Neilson v. City of California City

• Citation: 146 Cal.App.4th 633,53 Cal.Rptr.3d 143
• Decision Date: 09 January 2007
• Docket Number: No. F049143.,F049143.
• Court: California Court of Appeals
• Parties: N.L. NEILSON, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. CITY OF CALIFORNIA CITY et al., Defendants and Respondents. Association for Legal Desert Development et al., Plaintiffs and Appellants, v. City of California City et al., Defendants and Respondents.

53 Cal.Rptr.3d 143

146 Cal.App.4th 633

N.L. NEILSON, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. CITY OF CALIFORNIA CITY et al., Defendants and Respondents. Association for Legal Desert Development et al., Plaintiffs and Appellants, v. City of California City et al., Defendants and Respondents.

No. F049143.

Court of Appeal, Fifth District.

January 9, 2007.

Kane, Ballmer & Berkman, Murray O. Kane, June Ailin, Los Angeles, and Donald P. Johnson for Plaintiffs and Appellants.

Motschiedler, Michaelides & Wishon and C. William Brewer, Fresno, for Won Gin Ng and Rose Ng as Amici Curiae on behalf of Plaintiffs and Appellants.

Bill Lockyer, Attorney General, Tom Greene, Chief Assistant Attorney General,

J. Matthew Rodriguez, Assistant Attorney General, and Daniel L. Siegel, Deputy Attorney General for Bill Lockyer, Attorney General of the State of California as Amicus Curiae on behalf of Plaintiffs and Appellants.

Bernard C. Barmann, Sr., County Counsel (Kern), and Stephen D. Schuett, Assistant County Counsel, for County of Kern as Amicus Curiae on behalf of Plaintiffs and Appellants.

Price, Postel & Parma, Todd A. Amspoker, Mark S. Manion, Santa Barbara; Kuhs & Parker, Robert G. Kuhs, Bakersfield; and R. Bruce Tepper for Defendants and Respondents.

OPINION,

DAWSON, J.

Appellants challenged the validity of redevelopment plan amendments adopted by respondents City of California City (City) and City of California City Redevelopment Agency (Redevelopment Agency) that resulted in the building of an automobile test track facility on desert land. Appellants claim Redevelopment Agency erroneously determined that the 24.4 square miles of vacant land added to the redevelopment area was urbanized and blighted within the meaning of California's Community Redevelopment Law (CRL) (Health & Saf. Code, § 33000 et seq.).¹ As a result, appellants contend, the land was improperly included in the redevelopment area.

Redevelopment Agency found the land was urbanized and blighted based on "[t]he existence of subdivided lots of irregular form and shape and inadequate size for proper usefulness and development that are in multiple ownership." (§ 33031, subd (a)(4).)² Appellants contend that Redevelopment Agency misconstrued and misapplied the statutory terms "irregular form and shape" and "inadequate size." Specifically, appellants argue that the statutory conditions concerning a lot's "irregular form and shape" and its "inadequate size" cannot both be satisfied by the lot's lack of access to a right-of-way. Thus, the primary issues addressed in this opinion are questions of statutory construction.

We conclude that Redevelopment Agency interpreted the statute erroneously when it found that the lack of legal and physical access to a right-of-way meant the subject lots were of irregular form and shape. Such an interpretation does not reflect the usual and ordinary meaning of the words used in the statute. For instance, providing access to a lot would not, in the ordinary sense of the words, change the "form and shape" of the lot. Because Redevelopment Agency's findings were based on an incorrect interpretation of the statute, its approval of the redevelopment plan is invalid. Judgment is reversed.

FACTS AND PROCEEDINGS

This appeal involves two cases that were consolidated for trial by the superior court. In Neilson v. City of California City et al, Kern Superior Court case No. 248874 (Case No. 248874),³ N.L. Neilson brought a reverse validation action⁴ pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 860 et seq. challenging the second amendment to the California City Redevelopment Plan (hereafter Second Amendment) adopted by Redevelopment Agency on October 29, 2002. Case No. 248874 was filed on December 11,2002.

In Association for Legal Desert Development et al. v. City of California City et al, Kern Superior Court case No. 251026 (Case No. 251026), the plaintiffs filed a second reverse validation action and challenged the validity of the third amendment to the California City Redevelopment Plan (hereafter Third Amendment) adopted by Redevelopment Agency on July 17, 2003. Case No. 251026 was filed in August 2003.

A 24-volume administrative record was filed in the consolidated action on November 4, 2004. The administrative record contains 249 documents totaling 5,633 pages and is accompanied by a certification of administrative record signed by the City Clerk for City, who was also the secretary for Redevelopment Agency.⁵

Project & Chronology

In January 2002, Hyundai America Technical Center, Inc. (Hyundai) and City entered a memorandum of understanding so that Hyundai could evaluate the acquisition and development of vacant land for the purpose of building an automobile test track. Because some of the land was outside the city limits, City was to apply to annex the land where the test track would be built.

In June 2002, Hyundai and City entered a memorandum of agreement regarding the proposed test track facility.

In July 2002, a draft environmental impact report (EIR) was issued that stated the proposed project had four components:

"(1) the expansion of the existing City redevelopment area; (2) the detachment of three disjunct parcels of land from the City into the unincorporated area of the County; (3) the annexation of land from the unincorporated area of the County into the corporate boundaries of the City; and (4) the construction and operation of an automotive test course within the land to be annexed into California City's corporate boundaries."

The draft EIR states the proposed expansion of the existing redevelopment area was to include 8,168 acres (approximately 12.8 square miles) located within City's boundaries and 7,466 acres (approximately 11.7 square miles) located in Kern County (County). The redevelopment area would be expanded to City's western boundary, which is formed by State Highway 14. The land use regulations and zoning districts for the County land added to the redevelopment area were to be changed to be comparable to City's designations, except for the areas proposed for the test track facility.

The area to be detached from City consisted of three separate areas totaling 18,440 acres (approximately 28.8 square miles). The largest area to be detached consisted of 12,450 acres along the northern edge of City in its northeast corner.

The area to be annexed by City consisted of 18,778 acres (approximately 29.3 square miles) of vacant land located in the unincorporated area of Kern County. The annexation area was located on the southwest side of City and would extend City's boundaries far enough south to reach State Highway 58.

As proposed in the draft EIR, the test course facility involved the development of 4,340 acres (approximately 6.78 square miles) of vacant desert land. The facility would test prototype and production type vehicles and would have a year-round staff of approximately 35 to 40 employees that could reach a peak of 50 to 65 employees during a one-month peak period of hot weather testing during the summer.

The proposed facilities included a sixmile oval course, a loop track, a two- to three-mile winding track located inside the oval course, a vehicle dynamics area,⁶ paved hill roads, a 24,000 square-foot support building, a 50-space parking lot, a fuel storage area, and a car wash. Approximately 100 acres of the site would be reserved for future development. The facility would be connected to State Highway 58 by an access road approximately two miles long. Also, a water line approximately two miles long would be built straight west from an existing tie point. That water line would reach the northeast corner of the site of the test track facility and would follow the Joshua Boulevard alignment, then an unimproved dirt road.

Redevelopment Agency retained the consulting firm of Katz Hollis to prepare a report to the City Council on the Second Amendment. Katz Hollis finalized the report in October 2002. The report concluded that the area to be added to the redevelopment area was a blighted area because it was "characterized by lots of irregular form and shape and/or inadequate size for their intended use and lots that are not accessible from public rights-of-way connected to the network of rights-of-way providing circulation and utilities in the City." After quoting four dictionary definitions of "irregular," the report stated:

"In the case of properties comprising the Second Amendment Area the `law', `general rule', `standard', `custom' or `pattern' that renders most parcels in the Second Amendment Area irregular is the requirement that development may not occur on a parcel of land that does not have legal and physical access to a public right-of-way____ [¶] As applied to the properties of the Second Amendment Area, irregular refers to the lack of legal and physical access resulting from the subdivision pattern of the parcels."⁷

The report also described the process used to identify the lots that met the definition used for "irregular form and shape": "The identification of lots of irregular form and shape conducted for purposes of this Report was done through a review of Kern County Assessor records and review of parcel maps filed within the Second Amendment Area. All rights-of-way shown on the Assessor's maps and on the parcel maps were noted and all parcels having access to these rights-of-way were designated `regular' parcels. Next, using Assessor tax roll information, all property owners of more than one parcel of land in the Second Amendment Area were identified. Where such common ownership involved one or more parcels that abutted a `regular' parcel, the abutting parcel(s) was also designated `regular'. Thus, the parcels remaining, the irregular parcels, are those that do not have access to a public right-of-way neither directly nor by reason of having common ownership with an adjacent parcel with access to a public right-of-way."⁸

On October 29,2002, the Second Amendment was adopted,...