Regents of University of California v. City of Santa Monica

Citations: 77 Cal. App. 3d 130; 143 Cal. Rptr. 276; 1978 Cal. App. LEXIS 1197Docket: Civ. 50340

Court: California Court of Appeal; January 12, 1978; California; State Appellate Court

SummaryOriginalCytator Case TreatmentBackward CitatorAnalysis

EnglishEspañolSimplified EnglishEspañol Fácil

The Court of Appeals of California ruled on January 12, 1978, regarding a legal dispute between the Regents of the University of California and the City of Santa Monica concerning construction permit fees. Santa Monica appealed a judgment that declared its construction permit fee ordinances inapplicable to the Regents' construction work, which involved alterations to a leased property for educational use. The court permanently enjoined Santa Monica from enforcing its ordinances against the Regents and ordered a refund of fees paid, including interest.

The Regents had entered into a lease for premises at 1918 Main Street in Santa Monica and planned to make modifications, employing licensed architects and engineers to ensure compliance with the Uniform Building Code. Despite the Regents' adherence to state regulations and obtaining necessary approvals, Santa Monica's building department required a building permit and associated fees, which the Regents paid under protest to avoid construction delays. The Regents asserted that, as a constitutionally established state agency, they were exempt from local building codes and fees based on state law. Santa Monica, however, contested this exemption regarding the proposed construction activities.

The Regents completed construction and filed a complaint against Santa Monica, asserting an actual controversy regarding the duty to refund building permit, inspection, and zoning variance fees. They sought a declaration to absolve them of future fee payments and damages for delays caused by Santa Monica's alleged unreasonable interference. During the trial, the parties stipulated that the Regents paid $896.50 in fees and that a zoning variance was necessary due to Santa Monica's ordinances, which required specific ownership and proximity conditions for parking spaces. The variance was granted on January 13, 1976, with conditions, and the Regents complied with all related procedures under protest. They also released Santa Monica from all claims except those in the current litigation. The court determined that Santa Monica's building and zoning ordinances did not apply to the Regents concerning the construction project or future educational uses, ruling that the Regents were not obligated to pay inspection fees and permanently enjoining Santa Monica from enforcing its ordinances against them. The Regents were awarded $896.50 plus interest, and Santa Monica has appealed. The key issue is whether Santa Monica, as a chartered city, can enforce its building and zoning ordinances and impose fees on the Regents, particularly in light of Government Code sections 6103.6 and 6103.7. The Regents are recognized as a state entity with significant autonomy in self-governance, being the highest administrative authority of the University of California.

The Regents of the University of California possess comprehensive rule-making and policy-making authority regarding the University, allowing for exclusive control over its organization and governance. Their authority is equivalent to that of state statutes for internal regulations. The Regents' operations, particularly concerning property used for educational purposes, are exempt from municipal regulations, including local building codes and zoning laws, unless explicitly stated otherwise by the Constitution or Legislature. Santa Monica, as a chartered city, asserts its right to regulate municipal affairs, yet the California Constitution restricts municipal application of local zoning laws to state agencies without legislative consent. While cities can enact local ordinances, they cannot conflict with general laws on statewide concerns. The Regents hold legal title to the University’s property and have unrestricted rights to manage it, reinforcing the University’s exemption from local regulations concerning property use. Santa Monica contends that the Regents did not meet the requirements outlined in Government Code section 6103.7.

The Regents are required to pay reasonable and nondiscriminatory plan-checking and inspection fees unless these services are mandated by law to be performed by a different governmental agency, and such services were actually provided by that agency. Section 6103.7 states that fees cannot be assessed against the state or its agencies when inspection services are legally required and performed by another governmental agency. The Regents assert their governance powers include designing, inspecting, and constructing educational facilities, supported by affidavits showing their licensed staff performed these duties, with oversight from the University of California at Los Angeles' Office of Architects, Engineers, and the state fire marshal. It is suggested that if section 6103.7 were applicable, the Regents meet its conditions in this instance. Furthermore, Santa Monica contends that statutory exemptions do not apply to the Regents under Government Code sections 53090 and 53091. Section 53091 mandates local agencies to comply with local building and zoning ordinances, while section 53090 excludes the state and its agencies with constitutionally granted powers, such as the Regents. The ownership or leasing status of the property is deemed irrelevant to the case. The judgment is affirmed, with concurrence from Judges Wood and Lillie, and the appellants' petition for a Supreme Court hearing was denied on March 30, 1978.