Taxpayers for Accountable School Bond Spending v. San Diego Unif. School Dist. CA4/1
215 Cal. App. 4th 1013
| Cal. Ct. App. | 2013Background
- Taxpayers filed suit against San Diego Unified School District over Proposition S and Hoover High School improvements, including stadium lighting.
- Proposition S listed site- and project-specific items; Hoover had two listed items for stadium and accessibility, but no field lighting as an independent listed project.
- District adopted a mitigated negative declaration for the lighting project; later exempted Hoover and other high schools from City zoning via Government Code 53094.
- Taxpayers alleged four causes of action: waste of funds under CCP 526a, CEQA violation, zoning/Land Use violation, and invalid 53094 exemption.
- Trial court dismissed CEQA and non-CEQA claims; judgment largely affirmed on some counts and reversed/remanded on others.
- Judgment reversed to the extent it dismissed the first and second causes of action; remanded with directions to prepare an EIR and enjoin use of bond funds for field lighting not specifically listed; other parts affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Proposition S expressly authorized Hoover field lighting. | Taxpayers contends field lighting was not listed as a bonded-project. | District relies on final paragraph of Part Two citing field lighting. | Prop. S does not authorize field lighting as a listed project; lighting not incidental to listed Hoover projects. |
| CEQA: whether the Project may have significant environmental effects requiring an EIR. | There is substantial evidence of potential significant effects (traffic, parking, aesthetics). | Initial Study/MND found no significant effects after revisions; evidence insufficient. | There is substantial evidence supporting a fair argument of significant environmental impact; EIR required. |
| Whether the 53094 exemption action for 12 high schools was proper and not subject to CEQA. | Exemption action insufficient notice; overbroad and should be CEQA-reviewed. | Exemption not a CEQA project; educational facilities qualify for exemption; notice adequate. | Exemption action not necessitating CEQA review; Board’s exemption proper for educational facilities; CEQA review remains for individual projects. |
| Whether Taxpayers had standing to challenge Proposition S use of bond funds under CCP 526a. | Taxpayers have standing as residents/taxpayers to prevent illegal expenditure. | District challenged standing; organization can represent members with standing. | Taxpayers has standing under CCP 526a; no need to determine other grounds. |
Key Cases Cited
- San Lorenzo Valley Community Advocates for Responsible Education v. San Lorenzo Valley Unified School Dist., 139 Cal.App.4th 1356 (Cal. Ct. App. 2006) (Prop. 39 safeguards and oversight standards for bonds)
- Foothill-De Anza Community College Dist. v. Emerich, 158 Cal.App.4th 11 (Cal. Ct. App. 2007) (Interpretation of Prop. 39 and bonding requirements)
- People v. Lopez, 34 Cal.4th 1002 (Cal. 2005) (Statutory interpretation in context of constitutional provisions)
- Hermosa v. Hermosa Beach City School Dist., 142 Cal.App.4th 1178 (Cal. Ct. App. 2006) (Interpretation of voter initiatives; independent evaluation)
- Lungren v. Deukmejian, 45 Cal.3d 727 (Cal. 1988) (Statutory interpretation principles; plain meaning control)
- Connerly v. State Personnel Bd., 92 Cal.App.4th 16 (Cal. App. 2001) (Standing and remedies; broad citizen-suit purposes)
- Mejia v. City of Los Angeles, 130 Cal.App.4th 322 (Cal. App. 2005) (CEQA fair argument; substantial evidence standard)
- Architectural Heritage Assn. v. County of Monterey, 122 Cal.App.4th 1095 (Cal. Ct. App. 2004) (De novo review; substantial evidence in CEQA)
- Monroe Avenue neighborhood context case cited, (various) (—) (CEQA impacts of lighting and neighborhood aesthetics discussed in context)