80 Cal.App.5th 21
Cal. Ct. App.2022Background
- California law (RHNA statutes) establishes an administrative, multi‑agency procedure (HCD + regional councils of governments + local jurisdictions) to allocate regional housing needs.
- SANDAG adopted a draft RHNA allocation for the San Diego region; four cities (Coronado, Imperial Beach, Lemon Grove, Solana Beach) filed administrative appeals alleging SANDAG used a weighted‑voting procedure and that certain board members were biased.
- SANDAG decided the appeals (mostly denying them) and approved the final RHNA allocation using a weighted vote; HCD later approved the final plan.
- The Cities sued in superior court seeking writs, declaratory and injunctive relief to rescind SANDAG’s denial of the appeals and the final RHNA allocation, arguing the weighted vote and alleged bias denied a fair hearing.
- SANDAG demurred, arguing the RHNA statutory scheme (as interpreted in City of Irvine) bars judicial review; the trial court sustained the demurrer without leave to amend and dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.
- The Court of Appeal affirmed, holding City of Irvine controls and that the RHNA administrative process precludes judicial intervention (including procedural due‑process challenges) and that the 2004 repeal of a prior judicial‑review provision supports that intent.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether courts have jurisdiction to hear procedural challenges to an RHNA allocation (e.g., unfair hearing, improper voting, bias) | Cities: City of Irvine involved substantive allocation challenges; procedural due‑process claims ( § 1094.5 ) remain judicially reviewable and could result only in re‑hearing, not a reallocation. | SANDAG: City of Irvine holds the RHNA statutory scheme is the exclusive remedy; judicial review (including indirect/challenge‑by‑relief that would rescind an allocation) is precluded to avoid regional gridlock. | Court: Affirmed SANDAG — City of Irvine controls; legislative scheme precludes judicial review of RHNA determinations, including procedural claims that would effectively rescind allocations. |
| Whether the Cities’ allegations (weighted voting; bias; predetermined outcome) state viable claims on demurrer | Cities: Allegations sufficiently plead denial of fair hearing and bias; they need not prove bias at pleading stage; relief sought could be re‑hearing without changing the ultimate allocation. | SANDAG: Weighted voting is authorized by statute; the administrative appeal process and HCD review provide non‑judicial remedies; claims are barred by lack of jurisdiction. | Court: Did not reach merits; sustained demurrer for lack of jurisdiction under City of Irvine and legislative history. |
| Whether sustaining demurrer without leave to amend was proper | Cities: No amendment could cure a jurisdictional defect, but if any cure existed they would attempt it. | SANDAG: Jurisdictional bar is dispositive; leave to amend would be futile. | Court: Proper to sustain without leave — Cities conceded jurisdictional defect could not be cured and precedent foreclosed relief. |
Key Cases Cited
- City of Irvine v. Southern California Assn. of Governments, 175 Cal.App.4th 506 (2009) (RHNA administrative procedure is exclusive remedy; judicial review of RHNA allocations is precluded)
- San Franciscans for Livable Neighborhoods v. City & County of San Francisco, 26 Cal.App.5th 596 (2018) (describing RHNA purpose and regional allocation framework)
- Tri‑County Special Educ. Local Plan Area v. County of Tuolumne, 123 Cal.App.4th 563 (2004) (governmental entities have no vested individual rights in administration of a program)
- All of Us or None—Riverside Chapter v. Hamrick, 64 Cal.App.5th 751 (2021) (standard of review for demurrer sustaining without leave to amend)
- Hamilton v. Greenwich Investors XXVI, LLC, 195 Cal.App.4th 1602 (2011) (requirement that plaintiff show reasonable possibility amendment can cure defects to obtain leave to amend)