67 Cal.App.5th 61
Cal. Ct. App.2021Background
- In 1951 plaintiffs’ grandparents conveyed an 80-foot-wide strip to the City & County of San Francisco for Hetch Hetchy pipelines, reserving surface rights: to "plant, cultivate, irrigate, harvest and retain crops" and "use said land for pasturage" (no trees), and to "construct, maintain, use, repair, replace, and renew, over and across (but not along in the direction of the [City’s] pipe line or lines) ... fences, roads, streets ..." with PUC approval required and no interference with pipelines.
- Two underground Hetch Hetchy pipelines run the length of the strip; since the 1960s much of the surface has been paved and used for access, circulation, and parking for adjacent commercial parcels (about 75% paved).
- In 1967 plaintiffs’ family accepted a revocable permit from the City allowing "additional parking and landscaping" for $50/month; City later sought market rent and plaintiffs sued to quiet title.
- After a prior appellate reversal of summary judgment, a bench trial produced a statement of decision finding ornamental landscaping, three paved roads, and plaintiffs’ access uses were permitted; the trial court also broadly found the paving/parking permitted.
- On appeal this panel affirmed that grass/ornamental landscaping, three identified roads, and access to Wheel Works service bays are authorized by the deed, but reversed as to plaintiffs’ extensive striped parking lot use because the deed does not authorize that level of parking.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Civil Code §1069 requires construing the deed reservations in favor of the private grantor | Pears: §1069 applies; reservations should be construed for grantors (plaintiffs) | City: reservation effectively was a grant back by a public entity and ambiguities should favor the public grantee | Held: §1069 properly applied to construe the private grantors’ reservations in plaintiffs’ favor |
| Whether the first reservation authorizes grass and ornamental landscaping | Pears: "pasturage" reasonably includes grass; modernization allows ornamental landscaping incident to agricultural reservation | City: planting grass/ornamental landscaping is not expressly conveyed or necessary to agricultural uses | Held: Grass and ornamental landscaping permitted; trees expressly prohibited |
| Whether the second reservation authorizes roads/streets (number/location) and the three existing paved roads | Pears: rights to "roads, streets" over and across allow multiple roads serving residential/commercial development contemplated in 1951 | City: the reservation remains an easement subject to directional and approval limits; cannot be broadened to commercial uses like a parking lot | Held: Three identified roads are authorized as "over and across" the strip; additional roads require PUC approval and cannot unreasonably be withheld |
| Whether the deed authorizes the current striped parking lot covering most of the strip | Pears: parking is incidental to roads/streets and allowed as a secondary right | City: parking is not an express grant, not necessary to roads, and the scale violates the directional limit ("not along in the direction") | Held: The large, permanent striped parking lot is not authorized; limited incidental/temporary parking may be permissible but scope not resolved here |
Key Cases Cited
- Butler v. City of Palos Verdes Estates, 135 Cal.App.4th 174 (2005) (deed interpretation follows contract principles)
- Camp Meeker Water System, Inc. v. Public Utilities Com., 51 Cal.3d 845 (1990) (express easement limited to interests expressed and those necessarily incident thereto; use measured by reasonable expectations at conveyance)
- Faus v. City of Los Angeles, 67 Cal.2d 350 (1967) (modernization of easement use permitted where primary objective unchanged)
- Boghos v. Certain Underwriters at Lloyd’s of London, 36 Cal.4th 495 (2005) (avoid interpretations rendering contract terms surplusage)
- Whalen v. Ruiz, 40 Cal.2d 294 (1953) (dominant and servient tenement rights and preservation of use)
- Laux v. Freed, 53 Cal.2d 512 (1960) (general grant of way construed as right of way for all reasonable purposes of dominant tenement)
- Keeler v. Haky, 160 Cal.App.2d 471 (1958) (private road easement did not authorize permanent marked parking lot as incidental use)
- Red Mountain, LLC v. Fallbrook Public Utility Dist., 143 Cal.App.4th 333 (2006) (construction of ambiguities involving public entities and easements)