Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_09-cv-00962/USCOURTS-casd-3_09-cv-00962-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 1 - 09cv962-WQH-MDD

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ACADEMY OF OUR LADY OF

PEACE,

Plaintiff,

CASE NO. 09cv962-WQH-MDD

ORDER

vs.

CITY OF SAN DIEGO,

Defendant.

HAYES, Judge:

The matter before the Court is Plaintiff’s Motion for Partial Summary Judgment on the

Writ of Mandate Claim. (ECF No. 112). 

BACKGROUND

On September 2, 2011, Plaintiff Academy of Our Lady of Peace (“OLP”) filed a First

Amended Complaint against Defendant City of San Diego (“City”). (ECF No. 109). The

Complaint alleges that OLP operates an all-girls Catholic high school in the North Park

neighborhood of San Diego and has been doing so for 86 years. Id. at 3. The Complaint

alleges that OLP’s “existing campus facilities are woefully outdated and inadequate to meet

OLP’s mission” to educate and “inspire its students to grow as committed Christians.” Id. at

4. In 2007, OLP proposed a “Modernization Plan... that would add two new facilities to the

86-year old campus: an approximately 20,545 square foot, two-story classroom building on

the west side of the campus, and a two-level, 104-space parking structure on the east side of

Case 3:09-cv-00962-CAB-MDD Document 136 Filed 12/14/11 Page 1 of 15
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 2 - 09cv962-WQH-MDD

campus.” Id. at 5. The Complaint alleges that the Modernization Plan would “require the

demolition or removal of three single-family residences that OLP owns, in order to provide

sufficient developable area for the classroom building and parking structure.” Id. 

The Complaint alleges that, on March 3, 2009, the City Council denied the development

permits necessary to implement OLP’s Modernization Plan. Id. at 9. The Complaint alleges

that “[t]he City’s action[s] in... rejecting the Modernization Plan have effectively precluded

OLP from meeting its classroom space and program needs at its current campus.” The

Complaint alleges that the City’s actions were “arbitrary and capricious” and without

“compelling - or even rational - basis” because the City “denied the facilities needed to serve

the students... and purported to preserve structures as historic that need not be preserved and

are less valuable than other structures which the City has routinely allowed to be demolished.”

Id. at 10.

The Complaint alleges seven causes of action relating to the decision of the San Diego

City Council to deny OLP’s development permits. Id. The first, second, third, and sixth

causes of action allege violations of OLP’s right to free exercise of religion, freedom of speech

and assembly, freedom of association, equal protection and due process, as secured by the First

and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution and Article 1 of the California

Constitution. Id. at 11-13, 16. The fourth and fifth causes of action allege violations of the

Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act under 42 U.S.C. §2000cc. Id. at 14-15.

The seventh cause of action petitions for a writ of mandate under California Code of Civil

Procedure § 1094.5, which allows for judicial review “inquiring into the validity of any final

administrative order or decision.” Id. at 17; Cal. Code Civ. Pro. § 1094.5. 

On September 27, 2011, OLP filed a motion for summary judgment on their claim for

a writ of mandate. (ECF No. 112). OLP contends that the City Council “abused its discretion

in three ways in denying the Academy the permits. First, the City Council did not proceed in

the manner required by law.... Second, the City Council did not base its decision on specific

findings. Additionally, the City Council abused its discretion by failing to provide any

measureable amount of evidence to support its findings.” Id. at 3. 

Case 3:09-cv-00962-CAB-MDD Document 136 Filed 12/14/11 Page 2 of 15
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

1

In the final paragraph of their opposition brief, the City “respectfully requests that the

Court enter summary judgment in their favor on Count VII....” This request is denied. The

City has not filed a motion to dismiss or motion for summary judgment on this cause of action.

- 3 - 09cv962-WQH-MDD

On October 21, 2011, the City filed an opposition to OLP’s motion for summary

judgment. (ECF No. 120).1

 The City contends that “the City Council’s... action was

absolutely required by California law.... The City Council is the final decision-maker on all

matters involving environmental impacts created by a proposed development.... [and] is held

accountable and is empowered to over-rule, modify, or amend any finding made by a lesser

commission or staff member within the City.” Id. at 9. 

On October 31, 2011, OLP filed a reply in support of its motion. (ECF No. 122). 

On November 18, 2011, the Court heard oral arguments on the motion. 

FACTS

I. Necessary Permits

In order to implement the Modernization Plan, OLP needs four permits from the City:

a Planned Development Permit, a Site Development Permit, a Neighborhood Development

Permit, and an amendment to OLP’s existing Conditional Use Permit. (ECF No. 112-6). A

Planned Development Permit is required for the project’s proposed height, setback, and

parking space deviations. (ECF No. 91-7 at 3; Administrative Record at AR-1680). A Site

Development Permit is required due to the environmentally-sensitive steep slopes on the

project site. (Id. at 4; AR-1681). A Neighborhood Development Permit is required for the

provision of tandem parking on the site, and an amended Conditional Use Permit is required

to increase the maximum student enrollment on the site from 640 students to 750 students. Id.

II. The Environmental Impact Report

In accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”), the City of

San Diego Development Services Department prepared an Environmental Impact Report

(“EIR”) to assess significant and unmitigable impacts affiliated with the Modernization Plan.

(“All local agencies shall prepare, or cause to be prepared by contract, and certify the

completion of, an environmental impact report on any project that they intend to carry out or

approve which may have a significant effect on the environment.” Cal.Pub.Res.Code § 21151).

Case 3:09-cv-00962-CAB-MDD Document 136 Filed 12/14/11 Page 3 of 15
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 4 - 09cv962-WQH-MDD

"An EIR provides the public and responsible government agencies with detailed information

on the potential environmental consequences of an agency's proposed decision. [citations

omitted]. The EIR describes ways to minimize significant environmental effects, and suggests

alternatives to the project, including the option of 'no project.'" Mountain Lion Foundation v.

Fish & Game Com., 16 Cal.4th 105, 113 (1997), citing Cal.Pub.Res.Code § 21061. 

The Final EIR for OLP’s Modernization Project issued in September 2008. The EIR

lists as a “major component” of the Modernization Plan, the “[d]emolition of three singlefamily residences (two of which are considered locally historic).” (ECF No. 112-3 at 2; AR00366). The two residences at issue are located at 2544 Collier Avenue (“Collier”) and 2746

Copley Avenue (“Copley”). Both properties are owned by OLP. (ECF No. 120-3 at 10-12;

AR-07016-18). 

The EIR distinguishes between a structure that is designated in an official report or

register as “historically significant,” and a structure that is non-designated but still

“significant” for the purposes of CEQA or in the local community for historic reasons. The

EIR states that “[a] resource that is not listed in or determined to be ineligible for listing in the

California Register of Historic Resources, not included in a local register of historic resources,

or not deemed significant in a historical resource survey, may nonetheless be historically

significant for the purposes of CEQA.” (ECF No. 89-19 at 8; AR-00448). 

In describing the Collier house, the EIR states that “[t]he building is considered to be

significant as it possesses high artistic values and construction consistent with the

characteristics of the type, period, or method of the Spanish Eclectic style of architecture....

The historical report indicates that the building is not considered to be historically significant

as the building was not associated with individuals significant at the local, state, or national

levels.” (ECF No. 89-19 at 3; AR-00443). In describing the Copley house, the EIR states:

“Historical research indicates that the building is not considered to be historically significant

as the building was not associated with individuals significant at the local, state, or national

levels. However, the building is considered to be architecturally significant as an example of

the Spanish Eclectic style of architecture....” (Id. at 6; AR-00446). 

Case 3:09-cv-00962-CAB-MDD Document 136 Filed 12/14/11 Page 4 of 15
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 5 - 09cv962-WQH-MDD

The EIR states that the Collier and Copley houses “are considered locally historically

significant structures as they represent Spanish Eclectic architecture.” (ECF No. 120-7 at 39;

AR-00133). The EIR states that “[t]he loss of [Collier] is considered a significant impact

under CEQA.... [and] the physical demolition or moving of [Copley], a significant historic

resource, will result in a significant impact on Cultural Resources under CEQA.” (ECF No.

89-19 at 10; AR-00450). “The demolition of these locally significant historic buildings is

considered a significant impact.” (ECF No. 120-7 at 39; AR-00133). “Relocation of either

structure is not considered feasible.... cannot be assured.... [and] would not be considered as

mitigating the resource loss to a level less than significant.” ” (Id. at 40; AR-00134, 450). 

III. City Staff Recommendation and Planning Commission Decision

On September 12, 2008, staff at the Development Services Department (“City Staff”)

recommended that the San Diego Planning Commission approve OLP’s permits and certify

the EIR, allowing the Modernization Plan to move forward. (AR 01678-87, 04829-31). City

Staff found that: 

Although the loss of the [Collier and Copley] structures is considered significant

and unmitigable as stated in the EIR, the impact is project specific. The two

structures proposed for demolition are of the Spanish Eclectic style and are not

considered contributing structures to a potential historic district nor would their

loss adversely impact any identified historic districts within the community

where architectural variety and unique historic structures are preserved.

(ECF No. 91-7 at 6; AR-01683). City Staff stated that OLP “considered adaptive reuse of

these structures, but... has determined these are not viable options.” City Staff concluded that

“significant unmitigated impact” from the project would be inevitable. (Id. at 9; AR-01686).

City Staff stated that “[t]he decisionmaker will be required to make a Statement of

Overriding Considerations in order to grant this request.” Id. (“When the lead agency

approves a project which will result in the occurrence of significant effects which are identified

in the final EIR but are not avoided or substantially lessened, the agency shall state in writing

the specific reasons to support its action based on the final EIR and/or other information in the

record. The statement of overriding considerations shall be supported by substantial evidence

in the record.” 14 CCR § 15093(b)).

Case 3:09-cv-00962-CAB-MDD Document 136 Filed 12/14/11 Page 5 of 15
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 6 - 09cv962-WQH-MDD

On October 9, 2008, the Planning Commission voted unanimously to approve OLP’s

permits, certify the EIR, and adopt OLP’s draft Statement of Overriding Considerations. (ECF

No. 112-9; ECF No. 120-6 at 55-56; AR-02352). As a condition to the permit approval, the

Planning Commission required OLP to “cause the two non-designated historic houses located

at 2544 Collier Avenue and 2746 Copley Avenue to be relocated and reused within the City

of San Diego.” Id.

IV. The Appeal

On October 22, 2008, the North Park Planning Committee (“NPPC”) and Between the

Heights Neighborhood Group (“BeHi”) appealed the Planning Commission decision to the

City Council of the City of San Diego (“City Council”). (ECF No. 112-10 at 2-5; ECF No.

120-6 at 58-61; AR-05085-88). NPPC and BeHi asserted that the Modernization Plan would

adversely affect the applicable land use plan (the Greater North Park Community Plan) which

seeks to “preserve the architectural variety and residential character of Greater North Park” and

“preserve and restore unique or historic structures within the community.” Id. NPPC and

BeHi asserted that “[t]he demolition or removal of historic homes from an older single-family

neighborhood constitutes a significant and immitigable impact on the character of that

community.” Id.

V. City Council Findings

On January 26, 2009, the City Council held a lengthy public hearing during which City

Staff and members of the community testified regarding the Modernization Plan. (ECF No.

112-11). At this hearing, a Council member stated “that many of the residents feel strongly

that some or all of the historic homes must be preserved,” and that “the preservation of the

historic significant homes touches a nerve for the entire community of North Park.” (Id. at 7:

AR-02494). At the conclusion of the hearing, the City Council granted a continuance to March

3, 2009, to allow OLP and members of the community an opportunity to reach mutual

resolution of the matter. (ECF No. 112-14). No resolution was reached. Id.

At the March 3, 2009 hearing, the City Council approved OLP’s Conditional Use

Permit and Neighborhood Development Permit, allowing increased student enrollment and

Case 3:09-cv-00962-CAB-MDD Document 136 Filed 12/14/11 Page 6 of 15
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 7 - 09cv962-WQH-MDD

tandem parking in the neighborhood. The City Council denied the Planned Development

Permit and Site Development Permit, prohibiting construction of the classroom and parking

facilities integral to the Modernization Plan. (ECF No. 122-3 at 2-16; ECF No. 120-7 at 8-11).

In support of their denial of OLP’s development permits, the City Council cited the EIR

and found that the loss of the Copley and Collier houses “would result in significant and

unmitigable impact.” (ECF No. 122-3 at 4-5, 8-10). The City Council found that the proposed

development would “adversely affect the applicable land use plan” by removing

“architecturally significant structures” in conflict with the “objectives for preserving

architectural variety and historic structures within the community” stated in the Greater North

Park Community Plan. Id. Councilman Gloria stated the findings that ultimately prevailed on

the matter, moving as follows:

Although the proposed project would implement objectives in the Greater

North Park Community Plan for providing high-quality educational facilities

and preserving open space and hillsides, the proposed project would eliminate

two historic buildings located in the immediate neighborhood, located at 2544

Collier Avenue and 2765 Copley Avenue.

According to the project’s Environmental Impact Report, the proposal

to remove the two architecturally significant structures conflicts with the

community plan’s objective in the urban design element for preserving the

architectural variety and residential character of the Greater North Park

community and preserving and restoring unique or historic structures within

the community. The two structures have been characterized and associated

with the Spanish eclectic architectural style, and their loss, as proposed by the

project, would result in significant and unmitigable impact as stated in the EIR.

Therefore, the project’s proposal to remove the architecturally significant

structures would adversely impact the Greater North Park Community Plan’s

objectives for preserving architectural variety and historic structures within the

community, and this finding cannot be made.

Based upon these findings and on the findings of the information

contained in the staff report, I move that the Planned Development Permit

Number 450668 and Site Development Permit Number 450706 be denied, and

Conditional Use Permit Number 450705 and the Neighborhood Development

Permit Number 590185 be granted in the form, exhibits, terms and conditions

as set forth in Permit Number 450705.

And based upon Staff’s comments today, my motion does not include

adoption of the statement of overriding considerations.

(ECF No. 112-14 at 9-11). 

The City Council’s March 3, 2009 decision included certification of the EIR and

adoption of the EIR’s proposed alternative of “No Project / No Development” that would result

in no significant or unmitigable impacts to the environment. (ECF No. 120-7 at 8-11). In their

Case 3:09-cv-00962-CAB-MDD Document 136 Filed 12/14/11 Page 7 of 15
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 8 - 09cv962-WQH-MDD

written resolution certifying the EIR and adopting the No Project / No Development

alternative, the City Council found that: 

[T]he City Council has the discretion to change a proposed project to avoid

substantial adverse changes to the environment under CEQA Guidelines

sections 15091 and 15092 and San Diego Municipal Code section 112.0508(e);

and... under Public Resources Code section 21060.5 and CEQA Guidelines

section 15360, "environment" includes historic conditions within an area which

will be affected by a proposed project; and... the City Council may require

changes or modifications to the proposed Project to protect neighborhood

character and ensure that historic homes would be preserved on-site; and... to

avoid the significant environmental effects to historical resources analyzed in...

the EIR, the City Council may certify the EIR with the appropriate findings and

approve a No Project /No Development Alternative with a modification for

parking... 

Id.

On May 5, 2009, OLP responded to the City Council’s decision by initiating this action.

In the original and amended complaint, OLP alleges various causes of action relating to the

City Council’s decision to deny OLP’s development permits. (ECF Nos. 1, 109). Both the

original and amended complaint include claims seeking a writ of mandate under California

Code of Civil Procedure § 1094.5, alleging that “[t]he City’s decision rejecting the

Modernization Plan, and approving Use Permits prohibiting the Modernization Plan,

constituted an abuse of discretion, and resulted in findings not supported by the evidence....”

(ECF No. 1 at 13-14; ECF No. 109 at 17). 

DISCUSSION

I. Timeliness of Plaintiff’s Complaint

Defendant contends that OLP’s writ of mandate claim is time barred because OLP failed

to file their claim “within 30 days after the City Council’s final CEQA decision modifying the

[EIR]” and “failed to timely request a hearing,” pursuant to California Public Resources Code

§§ 22167 and 21167.4. (ECF No. 120 at 9, 19). 

California Public Resources Code §§ 21167 and 21167.4 apply to “any action or

proceeding alleging noncompliance with [CEQA].” Cal.Pub.Res.Code §§ 21167, 21167.4.

In this case, Plaintiff’s writ of mandate claim does not allege noncompliance with CEQA or

question the sufficiency of the EIR, but rather challenges the City Council’s decision to deny

the development permits necessary for OLP’s Modernization Plan under California Code of

Case 3:09-cv-00962-CAB-MDD Document 136 Filed 12/14/11 Page 8 of 15
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 9 - 09cv962-WQH-MDD

Civil Procedure section 1094.5. The time limits of California Public Resources Code §§

21167 and 21167.4 do not apply to Plaintiff’s writ of mandate claim.

Pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure § 1094.6, “[j]udicial review of any

decision of a local agency... may be had pursuant to Section 1094.5 of this code only if the

petition for writ of mandate pursuant to such section is ... filed not later than the 90th day

following the date on which the decision becomes final.” Cal. Code Civ. Pro. § 1094.6. The

City Council’s decision to deny OLP’s Use Permits became final on March 6, 2009. (ECF No.

120-7 at 51; AR-00001). OLP filed the original Complaint in this case, including the petition

for writ of mandate, on May 5, 2009. (ECF No. 1). The Complaint was filed within the 90 day

time limit specified in California Code of Civil Procedure § 1094.6 applicable to petitions for

writ of mandate under California Code of Civil Procedure § 1094.5. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s

petition for writ of mandate is not time-barred. 

II. Standard of Review for Summary Judgment

Summary judgment is proper when the “pleadings, depositions, answers to

interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is

no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a

matter of law.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c). An issue of fact is “genuine” only if there is sufficient

evidence for a reasonable fact-finder to find for the non-moving party. See Anderson v. Liberty

Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248-49 (1986). A fact is “material” if it may affect the outcome of

the case. See id. at 248.

“When the party moving for summary judgment would bear the burden of proof at trial,

it must come forward with evidence which would entitle it to a directed verdict if the evidence

went uncontroverted at trial. In such a case, the moving party has the initial burden of

establishing the absence of a genuine issue of fact on each issue material to its case.” Miller

v. Glenn Miller Prods., Inc., 454 F.3d 975, 987 (9th Cir. 2006) (quotation omitted). “Once the

moving party comes forward with sufficient evidence, the burden then moves to the opposing

party, who must present significant probative evidence tending to support its claim or defense.”

C.A.R. Transp. Brokerage Co., Inc. v. Darden Rests., Inc., 213 F.3d 474, 480 (9th Cir. 2000).

Case 3:09-cv-00962-CAB-MDD Document 136 Filed 12/14/11 Page 9 of 15
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 10 - 09cv962-WQH-MDD

“However, in an action such as this in which the Plaintiff challenges the final decision

of an administrative agency, the Court does not utilize the standard analysis for determining

whether a genuine issue of material fact exists.” California RSA No. 4 v. Madera County, 332

F.Supp.2d 1291, 1301 (E.D.Cal. 2003), citing Occidental Engineering Co. v. INS, 753 F.2d

766, 769–70 (9th Cir. 1985). Rather, “the function of the district court is to determine whether

or not as a matter of law the evidence in the administrative record permitted the agency to

make the decision it did.” Occidental Engineering, 753 F.2d at 769–70. In such cases,

“summary judgment is an appropriate mechanism for deciding the legal question of whether

the agency could reasonably have found the facts as it did.” Id.

III. Writ of Mandate Claim

A writ of mandate under California Code of Civil Procedure § 1094.5 seeks judicial

review of a decision by a local agency, inquiring into the validity of that final administrative

order or decision. Cal. Code Civ. Pro. § 1094.5(a). 

(b) The inquiry in such a case shall extend to questions whether the respondent

has proceeded without, or in excess of jurisdiction; whether there was a fair

trial; and whether there was any prejudicial abuse of discretion. Abuse of

discretion is established if the respondent has not proceeded in the manner

required by law, the order or decision is not supported by the findings, or the

findings are not supported by the evidence.

(c) Where it is claimed that the findings are not supported by the evidence, in

cases in which the court is authorized by law to exercise its independent

judgment on the evidence, abuse of discretion is established if the court

determines that the findings are not supported by the weight of the evidence. In

all other cases, abuse of discretion is established if the court determines that the

findings are not supported by substantial evidence in the light of the whole

record.

Cal. Code Civ. Pro. § 1094.5(b), (c). 

The court only apples the independent judgment test, determining whether findings are

supported by the weight of the evidence, if a fundamental vested right is involved. Topanga

Assn. for a Scenic Community v. County of Los Angeles, 214 Cal.App.3d 1348, 1356 FN4

(1989), citing City of Walnut Creek v. County of Contra Costa, 101 Cal.App.3d 1012, 1016

(1980). “Cases involving abuse of discretion charges in the area of land use regulation do not

involve fundamental vested rights.” Id. In such cases, including the case before the Court,

the substantial evidence test applies when evaluating the evidence underlying the findings.

Case 3:09-cv-00962-CAB-MDD Document 136 Filed 12/14/11 Page 10 of 15
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 11 - 09cv962-WQH-MDD

After making a determination that the administrative decision was supported by the findings,

the court then determines whether the findings are supported by substantial evidence in light

of the whole record.

A. Decision Supported by the Findings

OLP contends that “the City, in denying the permits OLP needed to complete its

Modernization Plan, did not make sufficient findings upon which to base its eventual

decision.... [and that] the City has as its sole finding the belief of some neighbors who argued

that the Academy’s project would not conform to the historical integrity of the surrounding

area.” (ECF No. 112-1 at 16-17). 

The City contends that the City Council findings that: “the proposed development...

will, in fact, adversely affect the applicable Land Use Plan;” “the applicant’s plan... is

completely inconsistent with the Greater North Park Plan;” “the applicant’s Environmental

Impact Report fails to present viable repurposing alternative for the historic Collier and Copley

homes;” and “their loss, as proposed by the project, would result in significant and unmitigable

impact[s] as stated in the EIR” supports its decision to deny OLP’s development permits.

(ECF No. 120 at 24-26). 

“If a nonelected decisionmaking body of a local lead agency [such as a planning

commission] certifies an environmental impact report... that certification... may be appealed

to the agency's elected decisionmaking body.” Cal.Pub.Res.Code § 21151(c). “No public

agency shall approve or carry out a project for which an EIR has been certified which identifies

one or more significant environmental effects of the project unless the public agency makes

one or more written findings for each of those significant effects, accompanied by a brief

explanation of the rationale for each finding.” 14 CCR § 15091. See also Mountain Lion

Foundation, 16 Cal.4th at 134, citing Cal.Pub.Res.Code § 21081 ("[A] decisionmaking agency

is prohibited from approving a project for which significant environmental effects have been

identified unless it makes specific findings about alternatives and mitigation measures."). 

“Under CEQA, the public agency bears the burden of affirmatively demonstrating that,

notwithstanding a project's impact on the environment, the agency's approval of the proposed

Case 3:09-cv-00962-CAB-MDD Document 136 Filed 12/14/11 Page 11 of 15
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 12 - 09cv962-WQH-MDD

project followed meaningful consideration of alternatives and mitigation measures.” Mountain

Lion Foundation, 16 Cal.4th at 134. “The purpose of a findings requirement in review under

administrative mandamus (Code Civ. Proc., § 1094.5) is ‘to bridge the analytic gap between

the raw evidence and ultimate decision’ and to show the ‘analytic route the administrative

agency traveled from evidence to action.’” Great Oaks Water Co. v. Santa Clara Valley Water

Dist., 170 Cal.App.4th 956 (2009), citing Topanga, 11 Cal.3d at 515. The agency should

render findings sufficient “to enable the parties to determine whether and on what basis they

should seek review and, in the event of review, to apprise a reviewing court of the basis for the

[agency's] action.” Topanga, 11 Cal.3d. at 514. “[F]indings are to be liberally construed to

support rather than defeat the decision under review.” Topanga, 214 Cal.App.3d at 1356. “The

whole purpose of the EIR ‘review and consideration function’ is... to expose the elected

decision makers to the political heat of certifying an EIR.” Vedanta, 84 Cal.App.4th at 527.

At the January 26, 2009 hearing which “expose[d] the elected decision makers to the

political heat of certifying an EIR,” the City Council noted the strong public sentiment against

a plan that would demolish or move the Copley and Collier buildings. Vedanta, 84

Cal.App.4th at 527. At the March 3, 2009 hearing, Councilman Gloria explicitly stated “the

basis for the [agency's] action” denying the permits. Topanga, 11 Cal.3d. at 514. Councilman

Gloria stated that the significant and unmitigable impacts addressed in the EIR and conflicts

with applicable land use plan prevented the City Council from approving the permits. (ECF

No. 112-14 at 9-11). In the March 3, 2009 written resolution certifying the EIR and adopting

the No Project / No Development alternative, the City Council set forth the CEQA guidelines

and public code supporting their discretion and the findings of the EIR supporting their

decision. (ECF No. 120-7 at 8-11).

The City Council repeatedly stated their findings in support of denying OLP’s

development permits through public hearing testimony, findings on the record, and written

resolution. The City has shown that the City Council decision on March 3, 2009 to deny

OLP’s development permits is supported by findings. OLP is not entitled to judgment as a

Case 3:09-cv-00962-CAB-MDD Document 136 Filed 12/14/11 Page 12 of 15
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 13 - 09cv962-WQH-MDD

matter of law on the writ of mandate claim based on the contention that the City Council

decision was not supported by the findings.

B. Findings Supported by the Evidence

OLP contends that “[e]ven if the Court finds that the City Council’s decision was

supported by findings, no measurable amount of evidence supported those findings.” (ECF

No. 112-1 at 19). OLP contends that, “[t]he substantial evidence, as it was presented to the

City Council... favored the approval of the Academy’s Modernization Plan in its entirety,”

based upon the prior approvals of City Staff and the Planning Commission. Id. at 23. OLP

contends that the decision by the City Council “was based primarily on public comments at

two council meetings” and that otherwise the City Council “gave no explanation nor pointed

to any specific contradictory findings and evidence that in any way justified or supported its

position opposite of all the evidence....” Id. at 24.

The City contends that “the City Council followed its duty under the law to review the

sufficiency of the EIR and found it inadequate to support the [development permits] requested

by OLP.” (ECF No. 120 at 22). The City contends that “the EIR disclosed significant impacts

to City historical resources that would remain significant and unable to be mitigated if

demolished or moved.” The City contends that OLP failed “to propose a viable solution to the

problem or demonstrate infeasibility to support the City’s adoption of a Statement of

Overriding Considerations.” Id. at 24. 

“When an appellant challenges an administrative decision as unsupported by substantial

evidence in light of the record as a whole, it is appellant's burden to demonstrate that the

administrative record does not contain sufficient evidence to support the agency's decision.”

International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers v. Aubry, 42 Cal.App.4th 861, 870 (1996).

In making the substantial evidence determination, the Court “must resolve all conflicts in the

evidence in favor of the judgment or decision of the tribunal below and indulge in all

legitimate and reasonable inferences to support it.” Greenebaum v. City of Los Angeles, 153

Cal.App.3d 391, 408 (1984). Substantial evidence, as used in CEQA guidelines, means

“enough relevant information and reasonable inferences from this information that a fair

Case 3:09-cv-00962-CAB-MDD Document 136 Filed 12/14/11 Page 13 of 15
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 14 - 09cv962-WQH-MDD

argument can be made to support a conclusion, even though other conclusions might also be

reached.” 14 CCR § 15384(a). “The possibility of drawing two inconsistent conclusions from

the evidence does not prevent an administrative agency's finding from being supported by

substantial evidence.” California RSA No. 4, 332 F.Supp.2d at 1302. 

The EIR states that both the Copley and Collier houses are significant to their

environment for representing Spanish architecture. The EIR states that Copley and Collier are

not historically significant per “historical reports,” but “may nonetheless be historically

significant for the purposes of CEQA.” The EIR describes the structures as “locally historic”

resources whose loss would constitute a significant and unmitigable impact to the environment

Such loss would conflict with the applicable land use law, as stated in the Greater North Park

Community Plan, that endeavors to preserve and maintain historic structures within the

neighborhood. The City Council heard and relied on hours of public testimony regarding

OLP’s Modernization Plan that reflected local opposition to the demolition of the two historic

homes.

Public opposition, the applicable neighborhood land use plan, and the unmitigated

significant impact that would result from implementation of OLP’s Modernization Plan create

“reasonable inferences to support” the City’s findings and the decision to deny OLP’s

development permits. Greenebaum, 153 Cal.App.3d at 408. The administrative record in this

case does “contain sufficient evidence to support the agency's decision” and the underlying

findings of the City Council. Aubry, 42 Cal.App.4th at 870.

The Court concludes that the City has shown the findings of the City Council are

“supported by the evidence.” Cal. Code Civ. Pro. § 1094.5(b). OLP is not entitled to judgment

as a matter of law on the writ of mandate claim based on the contention that the City Council

findings were not supported by substantial evidence. 

///

///

///

///

Case 3:09-cv-00962-CAB-MDD Document 136 Filed 12/14/11 Page 14 of 15
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 15 - 09cv962-WQH-MDD

CONCLUSION

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion for Partial Summary Judgment on

the Writ of Mandate Claim is DENIED (Doc. # 112).

DATED: December 14, 2011

WILLIAM Q. HAYES

United States District Judge

Case 3:09-cv-00962-CAB-MDD Document 136 Filed 12/14/11 Page 15 of 15