Property owner filed petition for writ of mandate against city and city council, challenging city’s resolution declaring city-owned parking garage to be surplus land under the Surplus Land Act.
The Superior Court denied the petition. Owner appealed.
The Court of Appeal held that:
- As matter of first impression, determination that city-owned asset constitutes surplus land under the Surplus Land Act does not require agency to find that land is of no use to public;
- Substantial evidence supported city’s determination that land constituted surplus land within meaning of the Act; and
- City’s resolution declaring property to be surplus land satisfied Act’s requirements that land would be declared surplus land “as supported by written findings.”