Filed 5/12/23 Coalition for Historical Integrity v. City of San Buenaventura CA2/6

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS

California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions 

not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion 

has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115. 

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION SIX

COALITION FOR 

HISTORICAL INTEGRITY,

 Plaintiff and Appellant,

v.

CITY OF SAN 

BUENAVENTURA,

 Defendant and Respondent.

2d Civ. No. B319536

(Super. Ct. No. 56-2020-

00543397-CU-PT-VTA)

(Ventura County)

This case illustrates the obvious; attitudes and values 

change. The City of San Buenaventura (City) removed a statute 

of Father Junípero Serra because it is now offensive to significant 

members of the community.

 This appeal stems from the denial of a writ of mandate to 

require the City to restore the statute. We do not judge the 

wisdom or the action of the City’s legislative enactments. (Wells 

Fargo Bank v. Superior Court (1991) 53 Cal.3d 1082, 1099.) We 

affirm because the City acted within its legislative prerogative.
2

FACTS

The Statue of Junípero Serra

In 1936, a concrete statue of Serra was dedicated in front of 

the Ventura County courthouse, now San Buenaventura City

Hall. At nine feet four inches the statue was larger than life and 

stood on a rise overlooking all of downtown. In February 1974, 

the City adopted a resolution declaring the statue to be a historic 

landmark, designated as Landmark No. 3.

The Bronze Replica Statue Departure

By 1983, the statue was showing its age. It was cracking 

and in danger of falling apart. The City replaced the concrete 

statue with one cast in bronze. A local woodcarver created the 

form that was used for the cast. The new bronze statue of Serra 

was dedicated in 1989. A plaque was placed at the base of the 

replica statue that stated, “Landmark No. 3.”

The City’s Review of the Statue’s Landmark Status

In 2002, the City created a list of historic landmarks. The 

bronze statue was placed on the list designated as Landmark 

No. 3. Also in 2002, at the City’s request, the Ventura County 

Recorder recorded the 1974 minute order designating the original

Serra statue as a historic landmark.

In 2005, the environmental impact report for the City’s 

General Plan included the bronze statue on a list of landmarks in 

an appendix to the report. The General Plan marks the location 

of the statue as a historical site. 

In 2007, as part of the Downtown Specific Plan (Specific 

Plan), the City commissioned the Historic Resources Group 

(HRG) to conduct a survey. The purpose of the survey was to 

determine whether existing landmarks retain sufficient historic 

integrity to remain eligible for that designation. The survey 
3

identified the bronze statue as one of the previously designated 

landmarks that remain eligible for that determination. The 

Specific Plan lists the bronze statue as a historic resource.

The Bronze Statue’s Demise

In the summer of 2020, the bronze statue was the subject of 

protests and vandalism. The City’s mayor met with a 

representative from the Barbareno/Ventureno Band of Mission 

Indians (Chumash) and the pastor of the Mission San 

Buenaventura. The mayor, the Chumash representative, and the 

pastor signed a letter expressing the belief that the statue should 

be “moved to a more appropriate non-public location.”

The City again hired the HRG to conduct a historic analysis 

of the original concrete statue and the bronze replica statue. This 

time the HRG report concluded that the bronze statue did not 

meet the criteria for a historic landmark. Among the reasons 

given was that an object must be at least 40 years old to be 

eligible for a local historic designation and the 1989 bronze statue 

did not meet those criteria.

Based on the HRG report, the City’s Historic Preservation 

Committee voted that the bronze statue is not Landmark No. 3, 

and not eligible for historic landmark status.

Thereafter, the city council met and adopted three findings. 

First, the bronze statue does not meet the criteria for a historic 

designation. Second, the decision to relocate the bronze statue is 

exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act1 (CEQA)

1 All further references are to the Public Resources Code,

section 21000, et seq. unless otherwise stated.
4

under the “common sense”2 exemption because the removal of a 

non-historic statue will not have a significant effect on the

environment. Third, the bronze statue be relocated to the San 

Buenaventura Mission.

Petition for Writ of Mandate and Ex Parte Application

In July 2020, the Coalition for Historical Integrity 

(Coalition) petitioned the trial court for a writ of mandate and 

injunctive relief. The petition stated four causes of action. First, 

removal of the landmark designation was not supported by 

substantial evidence. Second, removal of the statue violates the 

City’s Specific Plan. Third, removal of the statue violates CEQA. 

Fourth, removal of the statue violates state and municipal law.

On the same day the petition for writ of mandate was filed, 

the Coalition filed an ex parte application for a temporary 

restraining order to halt removal of the statue. The City filed 

opposing documents.

Ruling

The trial court denied the Coalition’s petition for a writ of 

mandate and preliminary injunction, as well as their ex parte 

application for temporary restraining order to prevent removal of 

the statue. Thereafter, the City removed the statue.

2 CEQA Guidelines, California Code of regulations, title 14, 

section 15061(b)(3), states the common sense exemption as 

follows: “The activity is covered by the common sense exemption 

that CEQA applies only to projects which have the potential for 

causing a significant effect on the environment. Where it can be 

seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the activity in 

question may have a significant effect on the environment, the 

activity is not subject to CEQA.”
5

DISCUSSION

I. CEQA

The Coalition contends that removal of the bronze statue 

requires review under CEQA. 

The Coalition points out that the environment CEQA 

protects includes “objects of historic or aesthetic significance.” 

(§ 21060.5.) Section 21084.1 provides in part: “Historical

resources included in a local register of historical resources, as 

defined in subdivision (k) of Section 5020.1, . . . are presumed to 

be historically or culturally significant for purposes of this 

section, unless the preponderance of the evidence demonstrates 

that the resource is not historically or culturally significant.”

The Coalition argues that the bronze statue qualifies as 

presumptively historical. It points to section 5020.1, subdivision 

(k), defining a “local register of historical resources” as a “list of 

properties officially designated or recognized as historically 

significant by a local government pursuant to a local ordinance or 

resolution.” The Coalition argues that the bronze statue was so 

designated by the City in a 1974 resolution.

The City contends that only the original concrete statue 

was designated as a landmark. It asserts that the bronze 

replacement was never so dedicated and is not entitled to 

presumptive historical status.

But even if the statue is presumptively historical, section 

21084.1 expressly provides that the presumption may be rebutted 

by a preponderance of the evidence. Based on the 2020 HRG 

report, the City found that the statue is not historically 

significant. We must uphold the finding if it is supported by 

substantial evidence. (Friends of Willow Glen Trestle v. City of

San Jose (2016) 2 Cal.App.5th 457, 467-468.)
6

The Coalition argues that the 2020 HRG report does not 

constitute substantial evidence. The Coalition asserts that the 

HRG report is anonymous, that it does not provide participant 

testimony, and that there is no evidence the author of the report 

is qualified as an expert.

But municipal agencies can properly consider and base 

decisions on evidence that would not be admissible in a court of 

law. (Floresta, Inc. v. The City Council of the City of San Leandro

(1961) 190 Cal.App.2d 599, 608-609.) Moreover, the Coalition 

itself relies on a 2007 report by HRG. 

Here the 2020 HRG report discusses the history of the 

statue and the criteria for evaluating its historical significance. 

Among other matters, the report points out that the bronze 

replica statue does not meet the 40-year-old threshold required 

for local designation as a historical landmark. The report 

constitutes substantial evidence.

It is true that for most of the statue’s history the City 

viewed the original concrete statue and its bronze replacement as 

one. Recently however, the City viewed the statues as two 

separate statues. The Coalition cites no authority that prevents 

the City from changing its view. It is beyond question that the

original concrete statue and its bronze replacement, are in fact

two different statues.

The Coalition argues that section 21084.1 requires the City 

to find that the statue is “no longer” culturally or historically 

significant. But there is no reason why the presumption cannot 

be rebutted by a finding that the statue was never culturally or 

historically significant. Whether one agrees or not with this 

finding, that is what the City found. Having found the bronze 
7

statue now has no historical significance, it follows that the 

CEQA common sense exemption applies.

II. Specific Plan

The Coalition contends that removal of the bronze statue 

violates the City’s Specific Plan.

The City’s Specific Plan lists the bronze statue as among 

the City’s historic resources. The Coalition argues that the 

Specific Plan provides for the preservation of historical resources. 

It does in part. But section 5.20.020 of the Specific Plan also 

allows for the demolition of a historical resource. The Specific 

Plan provides that the demolition of a historical resource may 

require review by the Historic Preservation Committee, the 

committee that approved removal of the statue. Nothing in the 

Specific Plan prohibits the destruction or removal of a statue that 

is listed as a historical resource upon a finding that on 

reexamination it, in fact, never had historical value.

III. The City’s Municipal Code

The Coalition contends that the City failed to follow the 

procedure set forth in the municipal code for removing landmark 

status from the statue. (See San Buenaventura Mun. Code,

§§ 24.455.510, 24.455.520.) But the City found that the bronze 

statue was never a landmark. That finding is supported by 

substantial evidence. The code provisions for removing landmark 

status do not apply. 

IV. Bias and Prejudgment

The Coalition contends that removal of the statue was a 

quasi-judicial act, and that City council members unlawfully 

acted with bias and prejudice.

The City contends the decision to remove the statue is 

quasi-legislative. Council members acting in a quasi-judicial 
8

capacity must be unbiased and cannot prejudice the matter. 

(Petrovich Development Co., LLC v. City of Sacramento (2020) 48 

Cal.App.5th 963, 973 (Petrovich).) Council members acting in a 

quasi-legislative capacity are not so constrained. (City of Santa 

Cruz v. Superior Court (1995) 40 Cal.App.4th 1146, 1156-1157.)

The only authority cited by the Coalition in support of its 

contention that the City acted in a quasi-judicial capacity is 

Petrovich, supra, 38 Cal.App.5th at page 972. But Petrovich 

involves the denial of a conditional use permit. A conditional use 

permit may only be granted under the criteria established by a 

zoning ordinance. (Gov. Code, § 65901, subd. (a).) Thus, the 

grant or denial of the permit involves questions of fact as to

whether the criteria have been met. The grant or denial is quasijudicial.

The City decided to remove the statue because it was 

offensive to some members of the community. The City was not 

engaged in finding facts under criteria established by a statute or 

ordinance. It was making policy. The City’s decision to remove 

the statue was quasi-legislative. (See Oceanside Marina Towers 

Assn. v. Oceanside Community Development Com. (1986) 187 

Cal.App.3d 735, 745 [decisions of public entities on the location of 

public improvements are legislative].)
9

DISPOSITION

The judgment is affirmed. Costs are awarded to the

respondent.

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED.

GILBERT, P. J.

We concur:

YEGAN, J.

BALTODANO, J.
Ronda J. Mckaig, Judge

Superior Court County of Ventura

______________________________

Mansueto Law Office and Daniel Mansueto; Alti Law Firm

and Michael J. Alti for Plaintiff and Appellant.

Rutan & Tucker and Peter J. Howell for Defendant and 

Respondent.