Duncan v. Sonoma-Marin Area Rail Transit Dist.

• Docket Number: A165783
• Decision Date: 27 October 2023
• Parties: JAMES L. DUNCAN, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. SONOMA-MARIN AREA RAIL TRANSIT DISTRICT, Defendant and Respondent; CITY OF SANTA ROSA et al., Real Parties in Interest.
• Court: California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals

1

JAMES L. DUNCAN, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. SONOMA-MARIN AREA RAIL TRANSIT DISTRICT, Defendant and Respondent;

CITY OF SANTA ROSA et al., Real Parties in Interest.

A165783

California Court of Appeals, First District, Second Division

October 27, 2023

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED

Sonoma County Super. Ct. No. SCV 266092

Markman, J. ^[*]

Plaintiff James Duncan wants respondent Sonoma-Marin Area Rail Transit District (SMART) to build a pedestrian and bicycle crossing across SMART's railway at Jennings Avenue in Santa Rosa (the Crossing). Based on this belief that the City of Santa Rosa has an enforceable agreement with SMART that requires SMART to build the Crossing for $1.825 million, Duncan asserted 10 claims in his writ petition and complaint for declaratory and injunctive relief to achieve this objective. Duncan appeals from the trial court's judgment against him as a result of SMART's successful demurrer on two causes of action and its subsequent summary judgment on the remaining eight causes of action.

In summary, Duncan's first five causes of action sought declaratory relief based on an alleged agreement between SMART and Santa Rosa to build the Crossing. Duncan's sixth, ninth, and tenth causes of action sought damages and a writ of mandate that would require SMART to comply with decisions by the California Public Utilities Commission (PUC) related to the Crossing. Duncan's seventh claim sought declaratory relief that an agreement between SMART and the County of Sonoma concerning which entity would bear the cost of improvements in "quiet zones," where train horns are not routinely sounded, be declared void. The eighth cause of action sought a writ of mandate directing that SMART mitigate quiet zone noise entirely at its own expense. Duncan claims that quiet zone improvements are SMART's responsibility under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), but he says SMART has required Sonoma County to cover the costs instead and is trying to get Santa Rosa to do the same.

The trial court sustained SMART's demurrer on Duncan's sixth and tenth causes of action without leave to amend. The court later granted SMART's motion for summary judgment on the remaining causes of action.

We are not persuaded by Duncan's arguments on appeal and so we affirm the judgment in its entirety.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND^[1]

A. SMART

The Legislature established SMART in 2002 to oversee the development and implementation of passenger rail service in Sonoma and Marin Counties. In anticipation of this service SMART prepared environmental impact reports (EIR) as required by CEQA. Among other things, the EIRs identified quiet zones along the anticipated route of planned rail service as a mitigation measure to address train horn noise at grade crossings. SMART proposed supplemental safety measures-like gates-in quiet zones, known as quiet zone "improvements," to make up for the lack of horn blasts that would typically warn people not to cross in front of an oncoming train.

Pursuant to Resolution No. 2012-21, SMART's board of directors (Board) gave its general manager authorization to enter into "reimbursement agreements with cities, counties and other public entities." Such agreements would govern "cooperative work in SMART's corridor."

B. Public Utilities Commission Decision No. 16-09-002

The City Council of Santa Rosa approved the Crossing in 2012. Santa Rosa then applied to the PUC for authorization to build it.^[2] The PUC granted Santa Rosa's application in its Decision No. 16-09-002. (Application of the City of Santa Rosa (Sept. 20, 2016) Cal. P.U.C. Dec. No. 16-09-002 (Decision No. 16-09-002).) Specifically, the PUC decision granted "the City of Santa Rosa's application to construction an at-grade pedestrian and bicycle crossing across the Sonoma-Marin Area Rail Transit tracks at Jennings Avenue in Santa Rosa." While noting that the PUC disfavors new at-grade railroad crossings, it concluded that Santa Rosa "has convincingly shown that it has eliminated all potential safety hazards."

C. Reimbursement and Quiet Zone Agreements

After receiving PUC authorization for the Crossing, Santa Rosa began negotiations with SMART to build it. Santa Rosa's assistant city manager engaged in numerous back-and-forth discussions with SMART's chief engineer to design the Crossing and to hash out the terms of a proposed agreement.

On June 9, 2017, SMART's chief engineer sent an e-mail to Santa Rosa's assistant city manager that attached two documents: a "Master Reimbursement Agreement" (Reimbursement Agreement) and an "Agreement for Construction and Maintenance Safety Improvements Related to Quiet Zone" (the Santa Rosa Quiet Zone Agreement). The Reimbursement Agreement stated, among other things, that SMART contractors would construct the project and Santa Rosa would reimburse SMART in an amount not to exceed $1,825,000. The document included signature lines for SMART's general manager and Santa Rosa's city manager. The Santa Rosa Quiet Zone Agreement stated, among other things, that Santa Rosa would pay or reimburse SMART for certain costs incurred for SMART's maintenance, repair, and replacement of quiet zone improvements.

The cover e-mail read: "Enclosed for your review is what is hopefully the final version of the Jennings At-Grade Pedestrian Crossing funding agreement. This version incorporates the changes that we discussed on May 31st. It has also been reviewed by our legal counsel. I have included both a marked-up version and a clean/final version. [¶] I have also included the Quiet Zone maintenance agreement that our counsels have been preparing. Please have this executed with the Jennings agreement. [¶] The Jennings agreement will need to go to our Board. The next available meeting is June 21st. The deadline to make the Board agenda is June 14th. Please have the agreement signed and return with a letter requesting that SMART construct the crossing by COB June 14th. [¶] Please call with questions."

A week later, Santa Rosa's assistant city manager delivered a letter enclosing a copy of the Reimbursement Agreement signed by the city manager. It did not include the Santa Rosa Quiet Zone Agreement. The letter stated: "The master reimbursement agreement for the Jennings Avenue At-Grade rail crossing project has been signed by the City Manager for consideration at the June 21, 2017 SMART [Board meeting]. The City of Santa Rosa requests that SMART construct the Jennings Avenue Crossing per the conditions of the agreement. Please return a signed copy of the agreement when it is approved by the Board."

SMART's general manager never signed the Reimbursement Agreement and SMART's Board never approved it. According to Duncan, SMART's general manager "unilaterally delayed performance" of the Reimbursement Agreement by insisting Santa Rosa sign the Santa Rosa Quiet Zone Agreement.

SMART, however, did enter into an "Agreement for Maintenance of Safety Improvements Related to Quiet Zone" with Sonoma County (the Sonoma Quiet Zone Agreement). It requires, among other things, that Sonoma County "[p]ay, or reimburse SMART for, all costs incurred for SMART's maintenance, repair, and replacement of Quiet Zone Improvements" within certain county right-of-way assets.^[3]

D. SMART Board Meetings and Correspondence

SMART's passenger rail service started in August 2017, without the Crossing (which remains unbuilt). Duncan has presented evidence in this action relating to SMART [Board] meetings and correspondence from which he seeks to infer that SMART had agreed to build the Crossing under the terms set out in the Reimbursement Agreement. Specifically, SMART's Board had a meeting on September 20, 2017. According to the transcript of the meeting, SMART's chief engineer was presenting an agenda item regarding a contract for systems work on a rail extension to Larkspur. SMART's general manager then stated that this other contract would build the systems for the Jennings "contract." The Board chair responded, "Oh good ...."

In August 2018, SMART's chief engineer sent a letter to the Santa Rosa assistant city manager after a meeting regarding the Crossing. It stated that "[a]fter a year of operating experience and an extensive safety review of the area," SMART could not support Santa Rosa's proposal for the Crossing. It referenced two pedestrian fatalities, including one in Santa Rosa, as well as the striking of a cyclist and truck driver in Santa Rosa. The letter noted that the proposed Crossing was at a "double-track location," which "means trains come from both directions, at very short intervals." It stated: "As we have learned after a year of operating, the proposed safety features will not prevent a distracted pedestrian or cyclist from entering this crossing. In addition, the double-track configuration means a farther distance to travel without a refuge area, increasing the risk of a pedestrian being struck by a train."

SMART's Board had another meeting on September 19, 2018. According to the minutes of the meeting, SMART's general manager noted that the PUC had approved the Crossing, but it was a public safety concern for SMART.

E. Public Utilities Commission Decision No. 19-10-002

The PUC's original authorization for the Crossing (in Dec. No. 16-09002) was set to expire after three years. In 2019, Santa Rosa filed a petition for modification asking the PUC to extend the authorization for two more years. The PUC granted the petition in its PUC Decision No. 19-10-002. Decision No. 19-10-002 stated, among other things, that the PUC "expects that SMART shall comply with [Decision No.] 16-09-002 and cooperate in good faith with the City to reach an agreement regarding the construction of the approved crossing at Jennings Avenue."

In 2021, Santa...