Christensen v. City of Loma Linda
Filed 6/15/06 Christensen v. City of Loma Linda CA4/2
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
California Rules of Court, rule 977(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 977(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION TWO
| NOEL CHRISTENSEN et al., Plaintiffs and Respondents, v. CITY OF LOMA LINDA et al., Defendants and Appellants; SAN BERNARDINO ASSOCIATED GOVERNMENTS et al., Real Parties in Interest and Respondents. | E038109 (Super.Ct.No. SCV 106980) OPINION |
APPEAL from the Superior Court of San Bernardino County. John P. Wade, Judge. Reversed.
Best Best & Krieger, Michelle Ouellette, Anthony L. Beaumon; Robbins and Holdaway and Richard E. Holdaway for Defendants and Appellants.
Law Office of James DeAguilera and James DeAguilera for Plaintiffs and Respondents.
1. Introduction
In this puzzling case, plaintiffs argue that the City Council for Loma Linda approved a reservation of a right-of-way for California Street between Barton Road and Redlands Boulevard without complying with CEQA[1] requirements for environmental review. Loma Linda maintains that it did not approve a reservation of a right-of-way. Instead, it authorized further investigation regarding whether a reservation of a right-of-way should be approved. The trial court agreed with plaintiffs and granted a peremptory writ of mandate ordering the City to set aside its action approving the reservation of a right-of-way. The City appeals, arguing it never approved the reservation of a right-of-way.
From the appellate vantage point, the petition below and the subsequent appeal seem to be much ado about nothing as both sides agree either there was not or could not have been actual approval of the reservation of a right-of-way. Although it is not the basis for our decision, we acknowledge that the City claims it corrected any inadvertent error by clarifying that it meant only to authorize further investigation of the reservation of the right-of-way. To the extent the trial court ordered the City to set aside the approval of the reservation of a right-of-way, the City withdrew any such approval before the petition was decided. Therefore, there seems to be nothing for the City to do to comply with the court's order. The case may be moot. But, because this court is not able to anticipate all the possible ramifications, we will consider the appeal as narrowly as possible.
We decide the City council did not approve a reservation of right-of-way for California Street in April. We reverse the judgment.
2. Factual and Procedural Background
The counties of Riverside and San Bernardino were engaged in ongoing planning for the Bi-County Corridor Project between Moreno Valley and Loma Linda.
On April 8, 2003, the Loma Linda City Council agenda included item No. 26 as new business: â€
