TEMPORARY LANDFILL PROPER PURPOSE IN DEDICATED PARK

GRIFFITH v. CITY OF LOS ANGELES

175 Cal. App. 2d 331; 346 P.2d 49 (1959)

In this case, plaintiff Van Griffith sought an injunction to prevent the defendant City of Los Angeles "from further acts in connection with a project designated Toyon Canyon Park Reclamation in Griffith Park, Los Angeles." The facts of the case were as follows:

On March 5, 1898, Griffith's parents conveyed to the city of Los Angeles some 3,800 acres of land known as Griffith Park. The conveyance was made on these conditions:

To be used as a PUBLIC PARK for purposes of recreation, health and pleasure, for the use and benefit of the inhabitants of the said City of Los Angeles, forever. And this gift and grant is made, and said property is hereby conveyed upon condition that said land shall be used and maintained by said City of Los Angeles and its successors in interest and estate, exclusively as a public park and pleasure ground, for the amusement, recreation, health and pleasure of its inhabitants, and upon the further condition that the name of said park now established by ordinance of said City, to wit, 'GRIFFITH PARK' be continued as the official name and designation of said park; and whenever said tract of land hereby conveyed, or any part thereof shall cease to be used as a park, and for pleasure, amusement, recreation, health, and uses incident to the aforesaid uses according to the intents and meanings of the same, and if said City of its successors in interest or estate shall at any time change the official name of said park from GRIFFITH PARK to some other name or designation, then the lands hereby conveyed shall immediately upon the happening of either of said events, revert to said parties of the first part or to their heirs."

On May 16, 1957, the board of recreation and park commissioners of the city adopted a resolution which recited it had adopted a plan of development of Toyon Canyon in Griffith Park whereby the canyon will be filled and leveled to produce about 40 acres of leveled land for recreational use, and granted permission to the board of public works of the city to proceed with the project in accordance with the plan.

"WHEREAS, Griffith Park in the City of Los Angeles has a very large percentage of steep land and canyons and very little level land for recreational use, and

"WHEREAS, this Commission has adopted a plan of development of Toyon Canyon in Griffith Park whereby said Canyon will be filled and leveled and produce approximately 40 acres of level land, and "WHEREAS, the Department of Recreation and Parks has been proceeding with its own material for the land reclamation project herein mentioned, and

"WHEREAS, the Department of Public Works has more material available for the purpose of the land reclamation project, and

"WHEREAS, said Board of Public Works can accomplish the complete land reclamation within 5 to 10 years, which is many years less than it could be accomplished by the Department of Recreation and Parks, and

"WHEREAS, the Board of Public Works of The City of Los Angeles has requested permission to make the land reclamation herein provided for and further to make and perform certain other improvements in said park at no cost to the Department of Recreation and Parks,

"NOW, THEREFORE: BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED: That permission is granted to the Board of Public Works to proceed with the land reclamation project in Toyon Canyon in the center of Griffith Park in accordance with the plan therefor adopted by the Board of Recreation and Park Commissioners on MAY 16, 1957.

Toyon Canyon was a deep, undeveloped area covering about 40 acres in Griffith Park. On May 16, 1957, pursuant to the resolution, the board of public works began filling, compacting, and leveling the canyon using combustible and inert materials collected from residences in Los Angeles, earth fill, and cover.

Van Griffith, the only heir of the grantors of Griffith Park, brought this suit to restrain the City from proceeding with the project. Specifically, Griffith, alleged that the project was "in violation of the trust on which Griffith Park is held by the city and the charter of the city."

The trial court denied the injunction. In the opinion of the trial court, "the project was adopted in good faith for the purpose of developing a site of about 40 acres to be devoted exclusively to recreational and park purposes." Further, the trial court found that "the work done in connection with the development and uses of Griffith Park is directly incidental to its use for recreational and park purposes." The trial court, therefore, concluded that "such uses are not violative of any one of the conditions on which the lands were granted to the city." Griffith appealed.

On appeal, Griffith argued that "the Toyon Canyon project violated the condition of the grant and the charter of the city." At the time of the grant, the city charter provided as follows:

All lands and real property located in the City of Los Angeles and which have been heretofore, or which may be hereafter, set apart and dedicated for the use of the public as a public park or parks, shall forever remain to the use of the public as such park or parks, inviolate, and no part of said lands or real property shall ever be used or occupied for any other purpose.

Accordingly, Griffith maintained that "the project is obviously one to make Toyon Canyon a rubbish and refuse dump for the city and that it is unlawful to transform Griffith Park into a city dumping ground."

As noted by the appeals court, "when a grant deed is for a specified, limited, and definite purpose the subject of the grant cannot be used for another or different purpose." On the other hand, the appeals court acknowledged that "a dedication must be understood and construed with reference to its primary object and purpose."

Nothing is improper which conduces to that object. The real question is whether the use in a particular case, and for a designated purpose, is consistent or inconsistent with such primary object. Such use is authorized as is fairly within the terms of the dedication and reasonably serves to fit the property for enjoyment by the public in the manner contemplated.

The dedicator is presumed to have intended the property to be used by the public in such way as will be most convenient and comfortable, and according to not only the proprieties and uses known at the time of the dedication, but also to those justified by lapse of time and change of conditions.

Based upon the following evidence, the appeals court reasoned that the dedicators in this instance would have intended that "Griffith Park should respond to whatever demands new improvements and increased facilities might make on it, so long as such demands always be consistent with the conditions stated in the grant."

The devotion of a reasonable portion of a public park to picnic grounds, baseball diamonds, softball grounds, football fields, golf courses, archery courses, tennis courts, and other open play activities, with suitable appliances for these forms of public amusement and recreation, comes strictly within the proper and legitimate uses for which public parks are created....

The general manager of the department of recreation and parks testified that according to the plan which had been adopted and approved by that department on completion of the project "[the] area would be planted to grass, as, for example, for the fields of baseball, soft ball, football, open play activities, archery course in grass, the grass being between the point of shooting and the targets, and tennis courts at one location where the fill is of less depth than elsewhere, and picnic installations largely in the periphery of that little area"; that the operations being conducted in Toyon Canyon since the adoption of the resolution have not "impaired any park use that was being made of that area before that time"; and that the operations have not "interfered with the uses and enjoyment offered to the public by Griffith Park." There was testimony that one of the common and sound engineering processes for reclaiming mountainous and marginal land areas involves the utilization and compaction of inert refuse materials capped with successive intervening layers of earth and that this process is recognized as a method of developing and improving public parks.

The fact that the fill to provide level land for these uses is in part combustible and inert materials is of no moment. It is the ultimate result which matters, and that is the accomplishment of a purpose which reasonably serves to fit the property for enjoyment by the public in the manner contemplated by Griffith's predecessors...

There was testimony that, based on studies and surveys by the department of recreation and parks, level areas are required for certain recreational facilities including places for displaying exhibits, picnicking, parking automobiles, and for participating in organized activities such as playing ball. There was testimony that the present level areas in the park are inadequate to meet the requirements for level terrain. Only 800 acres of the total 4,250 acres, as the park is presently constituted, are of less than a 10 per cent slope. It should be noted the court did not find that less than 20 per cent of the park was usable in its natural state for park purposes; the finding states that less than 20 per cent was usable for park purposes commensurate with the recreational requirements of the area intended to be served.

Griffith, however, asserted that "it was the intention of the donors of Griffith Park "that the mountain area was to remain in its original state of nature for all time." The appeals court rejected this argument.

This is not a condition of the grant. On the contrary, the grant expressly says that Griffith Park is to be used "for purposes of recreation, health and pleasure"; that it is to be "used and maintained" by the city "exclusively as a public park and pleasure ground, for the amusement, recreation, health and pleasure of its inhabitants"; and "uses incident to the aforesaid uses according to the intents and meanings of the same."...

The reclamation of canyons and ravines by fill and cover operations to provide level land areas is recognized and accepted as a sound engineering practice which has been and is being used to create, develop or improve park lands throughout this state as well as the United States... There was testimony that the flora was comparable to that elsewhere in the park and that nothing distinguished this canyon from others in the park... The existing improvements in Griffith Park, such as the roads, observatory, Greek Theatre, golf course, etc., required altering the topography of the area concerned; and such alteration involved operations similar in character to those in Toyon Canyon except as to the type of filling material utilized... The Toyon Canyon park reclamation project does not interfere with nor has it curtailed any prexisting or proposed use of the park; and the operations incident thereto are conducted in a reasonable, safe, unostentatious, and inoffensive manner.

As a result, the appeals court found that the trial court had properly rejected Griffith's evidence of the intention of the grantors "that the mountain area was to remain in its original state of nature for all time." .

Griffith had also argued that "since, as estimated in the resolution, it will take 5 to 10 years to fill the canyon, Toyon Canyon will 'cease to be a park' and the road used by the disposal trucks will be virtually closed." In the opinion of the appeals court, there was "no evidence in the record to support the argument concerning the trucks. " Further, the court found that the "[t]emporary interference with the use of the area for park purposes is an unavoidable incident in carrying out the ultimate purpose."

Since the area is less than one per cent of the total park area and is located in an isolated area of the park, it appears as a necessary inconvenience to the public as was the interference with use of another area of the park for the two-year period (as shown in the record) during the construction of the observatory. Further, as stated in the resolution, by the use of inert materials collected from residences throughout the city the "Board of Public Works can accomplish the complete land reclamation within 5 to 10 years, which is many years less than it could be accomplished by the Department of Recreation and Parks."

The appeals court, therefore, affirmed the judgment of the trial court in favor of the City of Los Angeles.

The Toyon Canyon Park Reclamation Project of which the plaintiff complains was adopted by the defendant, Board of Recreation and Park Commissioners, in good faith for the purpose of developing a site of approximately 40 acres to be devoted exclusively to recreational and park purposes and the acts and operations by and on behalf of the defendant, City of Los Angeles, in connection with such development of which the plaintiff complains are uses of Griffith Park directly incidental to its use for recreational and park purposes and said uses are not violative of any one or more of the conditions upon which the said lands were granted to the defendant, City of Los Angeles.