Yost v. Thomas
| Decision Date | 22 February 1983 |
| Citation | 140 Cal.App.3d 86,189 Cal.Rptr. 549 |
| Court | California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
| Parties | Helen YOST et al., Plaintiffs and Appellants, v. Richard D. THOMAS, Clerk of the City of Santa Barbara, Defendant and Respondent. Park Plaza Corporation, Intervener and Respondent. Civ. 64716. |
Francis Sarguis, Santa Barbara, for plaintiffs and appellants.
Frederick W. Clough, City Atty., Santa Barbara, and Schramm & Raddue, Santa Barbara, for defendant and respondent.
Mullen, McCaughey & Henzell, and James W. Brown and Ian M. Guthrie, Santa Barbara, for intervener and respondent.
Appellants are voters of the City of Santa Barbara who circulated a referendum petition in opposition to two resolutions and an ordinance adopted by the City Council of Santa Barbara. Respondent Thomas, the city clerk, refused to process the referendum petition, on the advice of the city attorney that the three described actions of the city council were not subject to referendum. Appellants filed a petition for writ of mandate in superior court to compel the The referendum petition involved three planning actions of the city council in connection with a proposed hotel and conference center development by intervener and respondent Park Plaza Corporation to be located on a parcel of the "East Beach" area of Santa Barbara, north of East Cabrillo Boulevard and west of Punta Gorda Street, commonly referred to as the Southern Pacific property. The actions were (1) resolution No. 81-091, adopted July 28, 1981, amending the city's General Plan; (2) resolution No. 81-092, adopted July 28, 1981, adopting a Specific Plan of development previously approved by the City Planning Commission; and (3) ordinance No. 4115, adopted August 4, 1981, changing the zoning of the property from R-1/M-1/C-2 to R-1/R-4.
city clerk to process the referendum petition. The trial court denied the petition for writ of mandate, and this appeal followed.
We hold the trial court correctly concluded that the three actions were not subject to referendum, because the city council was acting administratively under authority delegated by the state to implement legislative policies declared by the state on a matter of statewide concern.
The Legislature has enacted a comprehensive scheme governing land use planning for the entire coastal zone of California, the California Coastal Act of 1976, Public Resources Code section 30000 et seq. 1 (See generally, California Coastal Com. v. Quanta Investment Corp., 113 Cal.App.3d 579, 587, 170 Cal.Rptr. 263; 8 Pacific L.J. 351 (1977).) The act expressly declares on behalf of all the people of California a statewide interest in the coastal zone. The Legislature found that "the California coastal zone is a distinct and valuable natural resource of vital and enduring interest to all the people" and that "existing developed uses, and future developments that are carefully planned and developed consistent with the policies of this division, are essential to the economic and social well-being of the people of this state ...." The Legislature further found that "the basic goals of the state for the coastal zone" are to: (§ 30001.5.)
The act relies upon a combination of (a) local land use planning procedures and enforcement to achieve maximum responsiveness to local conditions, accountability, and public accessibility, and (b) continued state coastal planning and management through a state coastal commission to insure conformity with the provisions of the act. (§ 30004, subds. (a), (b).)
Accordingly, all local governments lying in whole or in part within the coastal zone must prepare and submit to the California Coastal Commission a local coastal program (LCP). (§ 30500, subd. (a).) The LCP "means a local government's (a) land use plans, (b) zoning ordinances, (c) zoning district The act specifies procedure and methodology for preparing LCP's (§§ 30500, subd. (c), 30501, and accompanying regulations of the Coastal Commission, Cal.Admin.Code, tit. 14. § 13500 et seq.) including specific requirements for public hearings and other opportunities for full public "participation" in preparation of the program. (§§ 30006, 30500, subd. (c), 30503, 30339, subd. (d).)
maps, and (d) within sensitive coastal resources areas, other implementing actions, which, when taken together, meet the requirements of, and implement the provisions and policies of, this division at the local level." (§ 30108.6.) "Local government" means "any chartered or general law city, chartered or general law county, or any city and county." (§ 30109.)
The precise content of each LCP shall be determined by the local government in full consultation with the commission. (§ 30500, subd. (c).) However, the content of the LCP must "meet the requirements of, and implement the provisions and policies of [the act] at the local level." (§§ 30108.6, 30200, 30512, subd. (c), 30512.2, 30513, 30514.)
In section 30200 et seq. the Legislature has set forth the specific "policies" which "shall constitute the standards by which the adequacy of local coastal programs ... are determined...." (§ 30200.) There are specific policies on public access (§§ 30210-30214), recreation (§§ 30220-30224), protecting the marine environment (§§ 30230-30236), protecting land resources (§§ 30240-30244), development (§§ 30250-30255), and industrial development (§§ 30260-30264).
Pursuant to section 30511, the LCP may be submitted to the state Coastal Commission all at once or in two phases, (1) land use plan (LUP), and (2) zoning ordinances, etc. The commission will certify an LUP or any amendments thereto only "if it finds that a land use plan meets the requirements of, and is in conformity with, the policies of Chapter 3 (commencing with Section 30200)...." (§ 30512, subd. (c); see also § 30512.2.) Pursuant to section 30513, the commission may reject zoning ordinances, etc., only on the grounds that "they do not conform with, or are inadequate to carry out, the provisions of the certified land use plan...." A certified LCP and all local implementing ordinances, regulations, and other actions may be amended by the local government but no such amendment shall take effect until it has been certified by the commission in accordance with the provisions of sections 30512 and 30513. (§ 30514, subds. (a), (b).) Prior to certification of the local government's LCP, development in the coastal zone generally requires a permit from the commission in addition to any permits required by the local government. (§§ 30600, 30600.5.) After certification of the LCP by the commission, such permit authority is delegated to the local government. (§ 30519.) Even after certification, the commission is to periodically review the LCP to determine whether it is being effectively implemented in conformity with the policies of the act. (§ 30519.5.)
In July 1977, the City of Santa Barbara commenced preparation of the LUP portion of its LCP. After numerous public hearings, the LUP was adopted by the City Council as amended on December 16, 1980.
The city's LUP sets forth the following policies applicable to the property in dispute in this case: "Policy 4.1 [p ] In order to preserve and encourage visitor-serving commercial uses, appropriate areas along Cabrillo Boulevard ... shall be designated 'Hotel and Related Commerce I (HRC-I)' and 'Hotel and Related Commerce II (HRC-II).' [p ] HRC-I designation shall include hotels, motels, other appropriate forms of visitor-serving overnight accommodations and ancillary commercial uses directly related to the operation of the hotel/motel. [p ] HRC-II designation shall include all uses allowed in HRC-I and such other visitor-serving uses examples such as, but not limited to, restaurants, cafes, art galleries, and commercial recreation establishments. Uses such as car rentals and gas stations will require a conditional use permit. [p ] .... [p ] Policy 4.6 [p ] The As early as 1964, the General Plan of the City of Santa Barbara had contemplated a hotel conference center would be built on the property. When the LUP was prepared, however, there was some conflict between the LUP and the General Plan with regard to the particular alignment of Cabrillo Boulevard and the designations on the land use map of the General Plan. Policy 1.3 of the LUP provided: "Where there are conflicts between the policy set forth in the land use plan and those set forth in any other element of the City's existing General Plan or existing regulations, the policies of the land use plan shall take precedence."
'Southern Pacific Property' (that area roughly bounded by Milpas Street and Punta Gorda Street on the east, Cabrillo Boulevard on the south, the City parcel located at the...To continue reading
Request your trial