City of Long Beach v. Mansell

Decision Date09 November 1970
Citation91 Cal.Rptr. 23,3 Cal.3d 462,476 P.2d 423
CourtCalifornia Supreme Court
Parties, 476 P.2d 423 CITY OF LONG BEACH, Petitioner, v. John R. MANSELL, as City Manager, etc., et al., Respondents; The STATE of California et al., Real Parties in Interest. L.A. 29700.

Leonard Putnam, City Atty., and Kenneth K. Williams, Deputy City Atty., for petitioner.

Keatinge & Sterling, Richard H. Keatinge, John R. McDonough and Richard N. Bates, Los Angeles, for respondents.

Thomas C. Lynch, Atty. Gen., Jay L. Shavelson, Asst. Atty. Gen., N. Gregory Taylor, Deputy Atty. Gen., John D. Maharg, County Counsel (Los Angeles), Edward A. Nugent, Deputy County Counsel, O'Melveny & Myers, Pierce Works, Thomas J. Ready, Overton, Lyman & Prince, Edmond R. Davis, Los Angeles, Ball, Hunt, Hart & Brown, Clark Heggeness and Joseph A. Ball, Long Beach, for real parties in interest.

SULLIVAN, Justice.

The City of Long Beach, invoking our original jurisdiction (Cal.Const., art. VI, § 10), 1 seeks a peremptory writ of mandate commanding its city manager and city clerk to execute and put into effect certain agreements designed to resolve title and boundary problems in the Alamitos Bay area.

Alamitos Bay is located immediately north of the point where the southerly boundary of Los Angeles County meets the Pacific Ocean; it forms the mouth of the San Gabriel River. The dry land presently fronting upon the bay lies within the city limits of Long Beach and has been highly developed over the years by both private parties and public agencies; the area now comprises one of the most attractive marina-complexes in the state. Unfortunately, a combination of factors which we describe Infra, has cast a cloud on the title to this land to such an extent that according to the parties hereto the normal procedure of removing such a cloud, by an action to quiet title, is of no practical value.

The alternate solution undertaken in this case was a legislative act disclaiming state and other public interest in certain described lands and in certain other lands to be designated in the future, and authorizing the settlement of certain boundary questions. After several years of arduous negotiating two agreements were completed which purport to carry out the purposes of the legislation. However, the City Manager and City Clerk of Long Beach have refused to perform ministerial duties necessary to the carrying out of these agreements on the ground that they and the legislation authorizing them are in violation of constitutional and common law prohibitions against the alienation of state-owned tidelands and submerged lands. In the instant proceeding the city seeks a writ of mandate compelling the indicated city officers to perform their ministerial duties in respect to the agreements. 2

The parties 3 have entered into an agreed statement of facts which incorporates a volume of maps and photographs as exhibits. All parties have filed briefs in this court.

I. Historical Summary

A short historical survey is necessary to an understanding of the issue in this case. The following represents a summary of material contained in the agreed statement of facts.

A. Rancho Los Alamitos Title and Boundary Problems

Rancho Los Alamitos, which included the whole area here in question, was created by grant of the Spanish governor in 1784 which was confirmed by decree of the Mexican government in 1833. A claim to the rancho filed with the United States Board of Land Commissioners was confirmed by that body and by the United States District Court for the Southern District of California in 1857. Following the 1857 confirmation a government survey of the claim was made and the description emanating therefrom attempted, by reference to natural objects, to accurately delineate the bay and ocean boundaries along the then existing high tide line. However, the United States Surveyor General considered that this detailed description involved too many courses; the survey as finally approved in 1861 and 1874 reduced the number of courses and operated to exclude from the claim certain portions above the then high water mark.

Prior to the turn of the century the rancho lands bordering the bay were conveyed to members of the Bixby family and split up into various parcels which were held by members of the family and by family-owned companies. When one of these companies began to dispose of its Although the proceedings to perpetuate testimony did not result in a decree quieting title, a few months after their conclusion a tract map was filed and approved covering the long peninsula north of the mouth of the bay. That map contemplated improvements on the whole of the peninsula, although apparently a portion of the peninsula was not within the rancho grant as reflected in the government survey, and another portion of the peninsula was that allegedly added by alluvial change. The peninsula was privately improved in accordance with the map.

[476 P.2d 428] lands it became apparent that the boundaries between private lands and public tidelands and submerged lands were by no means clear. An action to perpetuate testimony was commenced in 1903 and evidence there taken showed (1) that five portions of upland which were a part of the original rancho had been omitted from the government survey because of the reduction of the [3 Cal.3d 469] number of courses; and (2) that, as a result of gradual alluvial action the mouth of the bay had moved southward during the years since the original grant.

As a result of the reduction of the number of courses in the final survey and plat of Rancho Los Alamitos, the migration southward of the mouth of Alamitos Bay and uncertainty as to the causes of such migration, 4 and other changes in the configuration of the bay which have occurred over the years, there is no agreement today among interested parties as to the original or present boundaries of the rancho and, therefore, as to the present boundaries of parcels of land whose title derives from the rancho grant.

B. Tidelands Patents Title and Boundary Problems

In 1886 two members of the Bixby family received state patents to 900 acres of tidelands within the bay. Although there is no question as to the validity of the patents, 5 their original and present boundaries are uncertain for several reasons. First, the exact locations of the two monuments used in the original 1886 patent survey are in doubt. Second, it is not now known whether the 1886 survey contemplated fast (fixed) boundary lines or meander boundary lines (i.e., lines following the ordinary high and low water marks). Third, if meander lines were intended--and the boundaries were therefore subject to alteration by accretion--it is not known whether and to what extent changes in the channels which govern low water marks have resulted from accretion rather than avulsion or the works of man. (See fn. 4, ante.)

Substantial private and public development has taken place on filled areas purporting to lie within the 1886 tideland patents. However, the present uncertainty as to the true boundaries of those patents renders all titles in the general area of the patents subject to doubt. 6

C. The Contribution of the San Gabriel River to Title and Boundary Problems

Of the many natural factors which over the years have brought about changes in the configuration of Alamitos Bay, the most significant is the San Gabriel River. Enormous quantities of sand, silt, and debris have been deposited in the bay by the river and these materials have been responsible for massive natural alterations in the configuration of the upland and channel. Some of the changes wrought by the river have been gradual and accretive; others have been sudden and avulsive due to flooding in particular years.

Perhaps the most dramatic change of the latter variety occurred in 1867--1868. Prior to that time the river had emptied into the ocean, along with the Rio Hondo and Los Angeles Rivers, at the present location of Los Angeles Harbor. But in the winter of 1867--1868, in the course of a tremendous flood, the river cut a new channel and emptied through Alamitos Bay. It has remained in that general channel ever since, with periodic overflows into the former channel, but other floods have resulted in less significant avulsive alterations in the channel.

As will appear below, the vast quantities of sand, silt, and debris deposited by the river in the bay have been utilized through dredging and filling for the creation of presently developed areas. However, even this process was insufficient to deal with constantly increasing deposits and it was not until 1954, when the Los Angeles County Flood Control District constructed jetties separating the river channel from the bay, that the problem of continued deposits was solved.

At the present time it is practically impossible to determine which of the physical changes in Alamitos Bay due to the action of the river have resulted from accretive deposits in time of normal rainfall and which have resulted from avulsive deposits made during flood periods. Moreover, it is not possible with respect to certain filled areas to determine the extent to which natural as opposed to artificial means are responsible for the fill. The parties have concluded that the resulting title and boundary problems are insoluble.

D. The Contribution of the Works of Man to Title and Boundary Problems

No attempt will be made here to offer a comprehensive discussion of the many and varied physical changes which the works of man, private and public, have wrought in the Alamitos Bay area.

As to private development, it suffices to say that very considerable dredging and filling activities over the years have operated to reclaim great areas of former tidelands, and a highly developed residential and recreational area has resulted. With one important exception, to be discussed in the next paragraph, substantially all of this activity was based upon titles purporting to...

To continue reading

Request your trial
375 cases
  • Sagaser v. McCarthy
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
    • January 2, 1986
    ...the courts. While equitable estoppel may be applied against the government where justice requires it (City of Long Beach v. Mansell (1970) 3 Cal.3d 462, 493, 91 Cal.Rptr. 23, 476 P.2d 423), four elements must be present for its application: (1) the state (or its agent) must have had knowled......
  • Alameda Cnty. Deputy Sheriff's Ass'n v. Alameda Cnty. Employees' Ret. Ass'n
    • United States
    • California Supreme Court
    • July 30, 2020
    ...government may be bound by an equitable estoppel in the same manner as a private party" ( City of Long Beach v. Mansell (1970) 3 Cal.3d 462, 496–497, 501, 91 Cal.Rptr. 23, 476 P.2d 423 ( Mansell )), but the doctrine is invoked only in "those ‘exceptional cases’ where ‘justice and right requ......
  • Alameda Cnty. Deputy Sheriff's Ass'n v. Alameda Cnty. Employees' Ret. Assn.
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
    • January 8, 2018
    ...which would result from the raising of an estoppel.’ " ( Id. at p. 240, 169 Cal.Rptr.3d 51 ; see Long Beach v. Mansell (1970) 3 Cal.3d 462, 496-497, 91 Cal.Rptr. 23, 476 P.2d 423 ( Mansell ); Driscoll v. City of Los Angeles (1967) 67 Cal.2d 297, 306, 61 Cal.Rptr. 661, 431 P.2d 245 ["doctrin......
  • Citizens for a Responsible Caltrans Decision v. Dep't of Transp.
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
    • March 24, 2020
    ...private party. ( Bertorelli v. City of Tulare (1986) 180 Cal.App.3d 432, 440, 225 Cal.Rptr. 582 ; Long Beach v. Mansell (1970) 3 Cal.3d 462, 496, 91 Cal.Rptr. 23, 476 P.2d 423 ( Long Beach ).) "[C]onduct on behalf of a public agency, which would induce a reasonably prudent person to avoid s......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
1 firm's commentaries
  • CEQA Case Report: 2021 Year in Review
    • United States
    • JD Supra United States
    • June 24, 2022
    ...any ef fect upon public interest or polic y which would result from the raising of an estoppel.” City of Long Beach v. Mansell (1970) 3 Cal.3d 462, 496–497. Here, as stated above, the Court found that Petitioner had cons tructive notice of the second NOD. T herefore, the Court held that Pet......
2 books & journal articles
  • Table of cases
    • United States
    • James Publishing Practical Law Books California Objections
    • March 29, 2023
    ...City of v. Farmers & Merchants Bank (2000) 81 Cal. App. 4th 780, 97 Cal. Rptr. 2d 140, §1:180 Long Beach, City of v. Mansell (1970) 3 Cal. 3d 462, 91 Cal. Rptr. 23, §18:30 Long, People v. (2010) 189 Cal. App. 4th 826, 117 Cal. Rptr. 3d 451, §2:190 Loop, People v. (1954) 127 Cal. App. 2d 786......
  • Alternative methods of proof
    • United States
    • James Publishing Practical Law Books California Objections
    • March 29, 2023
    ...and deliberately led another to believe a particular thing to be true and to act on that belief. City of Long Beach v. Mansell (1970) 3 Cal. 3d 462, 488-489, 91 Cal. Rptr. 23. Equitable estoppel is defensive in nature only, and operates to prevent one from taking an unfair advantage of anot......
2 provisions
  • Cal. Code Regs. Tit. 2, § 1900 Definitions
    • United States
    • California Code Of Regulations 2023 Edition Title 2. Administration Division 3. State Property Operations Chapter 1. State Lands Commission Article 1. General Provisions
    • January 1, 2023
    ...(Register 2015, No. 13).Authority: Note: Authority cited: Sections 6002, 6105, 6108, 6301, and 6501, Public Resources Code; and 3 Cal. 3d 462, 478 (tide and submerged lands). Reference: Sections 6301 and 6501, Public Resources...
  • Chapter 477, AB 418 – Tidelands and submerged lands: City and County of San Francisco: Pier 70
    • United States
    • California Session Laws
    • January 1, 2011
    ...of the conditions for terminating the public trust as set forth by the California Supreme Court in City of Long Beach v. Mansell (1970) 3 Cal.3d 462 have been met as to seawall lot 330. The Legislature further finds and declares that seawall lot 330 is not needed for any trust use for the f......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT