Caltrans did not need legislative approval to acquire parkland that San Diego County had purchased earlier with state park bond money, the Fourth District Court of Appeal has ruled. The court rejected the argument from park supporters that Caltrans could not convert the land to road use without approval of the state Legislature.
At issue in this case is a portion of the Sweetwater Regional Park in southern San Diego County. The county originally acquired a portion of the parkland, known as "Area 19," with money from the Cameron-Unruh Beach, Park, Recreational and Historical Facilities Bond Act of 1964. Among other things, the act provided $40 million for grants to local agencies for the acquisition and development of property for public parks and beaches.
During the 1990s, Caltrans proposed an 11-mile-long toll road through the park connecting Highways 54 and 905. Caltrans planned to acquire Area 19 from the county for the toll road.
n May 2000, a group called Preserve South Bay filed a lawsuit against the California Transportation Commission, arguing that the state could not acquire Area 19 without legislative approval for converting the land to a non-park use. San Diego County Superior Court Judge Charles Hayes ruled for the state.
Preserve South Bay appealed. The organization contended that the 1964 bond act required that land purchased with the money be used as parkland unless the Legislature provided a specific exemption. They contended the requirement extended to any entity.
But the unanimous three-judge appellate panel upheld the lower court, ruling that the limitation applied only to the local agency that originally purchased the land — and not to a state agency.
"The plain language of [Public Resources Code] § 5096.27 shows it applies solely to a contract between the state and a grantee, or local agency," Justice Judith McConnell wrote, citing the 1964 bond act. "Section 5096.27 does not address a state agency's acquisition of park property purchased by a local public agency under the Cameron-Unruh Act."
This interpretation, McConnell wrote, is consistent with Streets and Highways Code § 103.5, which states in part: "[T]he real property which Caltrans may acquire by eminent domain, or otherwise, includes any property dedicated to park purposes, however it may have been dedicated, when the commission has determined by resolution that such property is necessary for state highway purposes."
Preserve South Bay argued this section of the Streets and Highways Code was not applicable because Caltrans had not adopted a "resolution of necessity" to take the property via eminent domain. But the court said the lack of a resolution did not matter. "If the project proceeds, a resolution of necessity will be required before Caltrans may acquire Area 19 through eminent domain, but whether it has adopted a resolution at this point is immaterial," the court ruled.
The Case:
Rolfe v. California Transportation Commission, No. D038865, 02 C.D.O.S. 11888, 2002 DJDAR 13953. Filed December 11, 2002.
The Lawyers:
For Rolfe: Thomas Mauriello, (415) 677-1238.
For the CTC: Bruce Behrens, CTC, (916) 654-2630.
For San Diego Regional Transportation Commission: Julie Wiley, SANDAG (619) 595-5647.
An animal shelter project in the City of Long Beach that was partially funded by the city was not subject to the prevailing wage law for public works projects that was in effect at the time, the state Supreme Court has ruled.
Claims that Sacramento County violated the California Environmental Quality Act while approving a commercial development have been dismissed by the Third District Court of Appeal because the project opponent did not submit a written request for a hearing within 90 days of filing a lawsuit.
The attorney for opponent Forster-Gill, Inc., argued that a telephone call to the court clerk within the 90-day period was adequate, but the appellate court disagreed, ruling that the law "plainly contemplates a written request that can be, and is, filed with the court."
A state appellate court has upheld the California Coastal Commission's denial of a development permit for a small mixed-use project in Morro Bay.
The court rejected developer Dan Reddell's arguments that the commission violated his due process and equal protection rights, and that its decision was a regulatory taking of property. Instead, the Second District Court of Appeal ruled that substantial evidence supported the commission's finding that Reddell's project was inconsistent with Morro Bay's local coastal plan (LCP).
A state appellate court has thrown out an Inyo County general plan amendment that the county argued was nothing more than a clarification of a longstanding policy.
A unanimous three-judge panel of the Fourth District Court of Appeal, Division Two, concluded that the amendment was more than a mere clarification and that the county should have completed an environmental impact report before approving the amendment.
A City of West Hollywood moratorium on new multi-family housing development has been declared invalid by the Second District Court of Appeal. The court ruled that the city had not made required findings for the moratorium.
The Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has set back a plan to develop the country's largest solid waste landfill near Joshua Tree National Park. The court ruled that the environmental analysis for the project was inadequate and that the Bureau of Land Management undervalued land it would provide to the landfill developer.
A state appellate court has struck down a California Environmental Quality Act exemption for an air district rule permitting new power plants to offset emissions by paving roads. The court found that the Mojave Desert Air Quality Management District did not have adequate evidence to support its finding that the rule could not have a negative impact on the environment.
A developer is not entitled to reimbursement or damages from a consultant hired by a local government to complete an environmental impact report, the First District Court of Appeal has ruled. Even when the consultant fails to complete an EIR in a timely manner, the consultant owes no contractual duty to the developer that paid for the consultant, the court concluded.
In the first decision of its kind, a divided Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals panel has declared that the City of Goleta's mobile home rent control ordinance constitutes a regulatory taking.
The City of Claremont's moratorium on dispensaries of medical marijuana and a Superior Court injunction shuttering a dispensary have been upheld by the Second District Court of Appeal.
A city may determine that project alternatives once considered potentially feasible for California Environmental Quality Act analysis are infeasible as actual projects, the Sixth District Court of Appeal has ruled.
The City of Los Angeles had no obligation under the California Environmental Quality Act to complete an environmental impact report for a project that it had rejected, the Second District Court of Appeal has ruled.
The court dismissed all arguments put forward by the developer of the 555-acre Las Lomas project at the junction of Interstate 5 and Highway 14. "[I]f an agency at any time decides not to proceed with a project," the court said, "CEQA is inapplicable from that time forward."
