Town of Atherton v. Superior Court In and For San MateoCounty

• Decision Date: 17 April 1958
• Citation: 159 Cal.App.2d 417,324 P.2d 328
• Court: California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
• Parties: TOWN OF ATHERTON, a municipal corporation, Petitioner, v. SUPERIOR COURT of the State of California, IN AND FOR COUNTY of SAN MATEO, and Menlo Park School District, an Elementary School District in the County of San Mateo, State of California, Respondents. Civ. 18064.

Page 328

324 P.2d 328

159 Cal.App.2d 417

TOWN OF ATHERTON, a municipal corporation, Petitioner, v. SUPERIOR COURT of the State of California, IN AND FOR COUNTY of SAN MATEO, and Menlo Park School District, an Elementary School District in the County of San Mateo, State of California, Respondents.

Civ. 18064.

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

April 17, 1958.

Rehearing Denied May 16, 1958.

Winston Churchill Black, San Francisco, for petitioner.

Keith C. Sorenson, Dist. Atty., Howard E. Gawthrop, Deputy Dist. Atty., Redwood City, for respondents.

Edmund G. Brown, Atty. Gen., Richard H. Perry, Deputy Atty. Gen., amici curiae in support of contentions of respondents.

BRAY, Justice.

Petitioner seeks a writ of prohibition to restrain the Superior Court of San Mateo County from proceeding in an action in eminent domain now pending in that court, numbered 76501, brought by respondent Menlo Park School District ¹ against certain parties, in which said respondent seeks to condemn certain lands in said Town of Atherton for school purposes. ²

Questions Presented.

Do the zoning ordinance of a municipality control the right of a school district in which the municipality is included, to designate the location of its schools? Corollary to this are the questions (a) Is a school district a state agency? (b) If so, has the state occupied the field of location of schools?

Facts.

There is no conflict as to the facts. Included in Menlo Park School District are the incorporated cities of Atherton and Menlo Park as well as unincorporated territory. The district desires to acquire land in Atherton for public school purposes. Petitioner is a municipal corporation of the sixth class. June 24, 1957, the city council adopted ordinance No. 225, entitled 'An Interim Zoning Ordinance Relating to Public Buildings and the Location Thereof Declaring its Urgency and Providing that it Shall Take Effect Immediately.' In substance it prevents any property in the Town of Atherton which is zoned for residential purposes from being used for any other purposes, specifically providing that no lands presently zoned residential may be used for the purpose of public buildings, including but not limited to schools. The ordinance was adopted pursuant to section 65806, Government Code, which provides that if the planning commission in good faith is conducting studies or holding hearings for the purpose of the adoption of any zoning ordinance or amendment thereto, the legislative body may adopt a temporary interim zoning ordinance prohibiting any purposes which might conflict with such ordinance.

The same day the city council adopted a resolution proposing amendments to the town's zoning ordinance No. 146 as amended for the zoning of public buildings, including schools, and directing the planning commission to hold public hearings on the proposed amendments to determine whether or not zoning districts should be established in which public buildings, including schools, may be located. The planning commission has employed a planning consultant for expert advice on land uses in the town, is now making pertinent studies, and has held public hearings. If valid, the ordinances would prohibit the school district from locating its school as proposed.

July 3, 1957, respondent commenced its eminent domain action, in which it seeks to condemn approximately nine acres within respondent's corporate limits for school purposes, which property is zoned for residential uses only under petitioner's comprehensive zoning plan (ordinance No. 146 as amended). The condemnation is in direct violation of ordinance No. 225. The superior court in said action refused to grant petitioner's request for an order staying proceedings in said action. The petition alleges that the planning commission is proceeding 'in good faith' as required by section 65806, Government Code; that Atherton was incorporated in 1923 for the express purpose of assuring a continuance of its area as, and its area still is, a low density, estate type, residential community consisting of 3035 acres. It has no industrial or manufacturing plants or districts and no business district or business enterprises excepting two real estate offices and one gasoline service station existing as non-conforming uses. Atherton is primarily dependent for revenue to operate the municipality on real property taxes. Three different elementary school districts including respondent extend into the boundaries of Atherton and the portion of each in Atherton is much smaller than the outside portions. Approximately 7000 persons live in Atherton. Registered as in attendance in schools within the town limits are 6046 persons of whom 2696 are in elementary grades. Only 1640 of these persons reside in Atherton; 1206 of these are in the elementary grades. Approximately 33 elementary students resident in Atherton cannot attend any public school in the town and are attending one in unincorporated territory. 74.61 per cent of the land in Atherton is used for one family residences, 15 per cent for streets, 5.86 per cent for schools, 3.61 per cent for public utilities, fire protection and city hall, police and other municipal uses; .92 per cent for other uses. The major portion of respondent district lies within the city of Menlo Park. Menlo Park uses for school purposes only 1.5 per cent of its land as compared to the 5.86 per cent used in Atherton. A study by the American Institute for Planners, published jointly with the Federal Reverse Bank of Boston, for a city of the same size, type and kind as Atherton, shows that reasonable and proper zoning would require for school purposes only 1.31 per cent of the total town area, or 39.76 acres as compared to Atherton's present 5.86 per cent or 177.77 acres. In addition to the nine acres sought to be condemned, petitioner is informed that respondent intends to acquire additional acreage in Atherton. Listing the present public and private schools, petitioner contends that Atherton has more schools per capita and more students in proportion to residents, than any other city in the United States. In the past five years there have been attempts to build four additional schools in Atherton. One elementary district whose boundary does not include any of the territory of Atherton, attempted to acquire property in Atherton for a school which no Atherton resident would have been permitted to attend. Attending school in Atherton with its population of only 7000 are approximately 6000 students while no community on either side of Atherton has students therein exceeding one for every five residents. Because of needed traffic control, public safety and police protection every school in Atherton has to receive the special attention of a police officer and because of the unreasonable number of schools there is an unreasonable burden on the police department and an unreasonable expenditure for the benefit of a majority of students who contribute nothing thereto.

In its answer in the eminent domain action, petitioner has set forth that plaintiff has not acquired the conditional use permit required by ordinance No. 146. The superior court denied petitioner's motion for a judgment on the pleadings based upon the ground that respondent's complaint was barred by the provisions of said two ordinances.

Does Petitioner's Zoning Ordinance Control?

Petitioner contends that the issue in this case is whether a municipality under section 65806, Government Code, has the power by an interim ordinance to prohibit any other than specific uses pending studies by the planning commission. It attempted to do this in ordinance No. 225. We are only concerned with the power of the municipality by such an ordinance to prohibit a school district from acquiring public school sites, and not to the application of the ordinance in general.

Petitioner concedes that the power of eminent domain is inherent in the State of California and may be exercised by the state, or any of its agencies to which the power is delegated, but contends that the delegation of the power to schools is limited by the powers which it contends the municipalities have by virtue of section 11, article XI, Constitution, and section 65800, Government Code.

In order to determine these questions we must consider the question of whether a municipality has the power to zone school sites, whether by an interim ordinance or otherwise. Therefore, we must determine if a school district is a state agency, and if so, whether the state has occupied the field in the matter of location of school sites.

(a) Is a School District a State Agency?

This question has been flatly answered in the affirmative in Hall v. City of Taft, 47 Cal.2d 177, 302 P.2d 574: 'The public schools of this state are a matter of state-wide rather than local or municipal concern; their establishment, regulation and operation are covered by the Constitution and the state Legislature is given comprehensive powers in relation thereto. * * * School districts are agencies of the state for the local operation of the state school system. [Citations.] The beneficial ownership of property of the public shools is in the state.' 47 Cal.2d at pages 179, 181, 302 P.2d at page 576.

(b) State has Occupied the Field.

'The public school system is of statewide supervision and concern and legislative enactments thereon control over attempted regulation by local government units. [Citations.]' Hall v. City of Taft, supra, 47 Cal.2d at page 181, 302 P.2d at page 577.

Has the state occupied the field of school site location or has it expressly granted the power of school zoning to the municipalities? The answer is that the state has occupied the field. Evidence of this is the following statutes:

Section 18402, Education Code: 'The State Department of Education shall establish standards for school sites.' How can this be accomplished if a municipality may by zoning determine the...