- #California public utilities code section 21659 code
- #California public utilities code section 21659 trial
Simply stated, County acquired property adjacent to the airport. (2000) 24 Cal.4th 415, 432, 101 Cal.Rptr.2d 200, 11 P.3d 956.)īoth sides provide us with a long chronology of events largely irrelevant to the straightforward issue presented. But sorely missing is any authority to support its untenable position that it can evade its statutory and municipal duty to maintain its property so as not to endanger the health and safety of the public. County offers an assortment of legal and equitable arguments to justify its recalcitrance. 301-24 provides that “no tree or other object of natural growth shall be allowed to grow and no building or appurtenance thereon, tower or other structure shall be erected or maintained to exceed the height limits developed for aircraft approach and take-off areas which are designated on the Comprehensive Zoning Plans․”ĭespite the plain language of the statute and the ordinance, more than 65 trees on County property exceed the height limits developed for safe aircraft approach and departure paths and encroach on the navigable airspace at the airport. Similarly, Sacramento County Ordinance No.
#California public utilities code section 21659 code
Public Utilities Code section 21659, pertaining to airport obstructions, states: “No person shall construct or alter any structure or permit any natural growth to grow at a height which exceeds the obstruction standards set forth in the regulations of the Federal Aviation Administration relating to objects affecting navigable airspace contained in Title 14 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Part 77, Subpart C, unless a permit allowing the construction, alteration, or growth is issued by the department.” (, § 21659, subd. This is a simple case resolved by the application of one state statute and one county ordinance. Resources Code, § 21000 et seq.) or who ultimately should pay for the costs of trimming and removal since those issues were not raised by the petition.
![california public utilities code section 21659 california public utilities code section 21659](http://www.thebluebook.com/inc/img/qp/GSA/gsaMap_287551.png)
The court did not decide the parties' responsibilities, if any, under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA Pub. The court granted Airport's petition to compel County to trim or remove those trees on its property that obstructed navigable airspace along the south side of the runway or to obtain a permit to maintain the offending trees pursuant to its ministerial duties defined by Public Utilities Code section 21659 and its municipal ordinance No. (Airport) and County's failure to initiate any other action.
![california public utilities code section 21659 california public utilities code section 21659](https://www.pdffiller.com/preview/56/762/56762435.png)
#California public utilities code section 21659 trial
The trial court refused to be drawn into a battle of the species unwarranted by the straightforward petition by plaintiff Rancho Murieta Airport, Inc. In these mandamus proceedings to compel the County of Sacramento (County) to trim or remove its trees from an airport “clear zone,” County would like us to weigh the fate of the Swainson's hawk and the valley elderberry longhorn beetle against the convenience of passengers to land at the Rancho Murieta Airport at night.
![california public utilities code section 21659 california public utilities code section 21659](https://i1.wp.com/zachnews.net/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/0530171732b.jpg)
Beals, Assistant Chief Counsel, Manuel Alvarado and Raiyn Bain, Deputy Attorneys for Real Party in Interest and Respondent. Whitman, Deputy County Counsel, for Defendant and Appellant. Girard, Sacramento, CA, for Plaintiff and Respondent. Wagner Kirkman Blaine Klomparens & Youmans, Douglas E.
![california public utilities code section 21659 california public utilities code section 21659](https://law.resource.org/pub/us/code/ccr/img/7160.png)
COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO, Defendant and Appellant Department of Transportation, Real Party in Interest and Respondent. RANCHO MURIETA AIRPORT, INC., Plaintiff and Respondent, v. Court of Appeal, Third District, California.