Golden Gate Land Holdings LLC v. East Bay Regional Park District
215 Cal. App. 4th 353
| Cal. Ct. App. | 2013Background
- East Bay Regional Park District sought to condemn about 7.76 acres of Golden Gate Fields for Eastshore Park and Bay Trail; CEQA exemption was claimed.
- District approved resolution of necessity and designated land rights (fee and a long-term easement) for trail construction, with intent to proceed by eminent domain.
- Golden Gate challenged CEQA exemption and eminent domain findings, arguing CEQA required an EIR and district abuse of discretion.
- Trial court found the project included both acquisition and improvements, held exemption was improper, but allowed eminent domain to proceed subject to CEQA compliance and non-acquisition until review completed.
- Judge recognized CEQA can be satisfied in parts under section 21168.9, permitting continued eminent domain proceedings while environmental review is completed, but not actual acquisition without CEQA compliance.
- District later certified an EIR and substituted a new resolution of necessity, but Golden Gate pursued appeal on remedy and statutory interpretations.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether CEQA exemption was appropriate for the project | Golden Gate: exemption invalid; CEQA review required before approval. | District: project exempt; acquisition part allowed prior to CEQA, or not needing EIR for open-space conveyance. | Remedy upholds severable CEQA review, but exemptions were not proper for entire project. |
| Whether the remedy allowing after-the-fact CEQA review was lawful and appropriate | Limited writ improperly preserves approval and defers review; CEQA requires pre-approval review. | Section 21168.9 authorizes tailored remedies; severable project activities can proceed while CEQA is completed. | Trial court’s limited-writ remedy valid; allowed eminent domain to proceed while CEQA review is conducted, with no actual acquisition until CEQA is satisfied. |
| Whether initiation of eminent domain could be severed from the actual acquisition for CEQA purposes | Severance not permitted; CEQA must address the entire approved project. | CEQA can address project in parts; severance allowed if conditions met. | CEQA severance permitted; initiation of eminent domain deemed severable from acquisition and construction. |
| Whether the District’s definitions of the CEQA project and the relationship to CEQA review were correct | Project defined to include trail construction; piecemealing undermines review. | Project defined as whole for CEQA purposes; avoidance of piecemealing by court’s interpretation. | Courts affirmed that counting the project in two parts for CEQA purposes is permissible under CEQA guidance; no improper piecemealing. |
Key Cases Cited
- Laurel Heights Improvement Assn. v. Regents of University of California, 47 Cal.3d 376 (Cal. 1988) (CEQA review stay may be appropriate pending proper EIR certification)
- City of Santee v. County of San Diego, 214 Cal.App.3d 1438 (Cal. App. 4th 1989) (continuing facility use pending new EIR under CEQA)
- City of Stockton v. Marina Towers LLC, 171 Cal.App.4th 93 (Cal. App. 4th 2009) (CEQA timing and land acquisition considerations for public projects)
- San Joaquin Raptor/Wildlife Rescue Center v. County of Stanislaus, 27 Cal.App.4th 713 (Cal. App. 4th 1994) (inadequate EIR and injunctive relief in development project)
- Airport Authority v. City of San Jose, 233 Cal.App.3d 577 (Cal. App. 3d 1991) (distinguishable where project wholly environmental; CEQA review required)
- Stand Tall on Principles v. Shasta Union High School Dist., 235 Cal.App.3d 772 (Cal. App. 3d 1991) (CEQA acquisition agreements conditioned on future review)
- Save Tara v. City of West Hollywood, 45 Cal.4th 116 (Cal. 2008) (analysis of conditional approvals and CEQA timing)
- Bakersfield Citizens for Local Control v. City of Bakersfield, 124 Cal.App.4th 1184 (Cal. App. 4th 2004) (remedies under CEQA; severability nuance)