Save Our Heritage Organisation v. City of San Diego
237 Cal. App. 4th 163
Cal. Ct. App.2015Background
- Balboa Park's Central Mesa contains the historic 1915/1935 exposition buildings (the Complex) and the Cabrillo Bridge; the area is a National Historic Landmark District.
- The Plaza de Panama Project, led by a private committee, would pedestrianize the Complex, add an underground paid parking garage, and build a new "Centennial Bridge" to reroute vehicular access.
- The City certified a comprehensive EIR and approved a site development permit after multi-board review; opponents (SOHO) challenged the approvals.
- SOHO sued alleging (1) CEQA defects in the EIR, (2) violation of an 1870 statute requiring Balboa Park be held "free and public," and (3) lack of substantial evidence for required San Diego Municipal Code findings including that denial of the Project would leave the property with "no reasonable beneficial use."
- The trial court rejected SOHO's CEQA and 1870-statute claims but granted relief on the Municipal Code ground, finding insufficient evidence to support the "no reasonable beneficial use" finding; the Committee and City appealed.
- The Court of Appeal reversed the trial court as to the Municipal Code ruling and affirmed on other counts, holding (inter alia) that the decision-maker may determine whether an existing use is a "reasonable" beneficial use and that the City had substantial evidence to support its findings; it also held the 1870 statute did not bar the paid parking component.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (SOHO) | Defendant's Argument (City/Committee) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the City's finding under SDMC §126.0504(i)(3) that denial of the Project would result in "no reasonable beneficial use" of the property was supported by substantial evidence | Any evidence of a beneficial use without the Project precludes the "no reasonable beneficial use" finding; the Complex is heavily used by visitors, so the finding fails | The ordinance requires proof of no "reasonable" beneficial use; City may decide that existing uses (though beneficial) are not reasonable given safety, circulation, and plan goals; EIR/record show continuing pedestrian/vehicle conflicts | Held for City/Committee: "reasonable" modifies "beneficial use"; decision-maker may deem existing use unreasonable; substantial evidence supported City's finding |
| Whether City properly found the Project would not adversely affect applicable land use plans despite adverse impacts to Cabrillo Bridge | Any conflict with plan policies (esp. historic preservation) means the Project adversely affects the land use plans | Consistency is judged in context; agency may weigh conflicting plan policies and find overall compatibility with plan goals (majority of policies) | Held for City/Committee: substantial evidence supports City's global finding that the Project, while conflicting with some policies, does not adversely affect applicable land use plans |
| Whether the EIR was inadequate under CEQA (challenge to certification) | EIR allegedly deficient in objectives, alternatives, impacts, responses to comments | City contended EIR was thorough and followed CEQA; trial court rejected SOHO's CEQA claims | Affirmed: trial court properly rejected SOHO's CEQA challenge (SOHO abandoned CEQA appeal arguments) |
| Whether the 1870 statute (lands to be held "for the use and purposes of a free and public park") prohibits a paid parking structure | "Free and public" means free of charge; paid parking violates the 1870 dedication | City argued later legislative acts and charter powers superseded any strict limitation and public-park uses ancillary to enjoyment (including paid facilities) are permissible | Held for City: 1870 statute's limitations were effectively superseded; charter/legislative grants permit the City to approve paid parking as consistent with park uses |
Key Cases Cited
- San Franciscans Upholding the Downtown Plan v. City & County of San Francisco, 102 Cal.App.4th 656 (2002) (deference to local agency consistency determinations with general plan)
- Topanga Assn. for a Scenic Community v. County of Los Angeles, 11 Cal.3d 506 (1974) (substantial evidence standard; resolve doubts in favor of administrative findings)
- Vineyard Area Citizens for Responsible Growth, Inc. v. City of Rancho Cordova, 40 Cal.4th 412 (2007) (court should not substitute its judgment for agency on land-use questions)
- In re Bay–Delta etc., 43 Cal.4th 1143 (2008) (abuse of discretion standard)
- Sierra Club v. County of Napa, 121 Cal.App.4th 1490 (2004) (presumption of correctness for administrative decisions; burden on challenger)
- Environmental Protection Information Center v. California Dept. of Forestry & Fire Protection, 44 Cal.4th 459 (2008) (appellate review of substantial evidence in administrative record is de novo)
- Sequoyah Hills Homeowners Assn. v. City of Oakland, 23 Cal.App.4th 704 (1993) (project need not perfectly conform to every general plan policy; compatibility with objectives suffices)
- Olmstead v. City of San Diego, 124 Cal.App. 14 (1932) (later legislative acts and charters can supersede earlier pueblo dedications)
- Spires v. City of Los Angeles, 150 Cal. 64 (1906) (dedicated public park uses should be construed broadly to permit amenities that further public enjoyment)