Does the trial court erred in establishing a permanent and fixed public easement that drastically expanded on existing temporary and mutable public easements?

The trial court erred in establishing a permanent and fixed public easement that drastically expanded on the existing temporary and mutable public easement. The judgment gave the public rights not only to use the fire road for so long as its existence was necessary for fire protection, but also to burden the underlying fee estate in perpetuity, as set forth in the metes and bounds description of the new easement. Those rights were neither conditional nor temporary, as was the fire road easement itself, but unlimited and permanent. But [n]othing can be clearer than that if the grant is made for a specified, limited and defined purpose, the subject of the grant cannot be used for another, and the grantor retains still such an interest therein as entitles him, in a court of equity, to insist upon the execution of the trust as originally declared and accepted. (Marshall v. Standard Oil Co . (1936) 17 Cal.App.2d 19, 27, 61 P.2d 520.) It is a universally accepted

[205 Cal.Rptr.3d 287]