City of Coronado v. San Diego Ass'n of Governments

• Decision Date: 20 June 2022
• Docket Number: D079013
• Citation: 80 Cal.App.5th 21,295 Cal.Rptr.3d 384
• Parties: CITY OF CORONADO et al., Plaintiffs and Appellants, v. SAN DIEGO ASSOCIATION OF GOVERNMENTS et al., Defendants and Respondents.
• Court: California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals

80 Cal.App.5th 21

295 Cal.Rptr.3d 384

CITY OF CORONADO et al., Plaintiffs and Appellants,

v.SAN DIEGO ASSOCIATION OF GOVERNMENTS et al., Defendants and Respondents.

D079013

Court of Appeal, Fourth District, Division 1, California.

Filed June 20, 2022

Sloan Sakai Yeung & Wong, Madeline E. Miller, Sacramento, Nancy C. Miller and Christopher W. Moores for Plaintiffs and Appellants.

Meyers Nave, Deborah J. Fox, Amrit S. Kulkarni and Margaret W. Rosequist, Los Angeles, for Defendants and Respondents.

Miller Starr Regalia and Kenneth A. Stahl for Yimby Law as amicus curiae on behalf of Defendants and Respondents.

AARON, J.

I.INTRODUCTION

"The Legislature enacted the regional housing needs assessment (RHNA) procedure ... to address the state's shortage of affordable housing." ( San Franciscans for Livable Neighborhoods v. City and County of San Francisco (2018) 26 Cal.App.5th 596, 610, 236 Cal.Rptr.3d 893.) As a component of this process, "[v]arious regional councils of governments, in conjunction with the cities and counties within their jurisdictions and the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD), devise methods for distributing existing and projected housing needs within their regions and for allocating a share of the regional housing needs to each local jurisdiction." ( Ibid. )

In City of Irvine v. Southern California Assn. of Governments (2009) 175 Cal.App.4th 506, 96 Cal.Rptr.3d 78 ( City of Irvine ), the Court of Appeal concluded that "the administrative procedure established under Government Code section 65584^{[1 ]} et seq.... to calculate a local government's allocation of the regional housing needs assessment (RHNA) is intended to be the exclusive remedy for the municipality to challenge that determination and thereby preclude[s] judicial review of the decision." ( Id. at p. 510, 96 Cal.Rptr.3d 78.) Among other reasons supporting this conclusion, the City of Irvine court noted that in 2004, the Legislature "eliminated" a statutory provision authorizing judicial review of RHNA allocations. ( Id. at p. 521, 96 Cal.Rptr.3d 78.) The City of Irvine court reasoned that "the 2004 repeal of the judicial remedy reinforces our conclusion the Legislature clearly intended to eliminate judicial remedies for challenging a municipality's RHNA allocation." ( Id. at p. 522, 96 Cal.Rptr.3d 78.)

In this action, the City of Coronado, City of Imperial Beach, City of Lemon Grove, and City of Solana Beach (collectively "the Cities") filed a combined petition for writ of administrate mandate ( Code Civ. Proc., § 1094.5 ) and complaint for injunctive and declaratory relief (petition / complaint) against the San Diego Association of Governments and its board of directors (The Board) (collectively SANDAG).² In their petition / complaint, the Cities maintained that SANDAG denied them a fair hearing when deciding the Cities' administrative appeals of SANDAG's RHNA allocations, for two reasons. First, the Cities alleged that SANDAG unfairly used a "weighted vote" procedure in which member jurisdictions cast votes based on their respective populations rather than a "tally vote" in which each member jurisdiction has a single, evenly-weighted vote.³ The Cities claimed that in ruling on the Cities' administrative appeals, SANDAG had acted in a "quasi-judicial capacity" and that the use of weighted voting in this context "violate[s] fundamental tenets of procedural due process, fairness, equity." The Cities further alleged that certain members of the Board were biased against the Cities and that their decision to deny the Cities' administrative appeals was "predetermined," thereby "rendering the decision on the [a]ppeals invalid." In their prayer for relief, the Cities requested that the trial court enter a judgment "rescind[ing]," the "Final RHNA allocation."

SANDAG filed a demurrer. In a brief supporting its demurrer, SANDAG argued that the trial court lacked jurisdiction over the action for the reasons stated in City of Irvine. The trial court agreed with SANDAG, stating that the City of Irvine court concluded that the "Legislature specifically eliminated judicial review of the RHNA allocation," and that "the same analysis applies to bar [the Cities'] claims for judicial relief." Accordingly, the court sustained SANDAG's demurrer without leave to amend, and entered judgment in its favor.

On appeal, the Cities contend that the trial court erred in concluding that City of Irvine precludes their action. The Cities argue that City of Irvine involved a substantive challenge to the municipality's RHNA allocation and does not bar their "procedural challenge," and that they are entitled to judicial redress to remedy SANDAG's use of a purportedly unfair process to decide their administrative appeals of SANDAG's RHNA allocations. The Cities also contend that their action should not be barred merely because, if they were to prevail, the " ‘end result’ " would be the "rescission of the [RHNA] housing allocation." The Cities also argue that the Legislature's 2004 deletion of the prior provision authorizing judicial review of an RHNA allocation is "not determinative" (boldface & capitalization omitted) as to the court's jurisdiction to entertain the Cities' challenge to the fairness of the RHNA process in this case.

We are not persuaded by any of the Cities' attempts to distinguish City of Irvine. For reasons that we explain in part III, post , we hold that City of Irvine is controlling and bars the Cities' action. Accordingly, we conclude that the trial court properly sustained SANDAG's demurrer without leave to amend and we affirm the judgment.⁴

II.FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

A. The Cities' petition / complaint

The Cities filed their petition / complaint against SANDAG in September 2020. In their petition / complaint, the Cities alleged that SANDAG abused its discretion and failed to provide a fair hearing in ruling on the Cities' administrative appeals of SANDAG's draft RHNA allocations ( § 65584.05 ).

1. The Cities' summary of their action

The Cities summarized their action as follows:

"This action arise from SANDAG's abuse of discretion in carrying out its duties under ... section 65584.04, including its failure to provide a fair hearing and approval due to its utilization of weighted voting under Public Utilities Code section 132351.2^{[5 ]} in a quasi-judicial proceeding.

"[The Cities] also did not receive a fair hearing because certain members of [the Board] were biased against [the Cities]. The[ ] ... decision [of the members of the Board] to deny the appeals was predetermined. Therefore, [the Cities] did not receive a fair hearing on the [a]ppeals because these [members of the Board] did not act as neutral and impartial decisionmakers.

"... The [f]inal RHNA [a]llocation was preceded by and predicated upon these prejudicial abuses of discretion. Because the weighted vote on the [a]ppeals was improper and the [Cities] were not afforded neutral and impartial decisionmakers, the [c]ourt should order: (1) that the [f]inal RHNA [a]llocation approval by SANDAG be rescinded, (2) that SANDAG's denial of the [a]ppeals be rescinded, (3) that the [a]ppeals be remanded to SANDAG [for] its consideration, and (4) that SANDAG be prohibited from utilizing a weighted vote on the [a]ppeals."

2. The Cities' description of the factual and procedural basis underlying their petition / complaint

In their petition / complaint, the Cities explained that each of the four cities filed an administrative appeal of SANDAG's draft RHNA allocation in January 2020, pursuant to section 65584.05. The Cities outlined the numerous bases of each of their respective administrative appeals, which included grounds such as "[l]ack of [l]and [u]se [a]uthority," and "[u]nreachable [d]evelopment [e]xpectations."⁶

While the Cities' administrative appeals were pending, three jurisdictions⁷ submitted objections to SANDAG's procedures for resolving the appeals. One of the objections was "that the [a]ppeals were quasi-judicial in nature and therefore should be decided by a tally vote and not a weighted vote." In addition, the Cities submitted a joint letter to SANDAG objecting to the use of weighted voting to decide their appeals.⁸ According to the petition / complaint, "The letter ... objected to the use of the weighted vote in the context of quasi-judicial appeals because the weighted vote would deny the appealing jurisdictions a fair hearing."

Notwithstanding these objections, in June of 2020, SANDAG used a weighted vote to determine the administrative appeals. Based on the weighted vote, SANDAG rejected all of the appeals except for one modification to the City of Coronado's RHNA allocation.

A few weeks after the resolution of the administrative appeals, SANDAG approved the final RHNA allocation, again based on a weighted vote.

3. The causes of action

The petition / complaint contains three causes of action. In their first cause of action for a writ of administrative mandate ( Code Civ. Proc, § 1094.5 ) the Cities claim that "[b]ecause the weighted vote of the [a]ppeals was improper, the decision on the [a]ppeals is invalid, which renders the [f]inal RHNA [a]llocation approval invalid." In the second cause of action, also for a writ of administrative mandate ( Code Civ. Proc, § 1094.5 ), the Cities allege, upon information and belief, that certain members of the Board were biased against the Cities and that the decision of these members to deny the Cities' appeals was improperly "predetermined." In their third cause of action for declaratory and injunctive relief, the Cities request a declaration that SANDAG "denied [the Cities] a fair and impartial hearing," and an injunction directing SANDAG to conduct "quasi-judicial hearings on RHNA appeals to the requirement of state law...."

4. The prayer for relief

In their prayer for relief, the Cities request a judgment that includes a writ of mandate against SANDAG stating that "[t]he [f]inal RHNA allocation approved by SANDAG on July...