Besides the type of finding required of the City Council, judicial review of
the City Council's findings depends on the type of action it took. (Mountain Defense League v. Board of Supervisors (1977) 65 Cal.App.3d 723, 727 [135 Cal.Rptr. 588].) If the action was legislative, and a mere declaration by the City Council was required, its findings are reviewed in the trial court by the arbitrary and capricious standard. (Code Civ. Proc., s 1085; Mountain Defense League, supra, at p. 727.)
If the action of the City Council was quasi-judicial, either the independent judgment rule or the substantial evidence test applies. (Code Civ. Proc., s 1094.5, subds. (b) & (c); Mountain Defense League, supra, 65 Cal.App.3d at pp. 727-728.) The independent judgment rule is applied where fundamental rights are substantially affected by the administrative decision. The trial court must then make independent findings of its own. (65 Cal.App.3d at pp. 727-728.) On appeal, we must determine if the trial court's findings are supported by substantial evidence. (Id. at p. 728.)
If fundamental rights are not substantially affected, the trial court applies the substantial evidence rule in reviewing whether the agency's findings are supported by the evidence. (65 Cal.App.3d at p. 728.) The same standard is applied on appeal. (Ibid.)
Aviation Council and Pilots do not argue that fundamental rights were involved. Instead, they argue, and correctly so, that the substantial evidence test applied in the trial court and also applies in this court. They continue by arguing the finding of consistency was not supported by the evidence.
The record before the trial court is extremely limited. The court had before it the ordinance, the letter of September 8, 1989, to Jake Raper, director of the Planning and Community Development Department of the City of Ceres, from Ron E. Freitas, a senior planner with the Stanislaus County Department of Planning and Community Development, and the letter of March 29, 1990, from Jay C. White, president of the Aviation Council, to Michael Lyions, attorney for the City.
There is no indication the administrative record was filed with the trial court or entered in evidence, or that the tapes and transcripts from the hearing in which the county board of supervisors took public comment on the issue of the ALUC's finding of inconsistency were before the court. ( Code Civ. Proc., s 1094.5, subd. (a).) This court has likewise not been so provided. The ordinance makes reference to, and incorporates by reference, the "Specific Plan and Design Guidelines." Neither is in the record. Reference is also made to a final environmental impact report which is not included. Finally, reference is made to an exhibit A, entitled "Statement of Overriding Considerations," which is not included. Davis testified at trial. According to his testimony, he was present and testified at the hearing before the City Council. He expressed concerns to the City Council regarding noise and safety problems if the ordinance was approved as proposed.
The letter from Freitas has attached a list apparently from a letter of August 2, 1989, written by Raper. The list identifies principal uses, and then notes whether they are compatible, prohibited, or conditionally approvable. Many uses on the list are prohibited, such as hotels, motels, motor hotels, nursery schools, technical schools and churches. All of these involve large numbers of people in close proximity. Conditional approval generally involves people as well: restaurants, business offices, etc. Family residences are not listed.
Issues before the trial court were whether the action of the City Council was legislative or adjudicatory, and the type of finding required. As discussed previously, depending on the type of findings required, the trial court would have to make its own independent findings, decide if the findings made were supported by the evidence, or whether the action of the City Council was arbitrary and capricious. The court's findings are of no help to us in reviewing what it determined on these matters, and therefore what standard of appellate review we should apply. Implying the court found one type of finding rather than another is also difficult since the court, at one point, appears to indicate to counsel for Pilots and Aviation Council that the City Council's findings should be adequate, even under the type of findings they were urging. The pertinent finding of the trial court provides:
"
"2. Plaintiff's Exhibit No. 1 (Ordinance No. 89-744) does fully comply with the statutory requirements of Public Utilities Code Section 21676(b)."
Judgment is reversed. The matter is remanded to the trial court for further proceedings consistent with the opinion expressed herein. Costs on appeal to appellants.
Martin, Acting P. J., and Thaxter, J., concurred.
ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CERES APPROVING THE MITCHELL ROAD CORRIDOR SPECIFIC PLAN AND DESIGN GUIDELINES WITH REGARD TO THAT PORTION OF THE SPECIFIC PLAN AND DESIGN GUIDELINES LYING NORTH OF THE INTERSECTION OF HATCH AND MITCHELL ROADS, AND APPROVING HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL USES IN THE MIXED USE 2 CATEGORY FOR PROPERTY LYING OUTSIDE THE AIRPORT TRANSITION ZONE.
WHEREAS, the City of Ceres duly instituted proceedings to establish a Specific Plan and Design Guidelines for the Mitchell Road corridor; and,
WHEREAS, a copy of the Mitchell Road Corridor Specific Plan is on file in the Office of the City Clerk of the City of Ceres, which Plan establishes comprehensive guidelines and regulations for the development of approximately 450 acres located along a 2 1/2 mile stretch of Mitchell Road between Highway 99 and the Tuolumne River within the City of Ceres; and,
WHEREAS, in order to further insure that design criteria are adhered to, a set of Design Guidelines have been prepared as a separate document and in conjunction with the Mitchell Road Corridor Specific Plan, which Guidelines cover project design criteria, including site planning, architecture, circulation, open space and recreation, landscaping and lighting; and,
WHEREAS, the Final Environmental Impact Report prepared with regard to the said Mitchell Road Corridor Specific Plan and Design Guidelines has been duly certified by the City Council of the City of Ceres as having been completed in accordance with the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act and related State Guidelines; and,
WHEREAS, a copy of the Mitchell Road Corridor Specific Plan including the Design Guidelines is on file in the Office of the City Clerk of the City of Ceres; and,
WHEREAS, at its regularly scheduled meeting of June 19, 1989, the Planning Commission of the City of Ceres duly concluded its public hearings regarding the said Specific Plan and Design Guidelines, duly made certain findings, and duly recommended to the City Council of the City of Ceres that the City Council adopt a statement of Overriding Considerations and approve the proposed Specific Plan and Design Guidelines; and,
WHEREAS, at its regularly scheduled meeting of August 28, 1989, the City Council of the City of Ceres duly held its further public hearing regarding the proposed Specific Plan and Design Guidelines and did at said meeting adopt Ordinance No. 89-739 approving that portion of the proposed Specific Plan and Design Guidelines lying south of the intersection of Hatch and Mitchell Roads; and,
WHEREAS, at said meeting of August 28, 1989, the City Council of the City of Ceres did continue the public hearing to December 11, 1989, at 7:45 P.M., for the purpose of considering any action taken by the Airport Land Use Commission regarding that portion of the proposed Specific Plan and Design Guidelines lying north of the intersection of Hatch and Mitchell Roads and within the jurisdiction of the Airport Land Use Commission; and,
WHEREAS, by letter of September 8, 1989, the Airport Land Use Commission advised the City of Ceres that the proposed Specific Plan and Design Guidelines was inconsistent with the Airport Land Use Commission Plan; and,
WHEREAS, at the continued public hearing held on December 11, 1989, a request was made to allow high density residential development in the Mixed Use Two Category for property lying outside the airport transition zone as shown on Exhibit "C" - SP-1.
NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Ceres does hereby make the following findings regarding the proposed Mitchell Road Corridor Specific Plan and Design Guidelines:
1. Reasonable alternatives to the plan and their implications have been considered.
2. The scope and depth of environmental and policy analysis are commensurate with the level of detail contained in the plan and the specificity of land use entitlement its adoption authorizes.
3. Implementation of the Specific Plan, ensures that concerns identified at this level of planning are resolved as part of the more detailed Site Plan review, which must be completed before private development may proceed.
4. Administration of the plan is thoroughly integrated into the City's development processing system.
5. All subjects required in a Specific Plan by the California Government Code and applicable City Ordinances are appropriately and adequately covered.
6. Adequate time and opportunities have been afforded interested organizations and members of the public to comment on, or propose changes to, the plan if they so desired.
7. The plan and its policies will be used to guide development in the City and shape all subsequent land use entitlements for the Specific Plan Area.
8. The City Council of the City of Ceres does hereby declare that it has reviewed and considered the information contained in the Final Environmental Impact Report, and finds that there are certain significant impacts identified by the Final Environmental Impact Report which cannot be mitigated to acceptable levels, which impacts include noise generation, increased traffic along the Mitchell Road corridor, air quality, and loss of agricultural lands. In that regard the City Council of the City of Ceres does hereby find that there are specific economic, social, or other considerations which make it infeasible to mitigate the impacts identified in the Final Environmental Impact Report, and in that regard the City Council does hereby adopt its Statement of Overriding Considerations as contained in Exhibit "A" which is attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference.
9. Pursuant to Section 21676 of Article 3.5 of the Public Utilities Code of the State of California the City Council finds that the proposed land uses identified in Exhibit SP-1 of the proposed Specific Plan and Design Guidelines are those which are consistent with the purposes identified in Section 21670 of Article 3.5 of the Public Utilities Code, in that the proposed land uses will minimize the public's exposure to excessive noise and safety hazards within the area around the Modesto City County Airport to the extent that the areas are not already devoted to incompatible uses.
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDAINED by the City Council of the City of Ceres as follows:
1. The proposed Mitchell Road Corridor Specific Plan and Design Guidelines, a copy of which is on file in the Office of the City Clerk of the City of Ceres, and incorporated herein by reference, is hereby approved and adopted with regard to that portion of the Specific Plan and Design Guidelines lying north of the intersection of Hatch and Mitchell Road. Those Planned Community Master Plans and Development Plans previously approved which are in compliance with the Specific Plan and Design Guidelines need not be reconsidered. However, prior to implementation of such projects, staff shall review said projects and shall implement such mitigation measures as may be required to insure compliance with the Specific Plan and Design Guidelines adopted pursuant to this Ordinance.
2. The proposed Specific Plan and Design Guidelines is modified to allow high density residential development in the Mixed Use Two Category for property lying outside the airport transition zone as shown on Exhibit SP-1.
This Ordinance shall take effect and be in full force and operation from and after thirty (30) days from its final passage and adoption and shall be published at least once in the Ceres Courier, the Official Newspaper of the City of Ceres.
The foregoing Ordinance was introduced at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Ceres held on the 26th day of December, 1989, and was finally passed and adopted at the regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Ceres held on the 8th day of January, 1990, by the following votes:
AYES: COUNCILMEMBER: McKay, Hinton, Caruso, McBride, Mayor Arrollo
NOES: COUNCILMEMBER: None
ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBER: None
/s/
/s/