10John Bakker (SBN: 198563) jbakker@meyersnave.com Shaye Diveley (SBN: 215602) sdiveley@meyersnave.eom 555 12th Street, Suite 1500 Oakland, California 94607 Telephone: (510) 808?2000 Facsimile: (510) 444?1108 Attorneys for Plaintiff and Petitioner CITY OF CORONADO CITY OF CORONADO, Plaintiff and Petitioner, V. SAN DIEGO COUNTY LOCAL AGENCY FORMATION COMMISSION, and DOES I through XX, inclusive, Defendants and Respondents. MEYERS, NAVE, RIBACK, SILVER WILSON EXEMPT FROM FILING FEES CODE 6103 SUFERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO Case No, AMENDED FETITTON FOR WRIT OF MANDATE AND COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY RELIEF (CCP 1085, 1094.5; Gov. Code, 56107) Complaint filed: January 6, 2016 Trial Date: None Set AMENDED PETITION AND COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY RELIEF Petitioner and Plaintiff CITY OF CORONADO hereby petitions for a peremptory writ of mandate pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure sections 1085 and/or 1094.5, and seeks declaratory and injunctive relief, directing Respondent and Defendant SAN DIEGO COUNTY LOCAL AGENCY FORMATION COMMISSION to immediately comply with the Government Code section 56133, part of the Cortese-Knox?Hertzberg Local Government Reorganization Act of 2000, and to enjoin any actions in violation of that provision. By this Petition and Complaint, Petitioner/Plaintiff alleges as follows: i. rNrRonucrrON I 1. This action Challenges certain acts and omissions of Respondent/Defendant SAN DIEGO COUNTY LOCAL AGENCY FORMATION COMMISSION (?San Diego for abusing its discretion and failing to act in a manner required by law by refusing to exercise its required jurisdiction under Government Code section 56133 to prevent the City of Imperial Beach (?Imperial Beach?) from providing sewer services to a project within the City limits of Petitioner and Plaintiff CITY OF CORONADO (??Coronado? or ?Petitioner?). 2. Imperial Beach has stated it plans to provide sewer services to the new Coastal Campus on the Naval Base Coronado Silver Strand Training Complex South (?Coastal Campus Project?), located wholly within the city limits of Coronado and outside of the city limits and sphere of in?uence of Imperial Beach. As a general rule, cities are authorized to operate only within their boundaries. Imperial Beach would have no authority to provide sewer services to the Coastal Campus Project unless it applied for and received approval of San Diego LAFCO under Government Code section 56133. 3. When Petitioner alerted San Diego LAFCO to this unpermitted and improper extension of services within Petitioner?s borders, San Diego LAFCO refused to take any action to stop it and ensure compliance with Government Code section 56133. Rather, on December 7, 2015, San Diego LAFCO determined that a 1967 agreement between Imperial Beach and the Navy for a different project that has since been abandoned gave Imperial Beach the right to unilaterally extend its sphere of influence and provide new sewer services within Coronado?? without any input or authorization by Coronado. San Diego LAFCO is supposed to act as an 1 AMENDED PETITION AND COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY RELIEF iscertain approvals thereunder, including the requirements and restrictions of the Cortese?Knox? independent ?watchdog? agency to ensure, among other things, the efficient and non?duplicative delivery of services by regulating proposals to extend services outside a city?s jurisdictional boundaries. San Diego abandonment of its statutory obligations and refusal to ensure compliance with Government Code section 156133 is arbitrary and capricious, totally lacking in evidentiary support, and a prejudicial abuse of discretion. 4. For these reasons, and others set forth below in this Complaint/Petition, the actions of San Diego LAFCO are unlawful, invalid and unenforceable. Petitioner respectfully requests 1 that this Court issue a writ of mandamus compelling San Diego LAFCO to comply with Government Code section 56133 before authorizing any sewer services within Petitioner?s K- boundaries; and enter judgment declaring San Diego acts unlawful under I Government Code section 56133. 11. PARTIES 5. Petitioner and Plaintiff CITY OF CORONADO is a municipality originally organized and existing under the laws of the State of California, Coronado, also known as Coronado Island, is a coastal city located in southern San Diego County directly west of the City of San Diego. Coronado lies on a peninsula that is surrounded by the Paci?c Ocean on the west and San Diego Bay. The proposed Coastal Campus Project is located at the southern end of Coronado, where the City connects to the mainland by a 10-mile strip of land called the Silver Strand. The City of Coronado provides fire protection, police, and sewer services city-wide. 6. Respondent and Defendant SAN DIEGO COUNTY LOCAL AGENCY FORMATION COMMISSION is, and was at all times relevant hereto, a public agency organized and existing pursuant to the Cortese?Knoquertzberg Local Government Reorganization Act of 2000 (Gov. Code, 56000 et seq), which establishes a local agency formation commission for each of California?s 58 counties. San Diego LAPCO is obligated to enforce certain laws and make Hertzberg Local Government Reorganization Act at issue in this action. 7. Petitioner does not know the true names and capacities of the persons or entities sued as Respondents/Defendants DOES I through XX, inclusive, and therefore sue these 2 AMENDED PETITION AND FOR DECLARATORY RELEEF respondents by their fictitious names. Petitioner will amend this Petition and Complaint to set forth their names and capacities along with appropriate charging allegations when such information has been ascertained. JUMSDECTEON AND VPNDE 8. This Court has jurisdiction to issue a peremptory writ of mandate under either California Code of Civil Procedure section 1094.5 or California Code of Civil Procedure section 1085. The action against San Diego VLAFCO arises under the laws of California. 9. Venue is preper in this Court under California Code of Civil Procedure sections 393, 394 and 395 because the real propertyraffected by San Diego actions is located in San Diego County. 1V. LEGAL EACKGROUND 10. San Diego actions are a direct affront to Coronado?s municipal sovereignty. 1t flies in the face of the long?standing procedures and practices for regulating proposals of cities and districts to extend. services beyond their boundaries. Under the Cortese? Knox-Hertzberg Local Government Reorganization Act of 2000 (the California law provides a comprehensive statutory scheme governing, among other things, city incorporations, special district formations. annexations to and detachments from cities or special districts, and city and special district consolidations and dissolutions. To facilitate local decision-making, the Act creates local agency formation commissions in each county of California? and it authorizes LAPCOS to make decisions on a variety of governmental planning and resource allocation issues. These laws established local agency formation commissions (LAFCOs) in each county to serve as ?watch dog? agencies to ?guard against the wasteful duplication of services that results from indiscriminate formation of new local agencies or haphazard annexation of territory to existing local agencies.? (Boo/rout 12. Local Agency Formation Commission ofTuZore County (1975) 49 Cal.App.3d 3833 388.) LAFCO responsibility includes decisions regarding the scope and potential extension of services provided by cities and districts. 3 AMENDED AND COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY RELIEF 11. The Act delineates the rights and obligations of LAFCOS and service providers. Specifically, section 56133 provides for when and how a local agency may expand its services beyond its boundaries: A city or district may provide new or extended services by contract or agreement outside its jurisdictional boundaries only if it ?rst requests and receives written approval from the commission in the a?ected county. (Gov. Code, 56133(a) [emphasis added].) The legislative intent of section 56133 is to strengthen the ability of LAFCOS to ful?ll their mandate to promote the orderly development of local agencies. (See, Sen. Local Gov. Com, Rep. on Assem. Bill No. 1335 (1993? 1994 Reg. Sess.).) State law allows LAFCO to approve extraterritorial services outside of an agency?s sphere of in?uence only under very limited circumstances. (Gov. Code, 56133(b), 12. State law further limits what services even LAFCO can approve to be provided within another city?s boundaries. In general, cities cannot provide services outside of their corporate boundaries in the absence of constitutional or statutory authorization. (See City of Oakland v. Brock (1937) 8 Cal.2d 639. 641.) The California Constitution further prohibits the annexation of a city by another city without the express approval of the affected city?s voters. (Cal. Const. art. X1, 2.) Citiespare specifically authorized to provide certain utility services, such as water and electrical services, outside of their boundaries, but they cannot do so within the boundaries of another city without the city?s consent. (See Cal.Const., art. X1. 9.) However, neither the California Constitution nor state law allows a city to provide sewer service outside of its boundaries. Sewer services may only be provided in another city?s boundaries upon the consent of the aifected city. 13. These provisions all emphasize the significance of a city?s adopted jurisdictional and sphere boundaries, which are principal tools in planning for future growth. The need for LAFCO oversight and approval is readily apparent from the facts of this case, where Imperial Beach proposes sewer services outside of its boundaries and without Coronado?s approval. 4 AMENDED PETITION AND COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY RELIEF GENERAL ALLEGATEONS 14. Imperial Beach has stated that it plans to provide sewer services to the new Coastal Campus on the Naval Base Coronado Silver Strand Training Complex - South (?Coastal Campus Project?). The project site is located entirely within Coronado?s boundaries and is not in Imperial Beach?s boundaries or sphere of in?uence as set by San Diego LAFCO. At no point has Petitioner ever agreed that Imperial Beach could provide sewer services within Coronado?s boundaries for the Coastal Campus Project. 15. Petitioner noti?ed San Diego LAFCO that Imperial Beach was proposing to extend its services within Coronado?s territory without Petitioner?s consent or LAFCO authorization. On April 9, 2015, San Diego LAPCO staff issued a notification that tentatively concluded that Imperial Beach?s plans were exempt under Government Code section 56133(e)(4)l from San Diego oversight because of a 1967 agreement between the Navy?and Imperial Beach providing for sewer service for the since-abandoned Naval Radio Station. 16. Petitioner was greatly surprised by this conclusion by San Diego LAFCO staff, as there appeared to be no basis for asserting an exemption to section 56133. The provision relied on by staff, section 56133(e)(4), exempts out?of-agency service agreements if a city was providing the ?extended service on or before January 1, 2001 This common-sense exemption (for ?an expanded service?) merely grandfathers service to existing development. (Gov. Code, Indeed, it is the general practice of LAFCOS to interpret new and extended services to involve the actual delivery of services to a specific property. In this case, Imperial Beach was not already providing services to the Coastal Campus Project and the 1967 agreement, even if construed as operable and valid, was for an entirely different project, so there was?no basis for the application of this or any other section 56133 exemption to the Coastal Campus Project. 17. Accordingly, Petitioner submitted comments to San Diego LAFCO on May 1, 2015, and on July 7, 2015, requesting San Diego LAPCO to exercise its jurisdiction over the 1 Section 56133 was amended, effective January 1, 2016, to change the enumeration of its subsections. For ease of reference, this Petition and Complaint refers to the new subsections. 5 AMENDED PETITION AND COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY RELIEF proper provision of sewer services to the Coastal Campus Project. On or about May 26, 2015, Imperial Beach also submitted comments to San Diego LAFCO indicating that the City recognizes the authority of San Diego LAP CO to determine the appropriate utility service boundaries for municipalities and would not provide services beyond the current service levels without authorization from LAFCO. 18. On August 7, 2015, San Diego LAFCO staff formalized its conclusions in a document entitled ?Preliminary Determination.? Among the conclusions in the Preliminary Determination was that the continued provision of sewer service by Imperial Beach to the Coastal Campus Project within Coronado is not subject to LAFCO purview pursuant to Government Code Section 56133(e)(4). 19. On or about September 15, 2015, Petitioner filed a request for reconsideration, which San Diego LAFCO scheduled for hearing at its regularly scheduled meeting on December 7, 2015. On December 7, San Diego LAFCO adopted the findings in the Preliminary Determination and denied Petitioner?s request for reconsideration. 20. Coronado and Imperial Beach respect one another?s boundaries and respective rights to decide how municipal services are provided Within their boundaries. Coronado has been informed, and on that basis alleges, that Imperial Beach does not desire to be a party to or otherwise participate in this litigation and takes no position on whether LAFCO approval is required before it can serve the Coastal Campus Project. REMEDIES EXHAUSTEON OP 21. Petitioner has performed any and all conditions precedent to ?ling this Petition and Complaint, and has exhausted any and all administrative remedies. At various times, Petitioner has submitted written correspondence, objections and appeals to San Diego LAPCO regarding its failure to proceed in the manner required by law and its prejudicial abuse of discretion. 22. By this Petition, Petitioner requests that San Diego LAFCO provide a true and correct copy of any administrative record to be lodged with the court before the hearing date on the peremptory writ of mandate. 6 AMENDED AND FOR DECLARATORY RELIEF all times mentioned in this Petition and Complaint, San Diego LAFCO has been able to perform the ministerial and mandatory duties imposed on them consistent with applicable law. Accordingly, Petitioner had no recourse but to file this litigation. FIRST CAUSE OF ACTEON For Writ of Mandamus (Code Civ. Proe. i085 and/or 1094.5) San Diego LAFCQ Has Failed to Perform Acts Required by Law andPrejudicially Abused Their Discretion 24. Petitioners incorporate by reference the allegations set?forth in paragraphs 1 through 23, above. 25. Petitioner states this claim under California Code of Civil Procedure section 1085, or, in the alternative, under California Code of Civil Procedure section 1094.5. 26. The Act makes plain that where a city wants to extend its services by contract or agreement outside its jurisdictional boundaries, that city must ?first request[] and receive written approval from the LAFCD in the affected eounty.? (Gov. Code, Thus, San Diego LAFCO has a clear, present, ministerial and mandatory duty to require Imperial Beach to submit an application for consideration and approval before allowing Imperial Beach to provide sewer services within Petitioner?s boundaries. By denying Petitioner?s request to enforce the requirements of the Act, and allowing Imperial Beach to provide services in Coronado without requiring compliance with the Act?s application and approval process, San Diego LAFCO has failed to enforce the Act and its obligations thereunder. In doing so, San Diego LAPCO has failed to perform an act required by law, reached conclusions totally lacking in factual and legal support, and has prejudicially abused its discretion, requiring its decision to be set aside under Governrhent Code section 56107, among other provisions. 27. Based on these and other grounds, Petitioner is entitled to a writ of mandate because San Diego actions are invalid as a matter of law and San Diego LAFCO must be compelled to enforce its mandatory duties. Petitioner is beneficially interested in this matter, has no plain, speedy or adequate remedy and will be irreparany harmed if a writ does not issue as 7 AMENDED PETITION AND COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY RELIEF requested as sewer services will continued to be provided in Coronado pursuant to invalid agreements and in violation of applicable laws. BECOND CAUSE CF ACTION Declaratory Judgment 28. Petitioner incorporates by reference the allegations set forth in paragraphs 1 through 27, above. 29. An actual controversy has arisen and now exists between Petitioner/Plaintiff and San regarding the provision of extra?territorial sewer services in Coronado. Petitioner/Plaintiff contends that San Diego LAFCO must prohibit Imperial Beach or any other entity from providing such services without prior approval from San Diego LAECO and/or Coronado and, thus, San Diego LAFCO is acting in Violation of Government Code section 56133. San Diego LAFCO denies it has violated Government Code section 56133 and contends that the provision of sewer services within Coronado and outside of Imperial Beach is lawful. 30. Petitioner/Plaintiff therefore seeks a judicial declaration as to these issues. VI, PRAYER FOR RELIEF WHEREFORE, Petitioner respectfully prays for judgment as follows: 1. For a peremptory writ of mandate ordering Respondent/Defendant SAN DIEGO COUNTY LOCAL AGENCY FORMATION COMMISSION to: a. Set aside and vacate the December 7, 2015, decision declining to exercise the required jurisdiction under Government Code section 56133; b. Review any provision of services proposed by Imperial Beach within the City of Coronado, including, but not limited to, for the Coastai Campus Project, in a manner that complies with Government Code section 56133 and all other applicable state, federal and local laws, regulations, ordinances, policies and practices. 2. For a declaratory judgment setting forth the respective rights and duties of the Petitioner/Plaintiff and San Diego LAFCO with respect to the provision of sewer services in Coronado, and, specifically, that this Court issue a declaratory judgment that San Diego 8 AMENDED PETITION AND COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY RELIEF acts unlawful under Government Code section 56133, and that the provision of sewer service by Imperial Beach to Coastal Campus requires San Diego authorization and is not exempt from Government Code section 56133; 3. For costs of suit and attorneys? fees incurred herein; and 4. For such other and further equitable and other relief as the Court deems just and proper. June 20, 2016 MEYERS, NAVE, RIBACK, SILVER WILSON @1111er Shaye Diveley Attorneys for Plaintiff CITY OF CORONADO 26477062 9 AMENDED PETITION AND COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY RELIEF PROOF OF SERVTCE STATE OF IA, COUNTY OF ALAMEDA At the time of service, I was over 18 years of age and net a party to this action. I am employed in the County of Alameda, State of California. My business address is 555 12th Street, Suite 1500, Oakland, CA 94607. On June 2016, I served true copies of the following document(s) described as AMENDED PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE AND COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY RELIEF on the interested parties in this action as follows: Attorneys for Defendant and Respondent SAN DIEGO COUNTY LOCAL AGENCY FORMATION COMMISSION MICHAEL G. COLANTUONO MColantuono@chwiaw. us DAVID J. RUDERMAN DRuderman@chwiaw.us GARY B. BELL GBell@chwiaw.us COLANTUONO, HIGHSMITH WHATLEY, PC 300 S. Grand Avenue, Suite 2700 Los Angeles, California 90071?3137 Telephone: (213) 542?5700 Facsimile: (213) 542?5710 BY I enclosed the document(s) in a sealed envelope or package addressedto the persons at the addresses listed in the Service List and placed the envelope for collection and mailing, following our ordinary business practices. I am readily familiar with Meyers, Nave, Riback, Silver Wilson's practice for collecting and processing correspondence for mailing. On the same day that the correspondence is placed for collection and mailing, it is deposited in the ordinary course of business with. the United States Postal Service, in a sealed envelope with postage fully prepaid. I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct. f7?, v. Executed on June 2016, at Oakland, California. AMENDED PETITION AND COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY RELIEF