Mills v. San Francisco Bay Area Rapid Transit District

California Court of Appeal Apr 30, 1968 No. Civ. 24134Published

Before: Draper

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that BART was not legally bound to locate a transit station at a specific site mentioned in a preliminary composite report because the ballot proposition and election notices provided only general authority for the project, making the station's location a matter of administrative discretion rather than a fixed contractual obligation to the voters.

Issues

Whether the location of a transit station specified in a preliminary report became an immutable requirement upon voter approval of a bond issue.
Whether the county's adoption of a traffic circulation plan for a specific station location constituted a justiciable cause of action.

Disposition. Affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“It is completely apparent that neither the ballot proposition nor the notice of election specified the location of any station, nor even required a station in or adjoining Lafayette.”

“In the wide scope of this substantial transit project, the deviation of 1% miles in location of a single station is but a minor change in the tentative plan which was relied upon only to forecast feasibility of the project as a whole.”

DRAPER, P. J.

This action for declaratory and injunctive relief seeks to compel location of the Lafayette station of defendant San Francisco Bay Area Rapid Transit District (BART) at the point specified in the ‘ ‘composite report” which preceded submission of a bond issue to the electorate, rather than at the point one and one half miles distant therefrom determined upon by the district after the bonds were voted. BART’s motion for summary judgment was granted, and demurrer of defendant County of Contra Costa was sustained without leave to amend. Plaintiffs, who sue as taxpayers of the county and district, appeal.

The county is involved only because its board of supervisors adopted a 11 traffic circulation plan” for the unincorporated area known as Lafayette contemplating the new location of the station. It is clear that no cause of action is

[668]

stated against defendant county. A county board has statutory authority to adopt a general plan (Gov. Code, §§ 65100, 65101, 65300) including a traffic circulation plan (Gov. Code, §§ 65302, subd. (b) ; 65303, subds. (c), (d) and (e)), and to establish, acquire and supervise county highways (Sts. & Hy. Code, §§ 940, 941, 943.) Such a plan for street construction and use is a legislative act. No defect in the proceedings of the county is suggested. The wisdom of the plan is for the Legislature, and not the courts

(Wine

Boyar,

220 Cal.App.2d 375, 380-381 [33 Cal.Rptr. 787]. The demurrer of the county was properly sustained.

As to BART, the contention is that the location of the Lafayette station mentioned in the composite report was made immutable by the voters of the three-county district when they approved the $792,000,000 bond issue for construction of the transit system.

It is clear that proceeds of a bond issue may be expended only for the purpose authorized by the voters in approving issue of the bonds

(O’Farrell

Mills v. San Francisco Bay Area Rapid Transit District

AI Brief

DRAPER, P. J.

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief