Baldwin v. City of Los Angeles

• Decision Date: 12 March 1999
• Docket Number: B114270,Nos. B121348,s. B121348
• Citation: 70 Cal.App.4th 819,83 Cal.Rptr.2d 178
• Court: California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
• Parties: , 99 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 1860, 1999 Daily Journal D.A.R. 2383 Skip BALDWIN et al., Plaintiffs and Appellants, v. CITY OF LOS ANGELES, Defendant and Respondent, Habitat for Humanity, Harbor Area/Long Beach, CA Inc. and Union Pacific Railroad Company, Real Parties in Interest and Respondents. Skip Baldwin et al., Plaintiffs and Respondents, v. City of Los Angeles, Defendant and Appellant. Habitat for Humanity, Harbor Area/Long Beach, CA Inc., Real Party in Interest and Appellant.

Page 178

83 Cal.Rptr.2d 178

70 Cal.App.4th 819, 99 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 1860,

1999 Daily Journal D.A.R. 2383

Skip BALDWIN et al., Plaintiffs and Appellants, v. CITY OF LOS ANGELES, Defendant and Respondent, Habitat for Humanity, Harbor Area/Long Beach, CA Inc. and Union Pacific Railroad Company, Real Parties in Interest and Respondents.

Skip Baldwin et al., Plaintiffs and Respondents, v. City of Los Angeles, Defendant and Appellant.

Habitat for Humanity, Harbor Area/Long Beach, CA Inc., Real Party in Interest and Appellant.

Nos. B121348, B114270.

Court of Appeal, Second District, Division 7, California.

March 12, 1999.

James K. Hahn, City Attorney, Julie Downey and Patricia V. Tubert, Senior Assistant City Attorneys, William L. Waterhouse, Assistant City Attorney, and Jess J. Gonzalez, Deputy City Attorney, for Defendant, Appellant and Respondent City of Los Angeles.

Skip Baldwin, in pro. per., Lucy P. Mejia, in pro. per., and Frank O'Brien, in pro. per., for Plaintiffs, Appellants, and Respondents.

Cox, Castle & Nicholson, Kenneth B. Bley and Patrick A. Perry for Real Party in Interest, Appellant, and Respondent Habitat for Humanity, Harbor Area/Long Beach, CA Inc.

Lowell & Robbin and David S. Robbin, San Diego, for Real Party in Interest and Respondent Union Pacific Railroad Company.

LILLIE, P.J.

These consolidated appeals involve challenges by three residents of the Wilmington In one appeal (B114270), the residents (Baldwin) appeal from a July 1, 1997, judgment confirming City's return to writ of mandate and dismissing Baldwin's prior writ of mandate wherein Baldwin challenged City's adoption of a mitigated negative declaration for Habitat's housing project and contended that City was obligated to prepare an environmental impact report for the Habitat project pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA; Pub. Resources Code, § 21000 et seq.).

area of the City of Los Angeles to an owner-occupied affordable housing project, consisting of 13 duplexes, or a total of 26 residences, which real party in interest Habitat for Humanity, Harbor Area/Long Beach, CA Inc. (Habitat) proposed to build on a two-acre parcel of property transferred to Habitat by defendant City of Los Angeles (City); the property had been dedicated to City by Southern Pacific Real Estate Enterprises (Southern Pacific).

In appeal No. B121348, City and Habitat appeal from a judgment granting a second petition for writ of mandate filed by Baldwin wherein Baldwin successfully challenged City's adoption of an ordinance on October 22, 1997, authorizing transfer and sale of the approximately two-acre project site to Habitat; the judgment determined that by ordinance adopted in 1976, City accepted Southern Pacific's donation deed restricting use of the property to "public recreation and beautification purposes," which constituted an irrevocable dedication and prevented City from thereafter attempting to lift the use restriction, and from selling or transferring the property for use as a private housing project.

Inasmuch as both appeals involve essentially the same underlying factual and administrative proceedings, we set out one factual and procedural background for consideration of both appeals.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

A. Administrative Proceedings.

Habitat is a non-profit religious corporation with a housing ministry dedicated to providing affordable housing. This case involves Habitat's proposal to build 13 duplexes, a total of 26 residences, in the Wilmington area of the City of Los Angeles. The project site is surrounded by single family residences in an area containing many oil-refining and maritime-related industries. The proposed project site consists of about 2 acres of a larger 7.2-acre narrow strip of land about 120 feet wide, known as Parcel 3, and which was formerly a railroad right of way owned by Southern Pacific. Although it is undisputed in these appeals that the property was dedicated to City by Southern Pacific, a disputed issue before us on one of the appeals is whether the dedication as to Parcel 3 was accepted by City with or without a park use restriction. Parcel 3, about 2.66 acres, has been a vacant dirt lot since about 1970, although in the 1980's City developed about 4 acres immediately north of the project site as a park, known as the East Wilmington Greenbelt Park, with recreational facilities and grassy open space. The dedication and use of the northern 4 acres as a park is not an issue or in dispute in these lawsuits.

In July 1970, City entered into a three-year lease with Southern Pacific for the use of the entire 7.2 acres, including Parcel 3, for recreation and park purposes; the City Department of Recreation and Parks planted the northern 4 acres (parcels 1 and 2) with lawn and other landscaping, and constructed improvements such as fences and baseball backstops, which were maintained by City over the years and continued up to the present time; this area is known as the "Greenbelt Park" or "East Wilmington Greenbelt Park." At the expiration of the lease in 1973, City requested that Southern Pacific renew the lease for a period of 25 years or more to make the property eligible for federal and state development funding; the parties entered into negotiations, and by letter dated March 31, 1976, Southern Pacific proposed donation of the 7.2 acres to City "for public recreation and beautification purposes" and "conditioned upon the City of Los Angeles assuming the responsibility in removing rails and restoring streets where railroad tracks have previously been retired in the nearby vicinity." A May 1976 report of City's Recreation and Parks Committee, adopted by On November 4, 1976, City's Board of Recreation and Park Commissioners adopted Resolution No. 7411 approving of the acquisition of the real property for recreation and park purposes and approving of a proposed agreement and conveyance by which the property was to be quitclaimed to City, as well as a proposed ordinance prepared by the City Attorney authorizing the execution of the proposed agreement and conveyance.

the City Council on June 21, 1976, noted that an estimated value of $600,000 had been placed on the property, and total costs of removing tracks and restoring streets would total about $200,000; acquisition of the property, however, would be profitable to the City; the report also recommended that if City decides to accept the property, the matter should be referred to the City Attorney to work out the terms [70 Cal.App.4th 827] of an agreement with Southern Pacific in that "there may be legal problems relating to removal of the tracks and restoration of the streets...." ¹

Thereafter, the City Council adopted City Ordinance No. 149,131, which became effective on January 14, 1977. The Ordinance provided that the real property at issue herein "may be acquired by the City of Los Angeles subject to the City assuming any obligation which may exist to remove railroad tracks and railroad facilities located within said real property; and also subject to the City assuming any obligation to remove railroad tracks and railroad facilities and restore street areas where the railroad facilities are located.... The Mayor of the City of Los Angeles is authorized to execute a form of agreement and conveyance to relieve [Southern Pacific] of the obligation to remove tracks and restore street facilities, as set forth above and to accept on behalf of the City the real property to be donated to the City."

On February 2, 1977, Southern Pacific sent a letter to Councilman Gibson of the Fifteenth District, where the property is situated, enclosing the original Donation Deed for the property. The letter stated that "Delivery of this instrument is conditioned upon receipt of the following data: [p] (1) A Certified Copy of the Resolution adopted by the City Council of the City of Los Angeles, accepting the Donation Deed. [p] (2) That City of Los Angeles will furnish complete recording data, to the undersigned." The letter concluded that it was with pleasure that Southern Pacific was able to accommodate City "by donation of the land for park purposes to benefit the community of Wilmington." The Donation Deed recited that the property was given to City "for use by the public as a park, but subject to easements, covenants, conditions, reservations and restrictions of record."

A March 3, 1977, report of the General Manager of the Board of Recreation and Park Commissioners stated that Southern Pacific's donation deed and February 2, 1977, letter were on file in the Board office; according to the City Attorney, Southern Pacific had not executed the agreement and conveyance prepared by the City Attorney's office, nor any similar agreement; the City Attorney and Bureau of Right of Way and Land obtained certified copies of four deeds to Southern Pacific relating to the property; two deeds contained reversionary clauses which may render title which the City is to receive defective; in addition, as Southern Pacific's letter specified that the donation "is to be accepted by Council resolution, it appears to be beyond the power of the Board to accept the donation." The General Manager recommended that the matter be referred to the City Council for consideration, and that "the opinions of the City Attorney and Bureau of Right of Way and Land be By report dated June 23, 1977, the City Attorney informed the Recreation and Parks Committee of the City Council that Southern Pacific's donation deed included property deeded to Southern Pacific in 1903 by four deeds referring to four parcels; the City Attorney concluded that Southern Pacific's donation deed would convey good title to parcels 3 and 4, but Southern Pacific's interest in parcels 1 and 2 may have terminated upon cessation of railroad services in the 1960's. The City Attorney also noted that City did not know how much of the land described in the donation deed was attributable to the...