Soderling v. City of Santa Monica

• Decision Date: 28 April 1983
• Court: California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
• Parties: Ronald E. SODERLING, Petitioner and Appellant, v. CITY OF SANTA MONICA, Respondent. 2 Civ. 65530.

Page 140

191 Cal.Rptr. 140

142 Cal.App.3d 501

Ronald E. SODERLING, Petitioner and Appellant, v. CITY OF SANTA MONICA, Respondent.

2 Civ. 65530.

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

April 28, 1983.

Hearing Denied July 27, 1983.

Knickerbocker, Perry & Fichter and Richard L. Knickerbocker, Santa Monica, for petitioner and appellant.

Robert M. Myers, City Atty. and Stephen Shane Stark, Asst. City Atty., for respondent.

SPENCER, Presiding Justice.

INTRODUCTION

Petitioner Ronald E. Soderling appeals from a judgment denying four consolidated petitions for writs of mandate by which petitioner sought to compel respondent the City of Santa Monica (City), and certain named Officials thereof to perform the assertedly mandatory duty of approving four final maps within the purview of the Subdivision Map Act.

STATEMENT OF FACTS

On June 5, 1978, the City's planning commission approved a tentative subdivision map, subject to specified conditions, for each of the four condominium conversion projects at issue herein. In each case, approval was "conditioned on and subject to" the completion of all repairs and improvements set forth in the Comprehensive Building Condition Report ¹ and the installation of approved smoke detectors in each unit.

On May 7, 1979, petitioner requested and received a 12-month extension of the original 12-month term of the tentative map. Thereafter, on May 9, 1980, petitioner requested that the city council approve his final tract maps. In his request, petitioner explained that certain repairs and improvements within the conditions attached to tentative map approval, including the installation of smoke detectors, had not been completed; he offered "to enter into an improvement contract with the city, with reasonable and appropriate security therefore ... [t]o assure the city that the improvements will be completed prior to the sale of the units as condominiums."

The matter was heard by the city council on May 27, 1980, at which time petitioner was represented by counsel. The city council had received a staff report which recommended denial of the final maps: "Inasmuch as the conditions have not been met, the coastal commission has denied the conversion and the city is in the process of adopting new condominium conversion regulations which would most certainly conflict with the conditions imposed two years ago, it is respectfully submitted that no significant purpose would be achieved by granting a final tract map which in all probability may never be used." At the conclusion of the May 27, 1980 hearing, the city council denied final map approval "because the conditions imposed at the time of tentative map approval by the planning commission have not been met." Petitioner requested no further tentative map extensions.

CONTENTIONS

I

Petitioner contends his challenge to the validity of the conditions imposed in the tentative map approval is not barred by Government Code section 66499.37, in that the requirement the conditions be fulfilled prior to final map approval was first imposed at the hearing on petitioner's applications for final maps; hence, the limitations period began to run on that date.

II

Petitioner asserts that the conditions imposed were not authorized by the Subdivision Map Act or local ordinances; alternatively, he argues that the conditions were not enforceable until a sales campaign was commenced or conversion was completed.

III

Finally, petitioner avers that it was a breach of mandatory duty for the city council to deny final map approval.

DISCUSSION

I

The threshold issue herein is petitioner's contention that his challenge to the conditions imposed on tentative map approval is not barred by Government Code section 66499.37. We find no merit in the contention.

Prior to its amendment in 1980 (Stats.1980, ch. 1152, § 14), Government Code section 66499.37 provided that an appeal of "any action ... to review ... the decision of any advisory agency concerning a subdivision" shall be made within 180 days. In those instances where the local statutory scheme provides for ministerial, as opposed to discretionary, approval of final maps by the local governing authority (i.e., the city council), the courts have construed section 66499.37 as requiring that a challenge be made to conditions imposed by tentative map approval within 180 days of the date of approval. (Camp v. Board of Supervisors (1981) 123 Cal.App.3d 334, 359, 176 Cal.Rptr. 620.) As Kriebel v. City Council (1980) 112 Cal.App.3d 693, 703, 169 Cal.Rptr. 342 noted: "Approval of the final map in effect is a confirmation that the tentative map requirements have been fulfilled."

In the instant setting, the city council has delegated its authority for the approval of tentative maps to the planning commission and its role in the approval of final maps hence has become that noted in Kriebel --confirming the compliance with all tentative map requirements. (See El Patio v. Permanent Rent Control Bd. (1980) 110 Cal.App.3d 915, 926, 168 Cal.Rptr. 276.) Accordingly, if petitioner's claim herein is grounded solely on the validity of the conditions attached to the tentative map approval, more than two years before the commencement of the instant proceeding, it is plainly time-barred. (See also Timberidge Enterprises, Inc. v. City of Santa Rosa (1978) 86 Cal.App.3d 873, 885-886, 150 Cal.Rptr. 606.)

Petitioner attempts to avoid this result by characterizing the city council's denial of final map approval on the ground of failure to comply with tentative map conditions as the imposition of a new condition, in that the tentative map specifies no time for fulfillment of the conditions. Unfortunately, petitioner's stance ignores established law. The purpose of a conditional tentative map is to identify clearly the requirements to which a developer must conform; hence, he must demonstrate in his final map that he has resolved all of the deficiencies or problems enumerated in the tentative map. (Great Western Sav. & Loan Assn. v. City of Los Angeles (1973) 31 Cal.App.3d 403, 411, 107 Cal.Rptr. 359.) In other words, fulfillment of all tentative map conditions is, from the outset, a condition of final map approval. (See Kriebel v. City Council, supra, 112 Cal.App.3d 693, 703, 169 Cal.Rptr. 342; Santa Monica Mun.Code, § 9123D.) Clearly, petitioner's claim is not a challenge to the imposition of a "new" condition, but is grounded solely on the validity of those conditions enumerated in the tentative map. Accordingly, it is indeed time-barred.

II

Our resolution of the foregoing contention is dispositive of the instant appeal. Nonetheless, the trial court saw fit to reach the merits of petitioner's claim. Recognizing the continuing controversy raging over the scope of local authority to impose subdivision map approval conditions, and inasmuch as the issue was fully argued below, we also deem it prudent to reach the merits.

It is well established that the power to adopt supplementary ordinances or regulations pursuant to the Subdivision Map Act (Gov.Code, §§ 66410-66499.37) may be implied, where not expressly granted, as long as the provision at issue reasonably relates to the purposes of the act. (Ayres v. City Council of Los Angeles (1949) 34 Cal.2d 31, 37, 207 P.2d 1; Friends of Lake Arrowhead v. Board of Supervisors (1974) 38 Cal.App.3d 497, 505, 113 Cal.Rptr. 539.) Moreover, the power need not be exercised by the specific enactment of an ordinance or promulgation of a regulation. "Where ... no specific restriction or limitation on the city's power is contained in the charter and none forbidding the particular conditions is included either in the Subdivision Map Act or the city ordinances, it is proper to conclude that conditions are lawful which are not inconsistent with the map act and the ordinances and are reasonably required ...." (Ayres v. City Council of Los Angeles, supra, 34 Cal.2d 31, 37, 207 P.2d 1; emphasis added.)

The Subdivision Map Act vests in local governments the power to regulate and control the "design" and "improvement" of subdivisions. (Gov.Code, § 66411.) Included in the definitions of "design" and "improvement" is "such other specific requirements in the plan and configuration of the entire subdivision as may be necessary or convenient to insure conformity to or implementation of the general plan required by ... this title ...." (Gov.Code, §§ 66418, 66419.) One objective of the City's general plan is to "promote safe housing for all," and to "protect the health and safety of the resident by the enforcement of standards, regulations, codes and procedures for the preservation of safe, sanitary and structurally sound housing accommodations." This is a permissible provision in a municipal general plan. (See Gov.Code, § 65303, subd. (h).)

Sections 9122 and 9123 of the Santa Monica Municipal Code, as adopted in 1977, were directed toward the implementation of the foregoing general plan objectives with respect to condominium developments and conversions. Section 9122A expresses an intent "to treat such projects differently from apartments and like structures and to adopt development standards for the protection of the community and the purchasers of condominiums ...." Section 9123A prohibits the approval of a condominium project unless it is preceded by a review of the project's impact on "sound community planning, the economic, ecological, cultural and aesthetic qualities of the community, and on the public health, safety, and general welfare." Section 9123C, subdivision 3, provides that approval of a condominium conversion is subject to the condition that the "electrical, fire, and safety systems of the structure either are, or are proposed to be, in a condition of good repair and maintenance, including such alterations for [sic] repairs as are required by the Building Officer." Section 9123C further provides that nothing recited in that section shall preclude the planning commission "from...