Caseflicks

California Court of Appeal • 2002

Johnston v. Sonoma County Agricultural Preservation & Open Space District

100 Cal. App. 4th 973 | 2002 Daily Journal DAR 8645 | 2002 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 6916 | 123 Cal. Rptr. 2d 226 | 2002 Cal. App. LEXIS 4465

Full access

Unlock the video and quiz

The written brief is free to read below. Subscribe to watch the video explainer and take the quiz.

Create an account Log in

Takeaway

In short, this case holds that open-space conveyance restrictions do not bar a negotiated easement transfer when a public agency credibly will condemn the property if negotiations fail; in that setting, eminent-domain law permits a public-benefiting settlement in lieu of litigation.

Background

The Sonoma County Agricultural Preservation and Open Space District held a “Forever Wild” conservation easement over the National Audubon Society’s 1,400-acre Mayacamas Mountain Sanctuary. The easement restricted uses that would impair the property’s open-space, scenic, and natural values, although it expressly recognized that other public entities could condemn the property.

The City of Santa Rosa planned the Geysers Recharge Project, which would carry reclaimed wastewater through an underground pipeline to the Geysers geothermal area. After environmental review and settlement of Audubon’s CEQA lawsuit, the City selected a route crossing part of the Sanctuary. The City and Audubon agreed to a utility easement for the pipeline, mitigation measures, and payments to support Sanctuary management. The City repeatedly stated that it would acquire the needed interests through eminent domain if negotiations failed.

The District concluded that the pipeline easement was inconsistent with the Forever Wild easement, but approved it as a transfer in lieu of condemnation. In exchange, the City agreed to additional on-site mitigation and to grant conservation easements over roughly 1,400 acres of nearby City land; Audubon agreed to devote about $1.3 million in settlement funds to the Sanctuary’s preservation and restoration. Johnston petitioned for a writ of mandate, arguing that Public Resources Code section 5540 required voter or legislative approval before the District could approve the conveyance. The superior court denied the petition, finding that the transfer was governed by eminent-domain law rather than section 5540 and was supported by substantial evidence.

Issues

Issue #1

Whether Public Resources Code section 5540 required voter or legislative approval before the District could approve the utility easement across land protected for open-space purposes.

Holding

No. Section 5540 governs voluntary conveyances of open-space property, not an involuntary conveyance made in lieu of a credible and imminent exercise of eminent domain.

Reasoning

Section 5540 sharply limits an open-space district’s voluntary power to convey property dedicated to open-space use. But the statutory scheme does not purport to eliminate the separate power of public entities to condemn open-space property. The eminent-domain statutes expressly permit condemnation of property already devoted to a public use when the proposed use is more necessary, subject to a rebuttable presumption favoring open-space use.

The court harmonized the two statutory schemes rather than treating them as conflicting. The Public Resources Code regulates voluntary transfers by open-space districts, while the Code of Civil Procedure governs involuntary transfers through eminent domain. Both schemes protect open-space land through a rebuttable presumption that open space is the best and most necessary public use, but neither makes that protection absolute.

Formal condemnation litigation was not required before eminent-domain principles could apply. A transfer is in lieu of condemnation when the condemning agency has made a definite and unequivocal manifestation that it is prepared to condemn and will do so if necessary. Treating every negotiated acquisition as voluntary merely because a complaint has not yet been filed would undermine the legal preference for good-faith negotiation before condemnation.

Issue #2

Whether substantial evidence supported the District’s determination that the conveyance was genuinely in lieu of condemnation and that a negotiated resolution was proper.

Holding

Yes. The City’s demonstrated intent to condemn, the evidence that its wastewater project was the more necessary public use, and the substantial benefits obtained by the District supported the approval.

Reasoning

The City did more than make a vague or strategic threat. It consistently announced that it would acquire every interest necessary to complete the 40-mile pipeline project, negotiated with scores of affected owners, and filed condemnation actions against owners with whom it could not reach agreement. Those words and actions established that condemnation of the Sanctuary easement was the likely result if negotiations failed.

The District reasonably concluded that the statutory presumption favoring open-space use could be rebutted in a condemnation proceeding. The project was designed to bring the City into compliance with federal and state water-pollution laws, divert wastewater from local waterways, and support geothermal electricity production. The record also showed that the underground route and mitigation measures would limit the harm to the Sanctuary.

The District was entitled to negotiate rather than force the matter into litigation. Its settlement secured benefits beyond the just-compensation award available in a condemnation action: enhanced on-site mitigation, conservation easements over approximately 1,400 nearby acres, and Audubon’s commitment to spend $1.3 million on the Sanctuary’s restoration and preservation. The court therefore found the District’s decision neither arbitrary nor unsupported by evidence.