Rink v. City of Cupertino

216 Cal. App. 3d 1362, 265 Cal. Rptr. 404, 1989 Cal. App. LEXIS 1328
CourtCalifornia Court of Appeal
DecidedDecember 27, 1989
DocketH004515
StatusPublished
Cited by2 cases

This text of 216 Cal. App. 3d 1362 (Rink v. City of Cupertino) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering California Court of Appeal primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Rink v. City of Cupertino, 216 Cal. App. 3d 1362, 265 Cal. Rptr. 404, 1989 Cal. App. LEXIS 1328 (Cal. Ct. App. 1989).

Opinion

Opinion

PREMO, J.

Plaintiffs Victor Rink, Leo Bianchi, Helen Bianchi, Peter S. Bianchi, Marcia Bianchi, and Laura Bianchi appeal from a judgment in *1365 favor of defendant City of Cupertino (hereafter, the City). The City cross-appeals that portion of the judgment which denies its request for attorney fees and costs. We affirm in both appeals.

Facts

Plaintiffs, who are members of the same family, are the owners of residential lots in an area called Inspiration Heights in the City of Cupertino. Certain roadways abut these lots. Plaintiffs claim that these roadways are city streets within the meaning of Streets and Highways Code section 1805, and thus the City is under duty not only to maintain them but also to improve them to the standards applicable to subdivisions.

The subject roadways are actually dirt trails traversing over steep slopes and through canyons. They were drawn into a 1917 subdivision map filed with the County of Santa Clara (hereafter, the County) and opened without taking into account the topography of the area. The subdivision map contains a notation that the roads were not dedicated to public use.

On July 5, 1946, Thomas Gaily and Melvin Mensor executed a quitclaim deed in favor of the County in which they transferred their interest in the roadways to the County “for use as a public road and highway.” The County accepted the quitclaim deed by formal resolution of its board of supervisors.

In 1968, plaintiffs purchased Inspiration Heights. In 1976, Inspiration Heights remained within the jurisdiction of the County but under the City’s “Sphere of Influence.” In 1980, the City annexed Inspiration Heights pursuant to the provisions of the Municipal Reorganization Act.

In June 1986, plaintiffs wrote to the City, formally demanding that the City “improv[e] the streets to a safe and usable condition under applicable subdivision requirements . . . .” When the City rejected plaintiffs’ claim, plaintiffs brought this suit.

The City’s motion for summary judgment was granted, but its request for attorney fees and costs was denied.

Discussion

Plaintiffs raise a number of arguments, all of which, stripped of excess verbiage, boil down to one decisive issue: Does Streets and Highways Code section 1806 control this case? We hold it does.

*1366 Streets and Highways Code section 1806 1 provides: “No public or private street or road shall become a city street or road until and unless the governing body, by resolution, has caused said street or road to be accepted into the city street system; nor shall any city be held liable for failure to maintain any road unless and until it has been accepted into the city street system by resolution of the governing body.”

Plaintiffs contend that section 1806, which was enacted into law in 1957, does not apply because the subject roadways were dedicated and accepted for public use as county highways in 1946, which was 11 years prior to the passage of section 1806. Plaintiffs argue that section 1806 cannot be applied retroactively.

Plaintiffs contend as follows:

1. Although the 1917 subdivision map did not dedicate the subject roadways for public use, there was a dedication in 1946 when Thomas Gaily and Melvin Mensor quitclaimed in writing their interest therein to the County “for use as a public road and highway” and the County accepted the quitclaim deed by formal resolution of its board of supervisors.
2. Hence, when the City annexed Inspiration Heights in 1980, the roads automatically became city streets, pursuant to section 989, which reads: “Except as otherwise specifically provided in this code upon the incorporation of a city or upon the annexation of territory to a city, all right, title and interest of the county, including the underlying fee where owned by the county, in and to any county highway with the territory involved, shall vest in the city and shall thereupon constitute a city street, [fl] All right, title and interest of the county in and to any county highway included within territory heretofore incorporated as a city or annexed to a city is hereby determined to have vested in such city as a city street. For the purpose of this section ‘county highway’ shall have the meaning ascribed to that term by Section 960.5.”
3. Since the roadways became city streets by the fact of annexation, the City was under a duty to maintain and improve them to applicable subdivision standards. The record does not show what those standards are, but they cannot be below the statutory requirement of section 1805, that “[t]he width of all city streets, except state highways, bridges, alleys, and trails, shall be at least 40 feet . . . .”
4. Because the City refused plaintiffs’ written demand to maintain and improve the roadways “to a safe and usable condition under applicable subdivision requirements,” plaintiffs suffered damage.
*1367 5. The City is liable for the resulting damage under theories of nuisance, inverse condemnation, and violation of their rights under the Federal Civil Rights Act. 2

Plaintiffs’ argument totally ignores the import of section 1806. Under section 1806, the City is immune from liability for failure to maintain any road that has not been accepted into the city street system by resolution of its governing body. Here, it is not disputed that the City’s governing body has not accepted the subject roadways into its city street system.

Plaintiffs contend, however, that section 1806 cannot be applied retroactively; that what should be applied are the statutory and common law rules as they existed in 1946 when the County accepted the quitclaim deed; that under these common law rules, the quitclaim deed was a valid dedication and the acceptance thereof by the County operated to make the roadways county highways (Watson v. Greely (1924) 69 Cal.App. 643, 649 [232 P. 475]), and hence, the City has a duty to maintain them since they became city streets upon their annexation. The contention is without merit.

We do not see the issue as one of retroactive application of section 1806. Rather, the issue is whether the City lost its immunity under section 1806 by annexing the subject roadways. At the time the City annexed Inspiration Heights in 1980, section 1806 was already the governing law. Under that law, the City had the right to accept any roadway into its city street system. The power to accept implies the power to reject. The City’s power of choice was not nullified by the historical account of how the roadways became county highways. Therefore, the fact that the roadways were dedicated and accepted as county highways prior to the annexation is immaterial.

Acceptance into the street system must be by formal resolution of the governing body. Section 1806 does not permit acceptance by implication or by any of the common law methods sanctioned by courts in earlier times. The cases of Union Transp. Co.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Kobzoff v. Los Angeles County Harbor/UCLA Medical Center
968 P.2d 514 (California Supreme Court, 1998)
Re-Open Rambla, Inc. v. Board of Supervisors
39 Cal. App. 4th 1499 (California Court of Appeal, 1995)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
216 Cal. App. 3d 1362, 265 Cal. Rptr. 404, 1989 Cal. App. LEXIS 1328, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rink-v-city-of-cupertino-calctapp-1989.