A Los Angeles County Superior Court Judge has ruled in favor of the city of Beverly Hills, determining that the city did not violate California’s Surplus Land Act or the Brown Act.
On July 25, the Hon. James Chalfant denied the writ petition filed by the group “Public Land for Public Use.”
The writ petition alleged that the city violated the Surplus Land Act by declaring city-owned property on Foothill Road to be surplus as defined in the Surplus Land Act. The petition also alleged that the city violated the Brown Act based on the agenda description and placement on the consent calendar for this item. Finally, the petitioner also alleged that due process rights were violated based on the agenda issues and purported lack of notice to the public.
The court concluded that as to the Surplus Land Act issue, there was no cognizable cause of action resulting from the City Council declaring city-owned land to be surplus—a first step towards, but not a final action on, any lease. In addition, even if there was a cause of action, the court found that the city’s findings to support the declaration were sufficient and that the city does not have a policy or procedure requiring public outreach prior to declaring land surplus.
On the Brown Act cause of action, the court found that the agenda item substantially complied with the Brown Act and provided enough evidence for a reader to understand the import of the matter before the City Council.
“We are very pleased with the court’s decision,” said Beverly Hills City Attorney Larry Wiener. “We have always maintained that the city handled this matter properly and that this case was without merit.”
The city is entitled to recover its costs from the petitioner.
