Opinion ID: 1172018
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Municipal Affairs and Statewide Concerns.

Text: (5a) Because, as we have seen, this is an important factor in ascertaining legislative intent, we consider next whether section 66484.3 deals with matters of statewide concern rather than strictly municipal affairs. As used in this discussion, statewide refers to all matters of more than local concern and thus includes matters the impact of which is primarily regional rather than truly statewide. (6) A charter city such as Irvine is authorized by the state Constitution to make and enforce all ordinances and regulations in respect to municipal affairs. (Cal. Const., art. XI, § 5, subd. (a).) Under this provision, ordinances enacted in a charter city relating to matters which are purely municipal affairs prevail over state laws covering the same subject. ( Baggett v. Gates (1982) 32 Cal.3d 128, 136 [185 Cal. Rptr. 232, 649 P.2d 874].) As to matters which are of statewide concern, however, home rule charter cities remain subject to and controlled by applicable general state laws regardless of the provisions of their charters.... ( Bishop v. City of San Jose (1969) 1 Cal.3d 56, 61 [81 Cal. Rptr. 465, 460 P.2d 137].) We have recognized that no exact definition of the term municipal affairs can be formulated, and that what constitutes a municipal affair or matter of statewide concern may change over time in response to changing conditions in society. ( Bishop v. City of San Jose, supra, 1 Cal.3d 56, 62-63.) In general, municipal action which affects persons outside of the municipality becomes to that extent a matter which the state is empowered to prohibit or regulate.... ( Metromedia, Inc. v. City of San Diego (1980) 26 Cal.3d 848, 879 [164 Cal. Rptr. 510, 610 P.2d 407]. See also, Baggett v. Gates, supra, 32 Cal.3d 128, 139-140; CEEED v. California Coastal Zone Conservation Com. (1974) 43 Cal. App.3d 306, 321 [118 Cal. Rptr. 315].) (5b) The statewide importance of section 66484.3 becomes apparent upon examination of its relation to highway construction and the development of regional transportation systems. While street work has long been regarded as a matter of local concern (see City of Walnut Creek v. Silveira (1957) 47 Cal.2d 804, 812 [306 P.2d 453]; Raisch v. Myers (1946) 27 Cal.2d 773, 778 [167 P.2d 198]) it has also been recognized that construction of major highways has effects beyond municipal boundaries (see People ex rel Younger v. County of El Dorado (1971) 5 Cal.3d 480, 498, fn. 20 [96 Cal. Rptr. 553, 487 P.2d 1193]; Southern California Roads Co. v. McGuire (1934) 2 Cal.2d 115, 123 [39 P.2d 412]; Young v. Superior Court (1932) 216 Cal. 512, 516-517 [15 P.2d 163]; cf. Metromedia, Inc. v. City of San Diego, supra, 26 Cal.3d 848, 879 [receipt of federal highway funds a matter of statewide concern]). Indeed, Streets and Highways Code section 250 provides: It is hereby declared to be essential to the future development of the State of California to establish and construct a statewide system of freeways and expressways and connections thereto without regard to present jurisdiction over the highways, roads, and streets that might be included.... (See also, Sts. & Hy. Code, § 300.) Section 66484.3 was designed specifically for the funding of major thoroughfares whose primary purpose is to carry through traffic and provide a network connecting to or which is part of the state highway system.... (§ 66484.3, subd. (b)(1).) In other words, the contemplated transportation facilities are to be used primarily for travel between cities rather than within cities. This intent is shown further by the provision authorizing use of the fees collected to construct facilities shown on the city's general plan whether the facilities are situated within or outside the boundaries of the city.... (§ 66484.3, subd. (i).) The construction of roads located outside a city's boundaries cannot be a strictly municipal affair. While the statute does not itself establish a regional mechanism for planning and constructing major highways, such as the formation of joint powers agencies, the use of such mechanisms is necessarily implied from the nature of the facilities themselves, since it would be practically impossible for any one or more cities acting independently to plan and build efficient additions to a regional highway system. (See City of Santa Clara v. Von Raesfeld (1970) 3 Cal.3d 239, 247 [90 Cal. Rptr. 8, 474 P.2d 976].) In short, the projects contemplated by section 66484.3 are of the kind likely to require coordination on a regional basis and to have substantial impacts on persons living outside the boundaries of the city and so are matters of statewide concern. (7) (See Wilson v. City of San Bernardino (1960) 186 Cal. App.2d 603, 611 [9 Cal. Rptr. 431] [... when a general law of the state, adopted by the state Legislature, provides for a scheme of public improvement, the scope of which intrudes upon or transcends the boundary of one or several municipalities, together with unincorporated territory, such contemplated improvement ceases to be a municipal affair and comes within the proper domain and regulation of the general laws of the state.].) (5c) COST argues that construction of the corridors cannot truly be a matter of statewide concern because the Legislature has not required but has merely enabled the local entities to impose development fees for construction of the corridors if the entities choose to do so. However, in seeking to achieve objectives of statewide concern the Legislature is not limited to means which are mandatory or coercive but can also employ means reasonably calculated to facilitate or encourage appropriate action by local entities, and the problem addressed by a statute does not cease to be of state-wide concern simply because the Legislature has authorized participation on a voluntary basis. (See Southern California Roads Co. v. McGuire, supra, 2 Cal.2d at p. 123.) Here the legislation in question was passed at the urging of local government officials to provide an innovative solution to a regional transportation problem. The Legislature correctly anticipated that many entities would voluntarily elect to use the revenue source provided by the legislation and could reasonably anticipate that permissive legislation would be most likely to engender the spirit of cooperation essential for this regional enterprise. We conclude that section 66484.3 deals with matters of statewide concern rather than strictly municipal affairs.