San-Diegans-for-Open-Govt-v-City-of-San-Diego
➤ Gửi thông báo lỗi ⚠️ Báo cáo tài liệu vi phạmNội dung chi tiết: San-Diegans-for-Open-Govt-v-City-of-San-Diego
San-Diegans-for-Open-Govt-v-City-of-San-Diego
Filed 12/27.18: Certified for publication 1/15 19 (order attached)COURT OF APPEAL. FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICTDIVISION ONESTATE OF CALIFORNIASAN DIEGANS San-Diegans-for-Open-Govt-v-City-of-San-DiegoS FOR OPEN GOVERNMENT,Plaintiff and Appellant.V.CITY OF SAN DIEGO.Defendant and Respondent.SYMPHONY ASSET POOL XVL LLC.Real Party in Interest and Respondent.D073284(Super. Ct. No. 37-2015-00015780-CU-TT-CTL)APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Diego County. Judith Hayes. Judge. Affirm San-Diegans-for-Open-Govt-v-City-of-San-Diegoed.Briggs Law Corporation. Cory Briggs and Anthony N. Kim for Plaintiff and Appellant.Troutman Sanders LLP. Peter N. Villar and Michael J. Whitton forSan-Diegans-for-Open-Govt-v-City-of-San-Diego
Real Party inInterest and Respondent.Office of the San Diego City Attorney. Mara w. Elliott and M. Travis Phelps for Defendant and Respondent.San DieFiled 12/27.18: Certified for publication 1/15 19 (order attached)COURT OF APPEAL. FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICTDIVISION ONESTATE OF CALIFORNIASAN DIEGANS San-Diegans-for-Open-Govt-v-City-of-San-DiegoCity) entered into with Symphony Asset Pool XVI, LLC (Symphony) to lease City-owned land containing an oceanfront amusement park in San Diego's Mission Beach neighborhood, and potentially extending the term of a prior lease of the premises for a significant additional period. Specifically. SDOG cont San-Diegans-for-Open-Govt-v-City-of-San-Diegoends (1) the City's approval of the amended and restated lease violates Proposition G, passed by the City's electorate in 1987. to limit commercial deSan-Diegans-for-Open-Govt-v-City-of-San-Diego
velopment on the premises; (2) the City improperly concluded that its decision to enter into the amended and restated lease was exempt from the requirFiled 12/27.18: Certified for publication 1/15 19 (order attached)COURT OF APPEAL. FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICTDIVISION ONESTATE OF CALIFORNIASAN DIEGANS San-Diegans-for-Open-Govt-v-City-of-San-Diegoe City violated section 99 of its charter (as it existed at the time) by failing to publish notice in the official City newspaper and pass an ordinance prior to entering into the amended and restated lease.We conclude that SDOG's arguments lack merit. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment.I.FACTUAL AN San-Diegans-for-Open-Govt-v-City-of-San-DiegoD PROCEDURAL BACKGROUNDA.The Development of Belmont ParkIn 1925, a parcel of oceanfront property in San Diego was developed by John D. Spreckels as anSan-Diegans-for-Open-Govt-v-City-of-San-Diego
amusement park, which is now commonly referred to as Belmont Park.2Two of the original amusement attractions still existing al the site today arc theFiled 12/27.18: Certified for publication 1/15 19 (order attached)COURT OF APPEAL. FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICTDIVISION ONESTATE OF CALIFORNIASAN DIEGANS San-Diegans-for-Open-Govt-v-City-of-San-Diegos granted to the City for the enjoyment of its people. In 1973. the City passed an ordinance naming the properly on which Belmont Park stands, along with additional adjacent land, as Mission Beach Park and dedicated it to be used for park and recreational purposes.!B. The Ỉ987 LeaseIn order to revit San-Diegans-for-Open-Govt-v-City-of-San-Diegoalize and renovate an aging Belmont Park, on March 5, 19X7, the City entered into a lease agreement with Belmont Park Associates (the 19X7 [.ease).AttSan-Diegans-for-Open-Govt-v-City-of-San-Diego
ached to the 19X7 Lease was a Development Plan for the premises. Among other things, the Development Plan described the remodeling and improvement of Filed 12/27.18: Certified for publication 1/15 19 (order attached)COURT OF APPEAL. FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICTDIVISION ONESTATE OF CALIFORNIASAN DIEGANS San-Diegans-for-Open-Govt-v-City-of-San-Diego buildings will house restaurants and shops for food and beverages and other recreational and/or visitor-serving commercial uses." It also staled that "[t]he existing roller rink building will be demolished and replaced with three new buildings containing restaurants and shops for food and beverages San-Diegans-for-Open-Govt-v-City-of-San-Diego and other recreational and/or visitor-serving commercial uses." I he Development Plan further provided for parking and pedestrian-related improvementSan-Diegans-for-Open-Govt-v-City-of-San-Diego
s, the! According to documents in the record, it appears that excluding the Roller Coaster footprint. Belmont Park is located on approximately seven aFiled 12/27.18: Certified for publication 1/15 19 (order attached)COURT OF APPEAL. FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICTDIVISION ONESTATE OF CALIFORNIASAN DIEGANS San-Diegans-for-Open-Govt-v-City-of-San-Diegohe Roller Coaster, public park areas and a parking lot. consists of a total area of approximately 17 acres.3renovation of a lifeguard building, with an extension that would include restrooms, and new landscaping, fountains, plazas and benches.-The parties agreed in the 1987 Lease that "the Premises San-Diegans-for-Open-Govt-v-City-of-San-Diegoare leased ... for park and recreation uses, specifically for the construction, operation and maintenance of a park visitor oriented commercial and reSan-Diegans-for-Open-Govt-v-City-of-San-Diego
creational center, as described in the Development Plan .... and for such other related or incidental purposes as may be first approved in writing by Filed 12/27.18: Certified for publication 1/15 19 (order attached)COURT OF APPEAL. FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICTDIVISION ONESTATE OF CALIFORNIASAN DIEGANS San-Diegans-for-Open-Govt-v-City-of-San-Diegoase set forth the following description of contemplated uses:Filed 12/27.18: Certified for publication 1/15 19 (order attached)COURT OF APPEAL. FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICTDIVISION ONESTATE OF CALIFORNIASAN DIEGANSGọi ngay
Chat zalo
Facebook