Citizens Ass'n v. Orange County Local Agency Formation Commission
209 Cal. App. 4th 1182
| Cal. Ct. App. | 2012Background
- Sunset Beach, 133–134 acres, unincorporated in Orange County, was annexed by Huntington Beach via island annexation statutes without a Sunset Beach vote.
- Two Huntington Beach taxes—5% utility tax and a pre-Prop. 13 retirement tax surcharge—were applied to Sunset Beach after annexation.
- § 57330 provides that territory annexed to a city is subject to previously authorized taxes; thus Sunset Beach residents now face Huntington Beach taxes they did not vote on.
- Citizens Association of Sunset Beach sued to halt annexation or to require a Sunset Beach vote on the two taxes under Prop. 218 (Art. XIII C/XE D), seeking a writ of mandate and injunction.
- Trial court denied Prop. 218 relief and allowed the annexation; OC LAFCO completed annexation; Citizens Association appealed.
- The appellate court held Prop. 218 does not apply to annexations, and affirmed the trial court’s denial, concluding the annexation statutes are not trumped by Prop. 218; the matter is not moot and no election on taxes is required for annexations.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does Prop. 218 require an election on taxes flowing from annexation? | Citizens Association: Prop. 218 governs tax imposition and requires voters to approve new taxes tied to annexation. | Huntington Beach: Prop. 218 does not apply to annexations; dual voting structure applies to taxes, not annexations. | No election required for annexation taxes; Prop. 218 does not apply to annexations. |
| Is the island annexation framework compatible with Prop. 218, or does it compel elections on tax differentials? | Citizens Association contends annexation taxes should invoke Prop. 218 voting. | Court interprets Prop. 218 as not intended to govern annexations; existing statutes remain. | Prop. 218 does not compel elections under island annexation rules. |
| Is the case moot since annexation is complete? | Case remains live due to constitutional questions. | Annexation finality could moot some issues, but constitutional questions could reoccur. | Case not moot; constitutional questions remain; appellate review appropriate. |
| Could OC LAFCO have conditioned annexation on Sunset Beach voters’ approval of the taxes? | Citizens Association suggests conditioning on Prop. 218 votes. | Prop. 218 does not apply to annexations; conditioning issue not properly before court. | Academic question; not necessary to decide in light of Prop. 218’s inapplicability to annexations. |
Key Cases Cited
- Dorff v. Metropolitan Water Dist. of So. California, 98 Cal.App.3d 109 (Cal. App. Dist. 3 1979) (implied repeal concerns; annexation tax effects within Prop. 13 history)
- AB Cellular LA, LLC v. City of Los Angeles, 150 Cal.App.4th 747 (Cal. App. 2d Dist. 2007) (tax-base methodology; Prop. 218 context not anchoring annexation ruling)
- Rider v. County of San Diego, 1 Cal.4th 1 (Cal. 1991) (illustrates two-thirds vote for certain taxes; Prop. 62/Prop. 218 backdrop)
- Penziner v. West American Finance Co., 10 Cal.2d 160 (Cal. 1937) (interpretation of constitutional provisions; harmony with existing statutes)
- Davis v. City of Berkeley, 51 Cal.3d 227 (Cal. 1990) (voter intent governs interpretation of initiative language)
- City Westminster v. County of Orange, 204 Cal.App.3d 623 (Cal. App. 1988) (context for annexation and taxation debates)
- Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Assn. v. County of Orange, 110 Cal.App.4th 1375 (Cal. App. 2003) (Prop. 218 ballot materials and intent analysis)