rptr. 514.)

Statute of Limitations

The Schmidt and Packard land divisions are subject to the requirements of the Subdivision Map Act (§ 66410 et seq., hereafter the Act). The former provision that the Act applies only where there are five or more subdivided parcels has been eliminated. (§ 66424; see 4 Miller & Starr, Current Law of California Real Estate (rev. ed. 1977) § 24:34, p. 62.) Although it provides that regulation and control of subdivisions is vested in the local government (§ 66411), the Act establishes procedures...