?t;:t \.'.t!7:.r:>:··T'rr:~~·:2,1R"'".1"?1' I' ' ~ ~- ' . • '>' '>:I ' ~~-''

\ ._,' '"" .,, '\•

.' '

~e att~c~sd Calendar Item 12 was su'bznitted: to the Connniersion f~r' :information only, ·no. action thereon be~g '.}ecessatjr.

Attachment·: Cal~n<ia:r item 12 .( 5 page, s ) ·

" ,.

'"'

' l',.,, >I',,''' ' .. -,

'>- , :

',,

.,

:tN1rOB~T~·,CA't·Ei~Afi· !~.

~2'..

STATuS OF·' MAJOR LITIGATION· ' ' - ' "'• ~ l '

The fol~ow:f:ng, information is current as. of October 13, 1971·

l. Case No. -892295 w 503.510. ~llcar· vs• Oity of· ~anta, Monica·, et al. Lo~: ·Angeles dotinty Superior Court

(An action by private v.pland owne.rs involving title to tidelands that h~ve artificially accreted. Bot~· the State Lands Commission and the Division of Beaches and Parks have interests to protect.)

Plaintiffs voltllltarily dismissed the case.

Thirty-four notices were mailed on September 24, 1971, to the property owners believed to be responsible for the encroachmer1t~ involved in this act'ion~ T,he notices informed the owners that action would be taken by the State of Californ:i.a and the City of Santa Monica if the O'Wllers failed to voluntarily remove the

' ' '

encroachments with:in sixty·days.

2. Case No·. 5 Originai in the United States Supreme Cour.t United St~tes vs. State of California

(Relating. to the location of the offshore boundaries between lands under the. paramount jurisdiction 9f the Unite0 States and lands ·Owned by the State, for such purposes a~ minerals. A Supplemental Decree was entered in this case, settling the prin­cipal controv$rsies bet"~reen the State and the United States, but reserving jurisdicti9n i~ the United ·States Supreme Court to settle any remaining controversies.)

A pr,oposed· Stipulation was received from the ·u. s. Attorney'' s Office to the effect th~t the proposed regtilations relating to the Channel +slan~s 'Natioµal·M6n1.lllleµt, including the lands withi?l one mile of Anacapa· Island .whi'ch a.ce i~ dis1mte between the State and the United· States, are withoti.t. 'prejudice to ·~ny c_laimE? o.f the State of Califoxtl-i~ under the, Submerged Lands Act, ,and that this matter may be lit~gated:.at· ~later ·~ate. S~nce the pepar.tinent ·of Fish ~nd Game, had evidenced: opposi tio~ to the prop6s~d: rules. anq. regulations, a co.PY of said agreeme11t w~s . sent to that Depa;r,tm~nt for its con¢urrence. The .Department of Fish ~nd ·Gam~ has -no-t.r. inQ,ic~t,ed th,~t :t~ har:i .n9 objectiO?l to the proposed. Sti~at:toih ·Therefore,, th~ :st:tpuiat:ton w:i;li be aigl;led and· cqp:le s· reta·ined. by the U. ·$·. and. C~lifo~ia Attorneys ·aenera~.

w 4721

> •' I >I

.,· ,l <'

.' I \ ,

',.-, • '-.1: ;;;: "·- : ~ - , ' -'

' ' • • ..... ~ ~ - : ... ' ,' ,r ~

'' ,,, ,,, ' j ~ ~ J ' .. , > ' , ,

T'J',' .,

· ·· tmrottMAirm: · 6mim~ ffamM; ::rft • .. ~· i(c·or..n.m. :~ '·~-1~',,.'" <H >* ,.,, ' •'\~A /r •;""'"*-.I':'-. .~ ...... ,: ..... "!'' "f,_~_,_ ·~~.' "'~~'' ·~~ .. •

,. ·~~·~~··~en. 157$'9,;. · .. . Wlii·tEf ·vs •. :state? of :Ca.:tiforn:tii'i ·s6ti6m1:1f courit" ·:Su -~:rit;i .court·· ., . , . . ... y ... P. ..... .. .

,_ ,.,,.. , '

(Qu:i.e,1; t+t~l: action ·against the f?tate to determine ~ prop~rty boUJ:ld~cy al9ng: the PetEr~µma R:i.veJ;,. Sonom~t doun1;y. ): ..

No ·change; i.~., Up~m Reh~aring, the C¢urt.., on· J"u:~y 15, ·1971, rendered Ju'dgme~t ·for "'che .Plaintiff..;. -a 'l;Wo ·to· ·one decis:ton.. aga~µst the, St~te:~ $1.e .Stat~. ;f'il~d its Petit:i.911 .for Rehearing in.the District ·qourt. on JuL.130, 1971. Petition for Rehe~ring wns ~rahted. Still U;nder .subtµ:i.ssion.

4. Ad Valorem Tax Litigatioi:: w 503.~46

(Various actions by oil ~ompanies to recover ad valor~m taxes. The llOtential fiscal :h1pact upon the Sf.ate of this litigation is substantially in excess- of $100·million.)

No change; i.e., On July 8, 1971, the A,ttorney General f.iled Com­plaints in .Intervention in 22 pending ad valorem· tax cases on behalf of the Statt Lande Commiss-ion. It is estimated that this litigation may affect State revenues by as much as $180 million, and it is anticipated that the lit~gation will move expeditiously. On July 15,. 1971, the Defendants, City of Long Beach and County of Los Angeles, filed a Motion for Summary .Judgment on the ground, among others, that Plaintiff, Long Beach Oil Development Company, had failed to comply with the City's ordinances relating to the filing Of claims for· refund of taxes. On August 9, 1971, the Attorney Gener~~' on behalf of the State Lands Commission, filed a Memorandum Of Points and Authori tie'.a in Opposi ti.on to the Motion for Summary Judgment, taking the position (I) tbat the Statewide provisions of the Revenue a~d Taxation Code, r~ther than the Long Beach ordinances, are the properly applicable claims provisions; anq. (2) that, ~n any event, the, City is, by wa·iver, estoppel, or .express or :i.mp+ied Eigreement, p:req;J.u,ded f:.rom raising th;is issue in the litigatiqn. It had been anticipai~ed tl'~at a .Closing }:1rief would bt? filed by Defendants on .or about. 'August 16, i971. · 'It :ts ·11ow anticipated tl1.at;, a Clos:i.ng Brief'- will be filed by tqq City anJ the CoU.rity at.a later date than previously aht~dipated.

Gas~ No. M-:t.;1:05 (formerly Case No. 4 Civil 93.lf4) in the State Superior Co~t

Co~ty ·<?f 0range, et al. vs. Heim, S~a,te of .Cali·fornia -,Re~l Party in Intere~t

(Pertit~on +qr ·Wri·t of Mandate involV.~ng the· legl).lity .. of the ·Upper Newport-. Bay Exchart,ge· approved.. bl the· Sta:te. La:r..ds 'C6n1m:t.ssion·· )·

C9mple·cion of ~he J.~epO'.'t'd· ·ryn Appe~i ~·~, ant:t~ipated within the. next. f'ew 1·taeR~,, ,~nd: c9~recti<?+1~· ·o.~t! :u9w·: ·be~:r;i,g· 'maqe in, ·t.h$ R~,porter "a ,~~ll~~tt:Pt ~· ·~:e·. ~a,, ·~~l't~c~:P~ted: :t}1~t l?~~e.fing, v.L:i.l ·connµ~n,~e ·~'thin -~~ zj.eJ:;t 's.:L:>¢bY: ·d~·~·· - · · · ·· ·

• "'- i'

'' \ - ~ r ~· t'

w 1~926

. ' '

/1'' '• ,

"I \ ' I~ ' '

0( To getei~!le- ~methf?r o~ riot. 'Tide,iai?-d- .fhµ:~V_ey ~<?. 17 is- valid:, baae·d up9~~-- Patf?nt f~o~, ·t.lfe Uove~nor of aboµt l87i.)

No change:; i .e •, ·~he ·State a11-d. t~e -San J?iego ·Unified: 'Por,t District h~v~ .·r~qeived. Appellant',s Opening. -Brief, .and are preparing Respond·-

~nta '· B~ief~ tv 1839. 24

7. -da$e Uo. ;2824 People vs! Wi~l~am Kent Estate Compapr Mar~n Countr:Su.perior Court

(Retrial of an action to abate a public. nuisance (a fence erected and mainta·'-.ned perpendicular to the sh9~eline) on the Pacific Ocean side o~ the Bolinas Lagoon Sands11i t. 1.1:he case invol ired a .judicial interpretation cf the Statutory -~'i'.\rase ''Ordinary ·High. Watei· Mark

11

.)

-No change;· i. e • , Plaintii':? filed' Nert.ice of A'l?peal and requested preparation of Clerk's and Reporte~'s Tl:'anscripts on Appeal.

8. Civil Case No. 144257 State of C6;ii:fornia vs. County of San. Mateo, .et al. San Mateo l~ounty Su:perior Court

(A declaratory relief action to determ:tne what int~rests were con­veyed in trust to the County of Sap ?.futeo by Chapter 1857, St~tute s

of 1965.)

No change; i9e., Tµe Superior Court granted the Motion of the Sierra. Club and th~ Save San Francisco Bay Association to intervene as party, subject to their 'l:jJniting the issues to those. ~~ised in the State·'s original Cbmplaint •. FUrtber developments -await comple-. tion or· factual study.

9. Civ~l dase No •. 125379 '( compa:,1ion case to No. 14!~257 above) Co~ty ·of San Mateo vs. Ideal: Cement Company, .et al.

w .503.5~9

San Mateo County.Superior Court

(In ord~r to obtain ·tiniforinity of decis:I:o:ri, the Stat~ has filed.an Answer to.the Complaint. ~i'13 action :ts a, cond~mnation matter br9ught by the County of· San ·Mateo, concerning· landf:J locate~ ".4:rthin the aforementioned sta.tutes (Ch! t857/65 }e $-ie :?ta~$- cori.t~nds t;hat eai~ lands· were g:ranted ~?l trut?'f to-- ~he .c,ounty, oJ.1 :b::. the -alterna .. t:tve;,- ·that the Coi.ln'tY recei:ved 1.m ear?elt1~nt ov~r sai4 lands in trust which pel"lnits· iiiie· douhty to ,uf?f'1 the, :subj/~.ct. ·proj?erty for· the pur .. :pose tr contemplated 'b:V the c.Qn~.~mha.tiol'). agtio~.} m'9 c~ang~-; i. e·. , ·~:~;tpµ!l.a'ti9n :i1aJ~ i)een ·a~@t?4 by ,s:;;ll: _ :pa~·tie sr_., con .... t1~-q.1µg·, ·any· ':fyl.i'tJ;ie~ _prpqeeQ400~' i).11 t~e1 ¢a ae., ll.p.t~J; tb:er~· i;;. :a· i•e:~o ... l:.it·~on 'Qf 1;~e: ·&;€laµ~~- p~e$n~ea• :J.n '.~~~te~··.ot:.Q~~if~rtl~; ,,~., ·£2..1.lA~~ ,o:r· 'San: ~Mat-€·o:i .et1.,•al•1,. · :caei~. ·Nq,~· .. %442$7' ·:({s~e; ]ig~; ·~- -~oo.veJ:~ · · "":"":"'. ~" ~. " S\.. ! "!'' , ~ !""!'"":'." - ' ,, . . - ' ,

\-,_,

' } ·'

:b6 .1 .. ·

!": ,L~ .,.·;:.: ·".·: .. ~: :--.};-: : .. l <11(,, y

~ :

"'!: .. , ... ::::.··~~T~W;'.':~.r~:·~i:::.·,\? ·~"1::c~:s .. •j}l'?~· ·: 1 •. :>.7' ,; .~ • .. "' • , ' • : ,.f• • ' ' ' ' ' ' ~ '

'°,,.,': . '• ,~ '•. :.' !/ 1 , 1 '- f , ,\ , , •r:; , - t ·,.,..' • , , • ,: ~ t , - 1, ' , ~.:'. . \',. , ," , ~, , r -. ~

. ,, • .,, I•

da~~, :N9·. .so,c· g+,Q23 g~·ti ·o~· ·:t9ng .~a.9}1. ·V.s· •. ·~4fprd., .. et, ·a.t ~· .19~~ Aflgelers: ·eoun:ty ~perior ·.Cati.rt

· and ... - ,

-C~fse No" 171042·

. ''

qity .of Long Bea\?h vs• Matthews, et al. Orange ·Cout':t.y du~erior Court (,transferred from Los Angeles

Cotin~y Superior ·Court)

... ' .

(These are trro con~emnatio~ actions .fileq by the City of Long· BeaGh to obtain· title to parcels of property lyirig betwwen Ocean £0ul~var~ in Long Be~ch and the public beach, as a part of the City's overall acquisition program to obtain substantially ~ll waterfront property in pubiic· ownership. The State. of California h~.s been named as a defendant because the seaward boundary of the affected parcels may be th~ landward boundary of sovereign lands granted by the State to the City of Long.Beach 1n tr~st.)

In the Radford c~se: No change; i.e., Matter is currently being tried. Testimony on the seaward boundary and (;xistence of a Gion easement was concluded on September 2, 1971. T.he matter has been submitted to the Court for a decision on these two ~ssues. Trial on value of the parcel being condemned by the City will resume on Novemb~~ 1, 1971.

In the Matthews case: Mo ch~nge; i.e., Trial has been continued to :&~1:bruary 28, 1972.

11. Case No. 858005 Union Pacific Railroad Company, et al. vs. City of Long Beach Los Angeles County Superior Court

(Suit attacking th~ City of Long Beach bi.lsiuess license ta.~ for oil p:roduction. That portion of the ordinance providing fC.r revenues from unitized tideland opei·at.ion.s was declared unc)nsti-tutional. ) -

Oral a:rgument is. set fer October 26, 1971.

12. Firat Appellate District, Case 'No. 24883 Cal.iforrd.a Supreme Court, Ca e;e No. SF-22566' Marks vs. Whitney

(A quiet title action b~tween two,privat~ lap~ owners, primarily copcerning the ow:i:l( '!Ship of ,a ti~eland patent on 1.romales Bay. The seaward boundary of said ti'd~land patent is the landward­~ooundary of State -s~bmerged lands. )_

N6 change; i. e ,,~t Awa-iting decision o:f' thE3 -Cf;llil'or-nia· ~supreme· ·coui't·

w 503. 534

·-'{ , ,,,

~-: ... --:>t~;;:'Yt?~tr:;·~r:~~~r?F::~'.:~::·1 ... ~1:1i·' ,,

;~_.;~{~i·~ry3{:i:~~~J;~''.T.'< _··: <;,.-" ,<~: :~;~:1:7~·1 '""ro·v(·~'"F :·-.~>'.:•\' ',!, < f, ,' /

..•• - ,, ~,"'-,1_._\ ·~-~·},I~' ';'I '\~··~~ ··.t ,, "''/"'!I"•"'"' ,, ' ,~ ' > "l :' f' - ' ,. ' , : ·~- 1

"' f

It_' ' j./ ~

'·, < ~

.~ei~~~ -~~~~:_:~~,_ 1~:! .... ".fci,~~~1 :j.,\. ~-~t?· :No. !784bi

Qo\lil:1'Y.' ;(>~ .. ·«)~a7J$e: '.V's· •. Qhanci.l~;r ·~erma~, et :t:J._1 •. ·orang~ ·qpunty:SU~erior. .court

'Y- - • • ·-

( ~~; :County bJ;'ought tl·ae agtion, on -~n i111plied dedica i;;i:On t11eory, to quiet· t:f;tl~ to .cerfi.ain· beach· proper~y ·n~~r D?-na Point.)

Mo· change; i.e., cl}.and~er Sherman filed -an Answer and Cross Com­plaint on July 1, 19,71·

14. 9ase ·No. 'M-1164 w 503.621

Sagar· vs. Coun~y of ·Orange, et al. Orange County Superior Court

(Private parties· brought an action against the County for vaca­ting a road which provided the only access to the Salt Creek Beach.)

Negotiations between Orange County and Avco Commur.ity Developers are nearly completed to settle this case. A.B. 1668, :which would confirm the agreement, i.s passing through the State Legislature with only minor amendments.

15· Case No. 1515b People vs. Vincilione, et al. (People vs. Evans, et al.) Riverside County Superior Court

(A case to quiet title and for injunctive relief concerni~ the Colorado River.)

The Demu:rr~:r to Counte1· Chdm w~s austnincr1, wJt,h t.h:i.r·ty· days

leave to amend.

16. Case N~. 3 Civil 12936 People vs. Ray Maclt, et al. Court of A~peals, Third AppFllate District

(An -a·c.tion brought by the District Attorney of Shasta County, which involves the navigability of the Fall River.)

An ,Qpinion was issued by the· Cqurt of Appeal3, upholding the lower court in tl1e State's fa:v:or. There poss:i:bly w:i.11 be a Petition for Rehearing in the Supreme Cou1·t·.

w 1839.29

w 1839.21

17.. Case .No• 94o856 W 503.586 Fede1~!f;'~ed :Mortgage Investors, et al., vs. Charles Lick, et al. Los Af,lgeles County .Superior Cour.t

'(~ a~tion be~weeti ,private parties to det.e!rmine o\~11e1"'-sh:tp. cf th~. -~:rck -Pier {Pac~f'ic Ocean- Park), -anq to determine ·the o~~~nar~ ~igh wa~er mark at. that poi~t.) :No 'cllal')~~; i ·~ N P~rks, ~nq: .. I~ecref;l~~bti: mE.l~ -~e. -~ptre r;ttecl .:i:rt,

1 ·8'.~CJ.U:~t .. ;µ.~· ~th~ "U.Pl~n9:s., . w~:tch "ro\l_ld: ·r~ so;Lve .. ~l;le: .-pro~l~!\1· -~:~ ·tP, olmet~~l,1$p ~ ''.I').'l~X'e ,.1J:$.v~.,: ~ij~ ~r~f.ler ·d:tsctlssic:mr:i 'l;l~t.w~,e;:i· :~t~te :~,,~X\~~;1: P~:i;i~.-t.? -~nl\:. ;~ ¢;"ett i:on;- c~ tr ot :I1_0~ -A?1$ele ~- a~~ ·C9l1lltt· .¢~ !.ptl ~elEu;i:.,

-- ,. ____ .. _.........._