02 - Laserfiche WebLink

BACKGROUND The City of Irvine ("Irvine') filed a petition for writ of mandate in the Orange County Superior Court to challenge the adoption by the Southern California Association of Governments ("SCAG") final allocation plan under the regional housing needs assessment ("RHNA") for the current housing cycle. SCAG filed a motion asking the Orange County Superior Court to dismiss Irvine's lawsuit on the ground that courts have jurisdiction to review and adjudicate the validity of determinations rendered by regional councils of government related to the RHNA process. Acknowledging that there is no expressed statutory provision and that the decision on the jurisdictional issue was a difficult call, the Superior Court dismissed Irvine's lawsuit. In addition, the Superior Court expressed that there was "no doubt that this issue will be revisited by the appellate courts." Irvine has appealed the dismissal of its lawsuit, and the jurisdictional issue is currently before the California Court of Appeal for the Fourth Appellate District, Division 3. Although the facts of Irvine's lawsuit are not relevant to the appeal, it is worth noting that SCAG allocated Irvine over 43% of the entire Orange County regional housing need, which, in Irvine's view, hardly constitutes a "fair share" allocation. Irvine's lawsuit claims that this allocation constitutes an abuse of discretion and violates various State mandates and requirements in connection with the RHNA process. When Irvine learned that SCAG was seeking support for its position on the jurisdictional issue from other regional councils of governments and/or the California Association of Councils of Governments, Irvine submitted a formal request to the Legal Advisory Committee of the League of California Cities for authorization of an amicus brief addressing the following: "The legal issue is solely and simply whether a court has jurisdiction to hear a mandamus challenge brought by a city or county against a council of governments for official action taken during the RHNA process." The Legal Advocacy Committee considered the request and approved the preparation and filing of an amicus brief on behalf of the League. Despite this recommendation, on November 22, 2008, the California League of Cities Board voted to rescind the Legal Advocacy Committee's decision and instead remain neutral in the litigation. Individual cities are free to participate in amicus support if they wish to do so which is why Irvine has requested such support. DISCUSSION The disposition of this appeal has serious implications for all California cities. Currently, there is no forum in the courts for a city to seek relief in the event the RHNA process fails to comply with State-mandated requirements. If allowed to become the law of the State, the holding in the Irvine lawsuit could have disastrous consequences for all cities with regard to determinations made by regional councils of government. Furthermore, it could be used to establish precedent with respect to other obligations imposed on cities by Regional Councils and the state. Page 2 of 3