31 Cal. App. 5th 349
Cal. Ct. App. 5th2018Background
- Belmont Park is city-owned Mission Beach Park property developed as an amusement center; a 1987 50-year lease (with Development Plan) authorized visitor-oriented commercial/recreational uses and reserved City approval for other related uses.
- In November 1987 voters passed Proposition G restricting commercial development in Mission Beach Park but exempting projects with vested rights existing as of the measure's effective date.
- The City Council in 1988 determined Belmont Park Associates had vested rights under the 1987 Lease to continue the project described in the Development Plan.
- Symphony acquired the leasehold interests and, in April 2015, the City council approved an amended and restated lease (Restated Lease) extending rent, preserving operation of the Plunge and Roller Coaster, listing allowed visitor-oriented uses, and providing conditions to extend the lease term up to 50 years.
- The City also adopted a CEQA determination that approval of the Restated Lease was categorically exempt under the ‘‘existing facilities’’ exemption (CEQA Guidelines §15301).
- SDOG sued seeking writ of mandate and injunctive/declaratory relief alleging: violation of Proposition G, improper CEQA exemption, and violation of former City Charter §99 (notice/hearing/ordinance for >5‑year contracts).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Restated Lease violates Proposition G by authorizing uses beyond the 1987 vested rights | SDOG: Restated Lease authorizes new/amplified commercial amusements and attractions not covered by the 1987 vested development rights | City: 1987 Lease and Development Plan broadly authorized visitor-oriented commercial and recreational uses; those categories encompass the Restated Lease uses; vested-right exemption applies to the 1987 development proposal | Held: Court rejects SDOG; Restated Lease falls within the 1987 vested development proposal and Proposition G’s exemption; extensions acceptable where within that scope |
| Whether the City abused discretion under CEQA by treating the Restated Lease as categorically exempt under §15301 (existing facilities) | SDOG: Lease contemplates new construction and major new uses (restaurants, arcade, zip-line) so it is not a negligible/no‑expansion project; unusual circumstances (Proposition G) create a reasonable possibility of significant impacts (traffic/noise) | City: $18M of improvements were already completed at approval; contemplated refurbishments to Plunge are restorations; no unusual circumstances or substantial evidence of significant impacts | Held: Court affirms exemption; §15301 applies because improvements were existing/rehabilitative and SDOG failed to show unusual circumstances or a reasonable possibility of significant effects |
| Whether approval violated former City Charter §99 by not publishing notice/ adopting an ordinance for >5‑year contract | SDOG: Restated Lease exceeds five years and therefore required public notice, hearing, and authorization by ordinance | City: §99 reasonably read (and historically interpreted by City Attorney) to apply only to long-term contracts that create city indebtedness or require City expenditures; the lease generates revenue, not City expenditure | Held: Court defers to longstanding administrative interpretation; §99 did not apply because the Restated Lease did not require City expenditure, so notice/hearing/ordinance were not required |
Key Cases Cited
- San Diegans for Open Government v. City of San Diego, 245 Cal.App.4th 736 (Cal. Ct. App.) (distinguishing legislative vs. administrative mandamus review and standards)
- Berkeley Hillside Preservation v. City of Berkeley, 60 Cal.4th 1086 (Cal.) (standards for applying categorical exemptions and the "unusual circumstances" exception)
- Muzzy Ranch Co. v. Solano County Airport Land Use Com., 41 Cal.4th 372 (Cal.) (review standards under Public Resources Code §21168.5 in CEQA cases)
- Bunnett v. Regents of Univ. of Cal., 35 Cal.App.4th 843 (Cal. Ct. App.) (distinguishing ordinary vs. administrative mandamus review)
- Pardee Construction Co. v. California Coastal Com., 95 Cal.App.3d 471 (Cal. Ct. App.) (vested‑rights analysis under intervening regulatory change)