Golden Gate Land Holdings LLC v. E. Bay Reg'l Park Dist.
Decision Date | 26 June 2013 |
Docket Number | A135593 |
Citation | 155 Cal.Rptr.3d 546,215 Cal.App.4th 353 |
Court | California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
Parties | GOLDEN GATE LAND HOLDINGS LLC, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. EAST BAY REGIONAL PARK DISTRICT, Defendant and Respondent. |
See 12 Witkin, Summary of Cal. Law (10th ed. 2005) Real Property, § 832 et seq.
Superior Court of Alameda County, No. RG11575462, Evelio M. Grillo, Judge.
Briscoe Ivester & Bazel, John Briscoe, David M. Ivester and William B. Most, San Francisco, for Plaintiff and Appellant.
Price, Postel & Parma and Todd A. Amspoker, Santa Barbara, for Defendant and Respondent.
Appellant Golden Gate Land Holdings LLC (Golden Gate) owns 140 acres of land straddling the border of Albany and Berkeley, on the east shore of San Francisco Bay. The site includes the Golden Gate Fields racetrack. The East Bay Regional Park District (the District) approved a resolution of necessity to condemn eight shoreline acres of Golden Gate's property to help complete the Eastshore State Park (Eastshore Park), and to construct a segment of the San Francisco Bay Trail (the Bay Trail). The District concluded that the project was exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA; Pub. Resources Code, § 21000 et seq.) 1 and posted a notice of exemption. Golden Gate petitioned the superior court for a writ of mandate seeking to vacate the District's resolution of necessity, arguing that CEQA required preparation of an environmental impact report (EIR) and that the District had violated eminent domain law.
The trial court granted the petition, but declined to direct the District to set aside its approval of the resolution of necessity. The court instead ordered the District to vacate only its CEQA exemption finding, permitting the District to leave its resolution of necessity intact and proceed with its condemnation action. Golden Gate appeals, arguing that the remedy granted by the trial court improperly allows the District to conduct after-the-fact environmental review of an already approved project. In the published portion of this opinion we address the CEQA issues, and we affirm the judgment.
The District is a regional park district formed and existing pursuant to section 5500 et seq. It is charged with developing and operating public parks in Alameda and Contra Costa counties. (See § 5541.) 2 It also has the authority to develop recreational trails and acquire land for such purposes. (§ 5541.1.) 3 The District is empowered to exercise the right of eminent domain “to take any property necessary or convenient to accomplish [such] purposes ....” (§ 5542; see also § 5540.)
In 1992, the Legislature enacted section 5003.03, which provides, in relevant part: (Italics added.)
The Bay Trail is part of this effort. It is a planned 400–mile recreational corridor intended to ultimately encircle the San Francisco and San Pablo bays, linking nine counties and 47 cities, and providing a continuous network of bicycling and hiking trails along the shoreline. The District has long planned to extend the more than 270 miles of trail already completed. The District is also working to fully establish and develop the Eastshore Park. To that end, the state and the District cooperated in preparing the “Eastshore State Park General Plan.” Acting as an agent for the state, the District has acquired and operates lands to the south and north of Golden Gate Fields. Eastshore Park currently consists of open space, walking paths, and pedestrian and bicycle trails (including the Bay Trail).
In 2003, the prior owner of Golden Gate Fields entered into a license agreement with the District allowing the public to use the property for recreational purposes. The license has since expired and has not been extended. Since then, Golden Gate has informally allowed the general public to use its property to bridge the existing gap in the Bay Trail. However, the public is exposed to dangerous traffic conditions in the Golden Gate Fields' customer parking lot, and along the main access road to the racetrack.
In 2006, in connection with the District's attempt to negotiate a voluntary acquisition of a portion of Golden Gate's property, the District contracted with Questa Engineering Corporation to prepare engineering plans and assist with preconstruction work. The concept plans, which were initially completed in 2006 and revised in 2007 and 2008, set forth three alternatives. The District obtained a cost estimate for its preferred trail design, which included demolition, installation of new retaining walls and fences, excavation, pavement restoration, installation of new pavement, and drainage improvements. However, Golden Gate refused to enter into a long-term license agreement.
In 2009, with no voluntary acquisition feasible, the District began preparing legal descriptions and plat maps for appraisal and potential condemnation proceedings. The District offered Golden Gate approximately $1,686,000 to acquire the property rights.
After the offer was not accepted, the District's Board of Directors (Board) noticed a public hearing, for April 5, 2011, to consider a resolution of necessity to authorize eminent domain proceedings.4 At the Board meeting, Assistant District Manager Nancy Wenninger explained: [¶] ...
The District's staff also issued a report that states: The report also states: “The proposed project is exempt from [CEQA] pursuant to CEQA Guidelines, Section 15325.” 5
Golden Gate objected to the proposed resolution. It asserted that the project was not exempt from CEQA and, thus, the District could not approve the project until after it reviewed and considered the environmental effects of trail construction and other improvements. Golden Gate also maintained that public necessity did not require condemnation because the public already had access to the property for recreational purposes, and because the least private injury and environmental harm would be achieved by planning this segment of the Bay Trail in conjunction with anticipated redevelopment of the property, which would also incur less public expense.
The District nonetheless approved the resolution of necessity, which was memorialized in Resolution No. 2011–4–079. The resolution provides: [¶] ... ...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Saltonstall v. City of Sacramento
... ... and Respondent; Sacramento Basketball Holdings, LLC, Real Party in Interest and Respondent ... CEQA, the City was allowed to engage in land acquisition for its preferred site before ... ( 183 Cal.Rptr.3d 909 Golden Gate Land Holdings LLC v. East Bay Regional rk Dist. (2013) 215 Cal.App.4th 353, 365, 155 ... of security at San Francisco's baseball park that even though [t]he property around the ... ...
-
Saltonstall v. City of Sacramento
... ... and Respondent; Sacramento Basketball Holdings, LLC, Real Party in Interest and Respondent ... CEQA, the City was allowed to engage in land acquisition for its preferred site before ... ( [183 Cal.Rptr.3d 909] Golden Gate Land Holdings LLC v. East Bay Regional Park Dist. (2013) 215 Cal.App.4th 353, 365, 155 ... ...
-
Defend Our Waterfront v. Cal. State Lands Comm'n
... ... Street Project, a plan to develop waterfront land near the San Francisco Ferry Building. The site ... the non-profit association Friends of Golden Gateway (FOGG), objected to the State Lands ... ( Woodward Park Homeowners Assn., Inc. v. City of Fresno (2007) ... Rancho Cal. Water Dist. (1996) 43 Cal.App.4th 425, 50 Cal.Rptr.2d 769 ( ... ( Golden Gate Land Holdings LLC v. East Bay Regional Park Dist ... ...
-
Citizens for the Restoration L Street v. City of Fresno
... ... 28 two-story townhouses on 1.29 acres of land located in the 1700 block of L Street in downtown ... [229 Cal.App.4th 363] Woodward Park Homeowners Assn. v. Garreks, Inc. (2000) 77 ... ( Ibid.; see Golden Gate Land Holdings LLC v. East Bay Regional Park Dist. (2013) 215 Cal.App.4th 353, 367, 155 ... ...
-
First District Holds Increased Enrollment-Related CEQA Challenges To UC Regents’ 2018 SEIR For Berkeley Campus Development And Minor LRDP Amendment Are Mooted By Superseding 2021 LRDP Update EIR And Passage Of SB 118
...Community v. County of Placer (2020) 54 Cal.App.5th 714, 722; Golden Gate Land Holdings LLC v. East Bay Regional Park Dist. (2013) 215 Cal.App.4th 353, 366.) Here, two events collectively rendered SBN’s challenges to the 2018 SEIR’s analysis of impacts from student enrollment increases moot......
-
California Register, 2018, Number 04. January 26, 2018
...Wild Santee v. City of Santee (2012) 210 Cal.App.4th 260; Golden Gate Land Holdings, LLC v. East Bay Regional Park Dist. (2013) 215 Cal.App.4th 353; Silverado Modjeska Recreation and Parks Dist. County of Orange (2011) 197 Cal.App.4th 282.) The proposed new section also addresses how an age......
-
Cal. Code Regs. Tit. 14, § 15234 Remand
...Wild Santee v. City of Santee (2012) 210 Cal. App. 4th 260; Golden Gate Land Holdings, LLC v. East Bay Regional Park Dist. (2013) 215 Cal. App. 4th 353; POET, LLC v. State Air Resources Board (2013) 218 Cal. App. 4th 681; and Silverado Modjeska Recreation and Parks Dist. v. County of Orange......