California Earth Corps v. State Lands Com.
| Decision Date | 21 April 2005 |
| Docket Number | No. C041603.,C041603. |
| Citation | 128 Cal.App.4th 756,27 Cal.Rptr.3d 476 |
| Court | California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
| Parties | CALIFORNIA EARTH CORPS, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. CALIFORNIA STATE LANDS COMMISSION et al., Defendants and Respondents; Developers Diversified Realty, Real Party in Interest and Respondent. |
Chatten-Brown & Associates, Jan Chatten-Brown, Douglas P. Carstens, and Amy Minteer, Santa Monica, for Plaintiff and Appellant.
Laurens H. Silver for Coastal Protection, Save Our NTC, Inc., Natural Resources Defense Council, and Surfrider Foundation as Amici Curiae on behalf of Plaintiff and Appellant.
Bill Lockyer, Attorney General, Richard M. Frank, Chief Assistant Attorney General, J. Matthew Rodriquez, Senior Assistant Attorney General, and Alan V. Hager, Deputy Attorney General, for Defendant and Respondent California State Lands Commission.
Robert E. Shannon, City Attorney, James McCabe, Deputy City Attorney; Rutan & Tucker, M. Katherine Jenson, and Robert S. Bower for Defendant and Respondent City of Long Beach.
Radcliff Dongell Lawrence, Richard A. Dongell, John A. Lawrence, Los Angeles, and Christopher T. Johnson for Real Party in Interest and Respondent.
Respondents California State Lands Commission (Commission) and City of Long Beach (City) entered into a land exchange agreement to transfer three acres of tidelands in Long Beach protected by the public trust doctrine (the Queensway Bay parcels) out of the public trust in exchange for 10 acres along the Los Angeles River, which would then become public trust land. The transfer would enable the City and the real party in interest developer, Developers Diversified Realty (Developer), to move ahead with the Queensway Bay Development Plan (Development Plan), which would entail construction of a large entertainment and retail complex on the waterfront.
Plaintiff California Earth Corps (Earth Corps) filed a petition for writ of mandate, claiming the Commission's approval of the exchange violated Public Resources Code section 6307 and article X, sections 3 and 4 of the California Constitution.1 Earth Corps also argued the exchange did not fall within a statutory exemption from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) (§ 21000 et seq.) relied on by the Commission.
Following a court trial, the court denied the petition. Earth Corps appeals, arguing: (1) the exchange violated both the public trust doctrine and the California Constitution, (2) the exchange violated section 6307, and (3) the exchange was not exempt from CEQA. As a threshold matter, Earth Corps argues we must review the Commission's actions under an independent judgment standard of review. The League for Coastal Protection; Save Our NTC, Inc.; the Natural Resources Defense Council; and the Surfrider Foundation joined together in filing an amici curiae brief in support of Earth Corps. We find the Commission's approval of the exchange not supported by the evidence. Therefore, we reverse the trial court's judgment and grant Earth Corps's petition for writ of mandate.
The public trust doctrine, which evolved from Roman law and English common law, holds that the state, as sovereign, owns all of the navigable waterways and the lands lying beneath them "`"as trustee of a public trust for the benefit of the people."'" (National Audubon Society v. Superior Court (1983) 33 Cal.3d 419, 434, 189 Cal.Rptr. 346, 658 P.2d 709 (National Audubon), quoting Colberg, Inc. v. State of California ex rel. Dept. Pub. Wks. (1967) 67 Cal.2d 408, 416, 62 Cal.Rptr. 401, 432 P.2d 3.) Though the rule applies generally to all navigable waters, it had its first application to tidelands. (See generally Martin et al. v. The Lessee of Waddell (1842) 41 U.S. (16 Pet.) 367, 410, 10 L.Ed. 997, 1013; Illinois Central Railroad Co. v. Illinois (1892) 146 U.S. 387, 13 S.Ct. 110, 36 L.Ed. 1018.) As related to tidelands, the doctrine is codified in article X, section 3 of the California Constitution: "All tidelands within two miles of any incorporated city, city and county, or town in this State, and fronting on the water of any harbor, estuary, bay, or inlet used for the purposes of navigation, shall be withheld from grant or sale to private persons, partnerships, or corporations...."
Article X, section 4 of the California Constitution states: "No individual, partnership, or corporation, claiming or possessing the frontage or tidal lands of a harbor, bay, inlet, estuary, or other navigable water in this State, shall be permitted to exclude the right of way to such water whenever it is required for any public purpose, nor to destroy or obstruct the free navigation of such water; and the Legislature shall enact such laws as will give the most liberal construction to this provision, so that access to the navigable waters of this State shall be always attainable for the people thereof."
Over 70 conveyances of public trust lands have been made from the state to local agencies. In 1911 the state transferred to the City the state's interest in the tide and submerged lands within the then-existing boundaries of the City, including the Queensway Bay parcels, in trust for the public. The 1911 grant reads, in pertinent part: "[t]hat said lands shall be used by said city and by its successors, solely for the establishment, improvement and conduct of a harbor, and for the construction, maintenance and operation thereon of wharves, docks, piers, slips, quays, and other utilities, structures and appliances necessary or convenient for the promotion and accommodation of commerce and navigation...." (Stats.1911, ch. 676, § 1, p. 1305.)
In 1925 the Legislature amended the 1911 transfer of tidelands to add several additional purposes, providing that "none of the lands shall be used or devoted to any purposes other than public park, parkway, highway, [or] playground...." (Stats. 1925, ch. 102, § 1, p. 235.)
The Legislature granted to the Commission the state's residual authority over tidelands granted in trust to local governments. (§ 6301.) This residual authority includes acting as overseer of the activities of the tidelands trustees to ensure that they administer their tidelands grants in conformity with the terms of the grants and the common law public trust for commerce, navigation, and fisheries. (State of California ex rel. State Lands Com. v. County of Orange (1982) 134 Cal. App.3d 20, 184 Cal.Rptr. 423.) The trust grantee has primary authority over how its trust lands are administered and the right to select among competing trust uses for a particular trust parcel. The Commission has no approval authority or veto power over a grantee's selection of a particular trust use. The Legislature has the power to amend the trust grant to dictate a particular trust use at a particular trust site. (County of Orange v. Heim (1973) 30 Cal App.3d 694, 707-708, 106 Cal.Rptr. 825 (Heim ).)
As part of the City's efforts to develop its port, much of the tidelands area was filled and reclaimed. The area now encompassing the Queensway Bay parcels was a public resort area known as the Long Beach Pike. In 1920 the City began filling the tidelands near downtown, building a municipal auditorium on the beach. In the 1950's the City filled more tidelands to construct the Rainbow Pier. During this project, the Queensway Bay parcels were filled in.
In the 1960's the City filled in another 113 acres of the downtown waterfront as part of a waterfront development project. This filling moved the shoreline southward, separating the downtown area from the waterfront. Despite the City's efforts, the area remained largely vacant until the advent of the Queensway Bay development project. The City's local coastal program calls for a "new downtown marina and marina green, hotels and shops, and a new elevated pedestrian promenade to link downtown to the waterfront."
In order to revitalize the area as a major waterfront attraction, the City convened a citizens advisory committee, which met 25 times over two years. With the advisory committee's input, the City devised the Development Plan to rejuvenate the moribund waterfront. The Development Plan consisted of two phases and included a 319-acre portion of the tidelands.
An environmental impact report (EIR), certified in 1995, analyzed the proposed Development Plan. Changes in the Development Plan underwent subsequent environmental review in 1996 and 1998, resulting in an addendum to the EIR and a mitigated negative declaration. In 1995 the California Coastal Commission approved an amendment to the local coastal program authorizing the Development Plan and issued a permit for phase II in 2001.2
Phase I of the Development Plan consisted of 301 acres and was completed in 1998. Phase I included construction of the Aquarium of the Pacific, and a new commercial harbor with dinner cruises, whale-watching vessels, an events park, and a boat launch. Phase I also included retaining the Queen Mary, docked within the Development Plan area.
Phase II of the Development Plan, at issue in the present case, consists of the construction by a private developer of a complex with restaurant, retail, and entertainment uses on 18 acres. Phase II also seeks to make the shoreline more accessible to the public by constructing a pedestrian walkway over the six-lane Shoreline Drive expressway, eliminating it as an impediment to waterfront access.
As noted, the Queensway Bay parcels are situated on land that was filled and covered with asphalt over 45 years ago. The parcels lie 550 feet from the water at the closest point and are separated from the water by the Shoreline Drive expressway.
As part of phase II, the City approved a large-format cinema, a bookstore, a day spa, and a Cost Plus World Market on the Queensway Bay parcels. These approved...
To continue reading
Request your trial