Williams v. City of San Bruno

• Citation: 31 Cal.Rptr. 854,217 Cal.App.2d 480
• Court: California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
• Decision Date: 24 June 1963
• Parties: George W. WILLIAMS et al., Plaintiffs and Respondents, v. CITY OF SAN BRUNO, a municipal corporation, et al., Defendants and Appellants. Civ. 20052.

Page 854

31 Cal.Rptr. 854

217 Cal.App.2d 480

George W. WILLIAMS et al., Plaintiffs and Respondents, v. CITY OF SAN BRUNO, a municipal corporation, et al., Defendants and Appellants.

Civ. 20052.

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

June 24, 1963.

Joseph A. Galligan, City Atty. of City of San Bruno, San Bruno, Richard G. Logan, Oakland, of counsel, for appellants.

Carr, McClellan, Ingersoll & Thompson, by Luther M. Carr, Burlingame, Robert R. Thompson, David C. Carr, Burlingame, of counsel, for respondents.

DEVINE, Justice.

City of San Bruno and certain of its officers appeal from a judgment which (1) declares Ordinance No. 822, passed in pursuance of a master plan which zones all of the land within the city, to be invalid, void and of no effect in so far as it applies to the westerly 77 acres of plaintiffs' property; (2) declares that earlier zoning ordinances are in full force and effect; (3) enjoins the city and its officers, employees and agents from enforcing the ordinance against the 77 acres; and (4) perpetually enjoins and restrains the city from rezoning the 77 acres to administrative-research or light industrial use.

The judgment is based on findings and conclusions of law which, save the formal and undisputed ones about ownership of the property, existence of the municipal corporation, and the like, may be summarized thus: (1) The city council of San Bruno did not follow the procedure that is required by section 65653 of the Government Code of the State of California, and the ordinance is therefore void and of no effect. (2) Earlier ordinances were passed without commission of any error by the city council. (3) There has been no change of circumstances or conditions between the time of the adoption of the earlier ordinances and the time of adoption of the new one that would justify the change in permitted use of plaintiffs' lands. (4) Said lands are unsuitable, by topography, location, size, grade, highway and railroad availability, a pipe line easement and cost of grading, to the only use allowed by the new ordinance. (5) In rezoning the 77 acres, the city council acted in an arbitrary, discriminatory, capricious, confiscatory, unreasonable and unconstitutional manner. (6) The ordinance does not contribute in any measure to the public health, safety, morals or general welfare of the people of the city.

GENERAL STATEMENT OF FACTS

In 1953, plaintiffs, a group of real estate developers, purchased a tract of land, 142 acres more or less. It may be described, in the most general way, as consisting of (a) fairly level land not far removed, towards the west, from El Camino Real, (b) land ascending westerly along and near San Bruno Avenue to Junipero Serra Boulevard, a highway from San Francisco southerly, a road of middle altitude between El Camino On March 13, 1958, the city entered into an agreement with the State of California, by the terms of which the state obligated itself to assist the City of San Bruno in the preparation of a comprehensive general plan for physical development. Pursuant to this agreement, the planning consultant firm of Hahn, Wise & Barber was retained by the state to prepare this development plan. After study, the consultant firm recommended a land use plan to appellants. After public hearings, this plan was adopted by the city's planning commission on December 8, 1958, and subsequently by the city council on March 25, 1959. After meetings and a public hearing, the planning commission recommended that the city council implement the master plan by adoption of an ordinance. A public hearing was held before the city council on August 26, 1959. Respondents protested at each stage. The ordinance was passed by the council. By the operation of Ordinance No. 822 all of respondents' land was zoned to administrative and research use.

Real and Skyline Boulevard, and (c) land along the easterly border of Junipero Serra Boulevard. The western portion is about 175 feet higher than the eastern. When plaintiffs bought the land, it was zoned R-1, for single family dwellings, and plaintiffs made plans to build residences in 1955 and 1956, but the plans were not carried out. Subsequently, plaintiffs sought rezoning and on April 23, 1958, the land was rezoned as follows: about 20 acres remained R-1, about 67 became R-3, and about 53 became C-1/2, administrative-professional. Although plaintiffs were not entirely satisfied at that time, because some of them thought the C-1/2 area was excessive, nevertheless they are wholly agreeable now to [217 Cal.App.2d 484] this rezoning, and it is the object of this lawsuit to restore this rezoning.

A-R is similar to the earlier C-1/2. It allows a wide variety of uses of commercial and light industrial nature, but disallows apartment buildings, which plaintiffs desire to build on the westerly, higher ground.

Essentially, the debate before the planning commission and before the city council went along these lines: The consultants who had been employed by the city, the superintendent of schools of the school district in and about San Bruno, and many citizens of the city, argued that the construction of gardentype apartments would bring about an influx of children of school age, thereby aggravating an already crowded condition of the schools, and that the land in question should be held for A-R use, whereby increase in the school population would be avoided. It was argued also that by confining the use to A-R, a better tax base for the city would be established. The owners, on the other hand, argued that although there is a large and immediate demand for apartments in San Bruno, there is an oversupply of A-R land, both in San Bruno and in San Mateo and Santa Clara counties generally. The owners also contended that it would be economically impossible to prepare the western part of the land for A-R use for many years, because of its hilly and sloping character. This part of the land, they said, would have to be graded all at one time if exorbitant expense were to be avoided, and this could not be done until a substantial demand were available for this type of use. The owner argued further that the estimate made by the proponents of the rezoning of the number of school children who would live in the apartments was excessive. They contended also that the tax situation and the economic welfare of the city would be improved by the construction of the apartments. ¹

ISSUES

The issues as presented by the parties to this appeal are: (1) Is the rezoning ordinance void because of failure to comply with provisions of Government Code section

65653? (2) Is the rezoning ordinance void as being confiscatory? (3) In this case of rezoning (a) is it necessary for the city to show that the prior zoning ordinance was the result of mistake or that changed conditions or circumstances have occurred, and (b) have there been such changed conditions or circumstances (No mistake in enacting the earlier ordinances was asserted)? (4) Is the rezoning which was made of plaintiffs' property to administrative-research use within the police power of the city? Our holding upon the first of these issues makes it unnecessary, and probably improper, to discuss the other three issues, except insofar as reference to them has to do with deciding the first one.

PLEADINGS, FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND JUDGMENT

In the third cause of action in their complaint, plaintiffs allege that, contrary to the provisions of section 65653 of the Government Code, the planning commission of the City of San Bruno in submitting Ordinance No. 822 to the city council, the legislative body of said city, did not submit a report of findings or summary of hearings, as required quired by said section; and the pretrial conference order declares noncompliance with the state law in adopting the ordinance to be an issue in the case. The findings of fact made by the trial judge state that 'each and all of the allegations set forth in the third cause of action are true and sufficiently established by the evidence.' The court found, more specifically, that 'in the adoption of ordinance No. 822 the City Council of the City of San Bruno adopted said ordinance without receiving a 'summary of hearings' from the Planning Commission of said City, summarizing the hearings held before said Commission pertaining to the adoption of ordinance No. 822, as required by Section 65653 of the Government Code of California, and said ordinance is therefor null and void and of no effect.'

The court, as one conclusion of law, states that 'the plaintiffs are entitled to a judgment and decree against the defendant City declaring ordinance No. 822 of said City to be illegal, improper, unconstitutional, null and void, and of no force or effect with respect to the plaintiffs' lands.' (The conclusion that the ordinance is 'unconstitutional' flows from considerations relating to the substance of the ordinance, rather than to the manner of its passage.)

The court by its judgment enjoins the enforcement of the new ordinance, and perpetually enjoins the city from rezoning the 77 acres of plaintiffs' land to administrative-research, or light industrial use, as such uses are defined in said ordinance.

PROCEDURE REQUIRED BY STATE LAW

San Bruno is a general law city, as defined in section 34102 of the Government Code, not a chartered city. As a general law city, it acquires its zoning power solely from statute. The statute which confers this power on the legislative body of the city prescribes the method by which zoning laws are to be adopted or amended, and the method of enactment is the measure of the power to enact. (Laguna Beach Taxpayers' Assn. v. City Council, 187 Cal.App.2d 412, 415, 9 Cal.Rptr. 775; Galvin v. Board of Supervisors, 195 Cal. 686, 696, 235 P. 450; Hurst v. City of Burlingame, 207 Cal. 134, 141, 277 P. 308; Simpson v. Hite, 36 Cal.2d 125, 134, 222 P.2d 225; Johnston v. City of Claremont, 49 Cal.2d 826,...