Generally, where the scope of a project transcends the boundaries of a municipality it ceases to be for a municipal purpose. The authority of the city or county of Los Angeles to regulate local affairs is not plenary, but limited by the California Constitution, article XI, section 7, and may not conflict with general laws in statewide matters. General plans for the most part deal with the imposition of zoning ordinances. Here, appellants' arguments fail to recognize long-established principles that local agencies are not authorized to apply local zoning restrictions to state agencies. Appellants' argument of consistency is then but a different way of advancing a long-rejected theory of local zoning regulation of a statewide body, and is likewise rejected here.
Appellants cite only one case to support their arguments of local control.
In Friends a citizens' group brought suit against the city to halt a proposed city street improvement project. The contention was made that the city had failed to comply with its own general plans, despite the fact that there is no express statutory provision requiring the city to do so. First, the mandate to adopt general plans is limited by statute to cities and counties. Second, in Friends the same governmental agency that was undertaking a public works project, was held accountable to its own development plans. There was no attempt by the court to bind any other governmental agency or district to these plans.