The Kennedy Comm'n v. City of Huntington Beach
| Decision Date | 11 May 2023 |
| Docket Number | E078403,E077888 |
| Parties | THE KENNEDY COMMISSION, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH et al., Defendants and Appellants. |
| Court | California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
APPEAL from the Superior Court of Los Angeles County No 30-201500801675, Michael L. Stern, Judge. Affirmed.
Michael E. Gates, City Attorney, Michael J. Vigliotta, Chief Assistant City Attorney, Nadin S. Said and Lauren L. Rose Deputy City Attorneys for Defendants and Appellants.
Community Legal Aid SoCal, Sarah Reisman, Erica Embree, Katelyn Rowe; Public Interest Law Project, Michael Rawson, Craig Castellanet; Public Law Center, Ugochi Anaebere-Nicholson, Richard Walker; Jones Day, Roman Darmer and Debbie Chen for Plaintiff and Respondent.
MILLER Acting P. J. Defendants and appellants City of Huntington Beach (Huntington) and the City Council of Huntington Beach (City Council; collectively, the City) appeal the grant of attorney fees in the amount of $3,531,201.10 in favor of plaintiff and respondent The Kennedy Commission (Kennedy) for litigation pertaining to the City's housing element plan under California's Housing Element Law (Gov. Code, § 65580 et seq.). Prior to 2015, the City had adopted its 2013-2021 housing element (Housing Element), which identified sufficient sites to accommodate the City's Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) of lower-income housing mandated by California. This Housing Element was consistent with the general plan of the City. A majority of the units for low-income housing were set aside in an area known as the Beach Edinger Corridors Specific Plan (BECSP). The California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) approved the Housing Element. In 2015, after complaints from residents about the density in the BECSP, the City passed an amendment that significantly reduced the number of housing units that could be developed in the BECSP (Amended BECSP), thereby effectively eliminating sites for low-income housing in Huntington.
Kennedy advised the City that the Amended BECSP did not meet Huntington's requirement for their RHNA and it violated state law. Kennedy filed a petition for alternative writ of mandate and complaint for declaratory and injunctive relief (Petition) alleging in its first cause of action that the Amended BECSP was inconsistent with the Housing Element in violation of Government Code sections 65454, 65580, 65583, 65587 and 65860. Kennedy argued that the Amended BESCSP was void as it was not consistent with the Housing Element. The Petition included five other causes of action, including, in the second cause of action, that the City must implement the Housing Element. The City responded that they were amending the Housing Element to meet their RHNA and were seeking approval from the HCD. The trial court applied Government Code section 65454, which requires a specific plan be consistent with the general plan, and declared the Amended BECSP was void because it conflicted with the general plan. The trial court refused to order that the City had to implement the Housing Element as it was written. Kennedy voluntarily dismissed all the other causes of action without prejudice. The trial court also awarded Kennedy attorney fees as the prevailing party pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 1021.5[1] in the amount of $648,512.75 with a multiplier of 1.4.
In the first appeal filed with this court, Kennedy Comm'n v. City of Huntington Beach (2017) 16 Cal.App.5th 841 (Kennedy)), we reversed the Petition based on Huntington Beach being a charter city. At the time, Government Code section 65700 exempted charter cities from the requirement of consistent housing elements.[2] We remanded for Kennedy to pursue its other causes of action raised in the Petition. The City also filed a separate appeal from the award of attorney fees.
In our second opinion (Kennedy Comm'n v. City of Huntington Beach (Oct. 31, 2017, E066605) [nonpub. opn.]) we reversed the award of attorney fees to Kennedy based on it no longer being the prevailing party. We noted that Kennedy may have an argument that they were entitled to attorney fees under a catalyst theory.
Upon remand, Kennedy filed its First Amended Petition for Alternative Writ of Mandate and Complaint for Declaratory Relief (FAP) and pursued litigation. On February 3, 2020, the City adopted amendments to the Housing Element, which were approved by the HCD. The new housing element (Housing Element II) set aside units for low-income housing in various areas of Huntington-not concentrated in the BECSP-to meet its RHNA. Kennedy and the City stipulated to the dismissal of Kennedy's FAP but agreed that Kennedy could pursue attorney fees.
In January 2021, Kennedy filed its motion for attorney fees pursuant to section 1021.5 claiming that it was entitled to attorney fees under the catalyst theory. The trial court awarded Kennedy $2,522,286.50 in fees and included a 1.4 multiplier, for a total award of $3,531,201.10.
The City raises the following issues on appeal:
1. The trial court erred in awarding Kennedy attorney fees pursuant to section 1021.5 based on the catalyst theory.
2. The trial court erred by finding the lawsuit filed by Kennedy met the statutory requirements of section 1021.5.
3. The trial court issued an excessive attorney fee award as the fees were not reasonable; Kennedy should not be reimbursed for fees incurred both before and after this court's opinion in Kennedy, supra, 16 Cal.App.5th 841; and the trial court erred by applying a multiplier of 1.4.
4. The trial court erred by entering judgment against the City on August 23, 2021.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
The City had a general plan for the development of Huntington. Government Code section 65580 requires every city and county to adopt and update a housing element as part of the general plan. The housing element must assess the local housing need and implement programs to remove constraints and promote development. The housing element must be periodically updated and "subject to review" by the HCD. According to Government Code section 65584, the HCD determines the RHNA for each region of California. (Kennedy, supra, 16 Cal.App.5th at p. 845.)
On September 16, 2013, the City adopted the Housing Element for the period of 2013 through 2021. The Housing Element stated that it would facilitate and encourage the development of affordable housing in the BECSP. The BECSP was a 459-acre area in Huntington Beach. The Housing Element would allow for multi-family, high-density housing. The Housing Element also provided for a streamlined review of projects in the BECSP. It included the RHNA amount of housing for low income, which at the time was 1,353 units. This was allocated between very low income (313 units), low income (220 units), moderate (248 units), and above moderate (572 units). The Housing Element was approved by the HCD on November 12, 2013. (Kennedy, supra, 16 Cal.App.5th at p. 845.)
In 2015, in response to citizen complaints that the area was developing too fast, the City sought to amend the BECSP to reduce the total amount of new development from 4,500 units to 2,100 units, most of which were not set aside for lower-income housing. (Kennedy, supra, 16 Cal.App.5th at p. 846.)
On March 24, 2015, Kennedy contacted the City and notified them that the Amended BECSP violated the Housing Element and that they would not meet the RHNA. In addition, the HCD sent a letter to the City indicating that the Amended BECSP was "inconsistent with the policies and programs within the City's adopted housing element." Despite these warnings, the Amended BECSP was passed on May 4, 2015. (Kennedy, supra, 16 Cal.App.5th at p. 846.) The HCD advised the City that the Amended BECSP no longer complied with state law and the prior certification of the Housing Element was withdrawn. The City advised the HCD that they were in the process of reviewing and revising the Housing Element. (Ibid.)
On July 31, 2015, Kennedy filed its Petition in Orange County Superior Court. (Kennedy, supra, 16 Cal.App.5th at p. 844.) The plaintiffs included Kennedy and additional plaintiffs William Adams and Jason Puleo who both could not find affordable housing in Huntington Beach. (Id. at p. 845.)
The first cause of action in the Petition was for Failure to Act Consistently with the Housing Element. Kennedy cited Government Code sections 65454, 65580, 65583, 65587, and 65860. Relying on Government Code section 65454, the Petition alleged that a specific plan, which here was the Amended BECSP, could be not adopted unless it was consistent with the general plan. The Housing Element in the general plan complied with the RHNA; the Amended BECSP was not consistent and reduced the number of low-income housing units. Kennedy alleged it had standing because it was "directly and beneficially" interested in the City's compliance with all applicable provisions of law. There was no other plain, speedy or adequate remedy. (Kennedy, supra, 16 Cal.App.5th at p. 846.)
The second cause of action relied upon Government Code sections 65581, 85583, 65587 and 65588. It sought a writ of mandate requiring the City to implement the approved Housing Element. The third and fourth causes of action were based on Article XI, section 7 of the California Constitution. The Amended BECSP conflicted with state law and was therefore preempted. Further, the Amended BECSP violated due process. The fifth cause of action alleged unlawful housing discrimination under section 12900 as failing to provide low-income housing had a discriminatory effect. (Kennedy, supra, 16 Cal.App.5th at p. 847.) The sixth cause of action was for a violation of ...
To continue reading
Request your trial