PERREN, J. —
Appellants United Water Conservation District and its board of directors (collectively, District) manage the groundwater resources in central Ventura County. Appellant City of San Buenaventura (City) pumps
Article XIII D of the California Constitution governs fees "upon a parcel or upon a person as an incident of property ownership, including a user fee or charge for a property related service." (Cal. Const., art. XIII D, § 2, subd. (e); see id., § 1.) The City contends that the fees it pays the District violate article XIII D because they "exceed the proportional cost of the service attributable to the parcel[s]" of land from which the City pumps its water. (Id., § 6, subd. (b)(3).)
The threshold question before us is whether the District's groundwater extraction charges are property related and thus subject to California Constitution, article XIII D. The trial court, relying on Pajaro Valley Water Management Agency v. Amrhein (2007) 150 Cal.App.4th 1364 [59 Cal.Rptr.3d 484] (Pajaro), concluded that they are. It found that the District's pumping charges violated article XIII D because, pursuant to section 75594, the District charged the City three times the rate it charged pumpers who extracted water for agricultural purposes. The court calculated the amount of overcharges in two separate years and issued writs of mandate requiring the District to refund these amounts to the City. The District appeals this decision, and the City cross-appeals, seeking declaratory relief that the trial court denied.
We conclude that the pumping fees paid by the City are not property related and that Pajaro is distinguishable. We reject the City's alternative arguments. The pumping fees are not taxes subject to the requirements of California Constitution, article XIII C. In addition, substantial evidence supports the trial court's finding that the charges are valid regulatory fees because they are fair and reasonable, and do not exceed the District's resource management costs. Therefore, we reverse the judgment awarding relief to the City and direct the trial court to vacate its writs of mandate. Otherwise, we affirm.
The District is organized and operated pursuant to the Water Conservation District Law of 1931 (codified as amended in § 74000 et seq.). Its stated purpose is to "manage, protect, conserve and enhance the water resources of the Santa Clara River, its tributaries and associated aquifers, in the most cost effective and environmentally balanced manner." To this end, the Water Code authorizes the District to conduct water resource investigations (§ 74520), acquire water and water rights (§ 74521), build facilities to store and recharge water (§ 74522), construct wells and pipelines for water deliveries (§ 74525), commence actions involving water rights and water use (§ 74641), prevent interference with or diminution of stream and river flows and their associated natural subterranean supply of water (§ 74642), and acquire and operate recreational facilities associated with dams and reservoirs (§ 74540).
The District covers approximately 214,000 acres in central Ventura County along the lower Santa Clara River valley and the Oxnard Plain. It comprises portions of several groundwater basins.
Groundwater recharge in these basins occurs naturally from rainfall as well as from river and stream flow infiltration and percolation. Heavy demand for groundwater throughout the District from both agricultural and urban users causes overdraft, the amount by which extractions exceed natural water recharge. (See § 75506.) Artificial recharge is critical to minimize the overdraft. The District replenishes the groundwater supply directly by spreading diverted river water over grounds at the northern part of the Oxnard Plain. In addition, the District augments groundwater indirectly by delivering water through pipelines to users near the coast who would otherwise attempt to meet their water needs by pumping it from the ground. Despite these mitigation efforts, pumping in the District has exceeded recharge, both natural
The District's water management activities and ongoing operating expenses require a means of funding. The District currently generates revenue from three main sources: property taxes (§ 75370), water delivery charges (§ 74592), and, at issue here, pump charges (§ 75522). Historically, the District relied solely on property taxes and water delivery charges. In 1979, after it had become clear that these two sources were insufficient to support the District's activities, particularly the reversal of overdraft and saline intrusion on the Oxnard Plain basin, the District began levying a charge on groundwater produced within its territory — i.e., pump charges.
The Water Code authorizes districts to impose pump charges in one or more zones within the district "for the benefit of all who rely directly or indirectly upon the ground water supplies." (§ 75522.) Zones may overlap and include the entire district (§ 75540), as does the District's zone A (Zone A), from which revenues are applied to a "general" fund used for Districtwide conservation efforts. Although the rates charged may vary from zone to zone, the rate within each zone must be "fixed and uniform" for each of two classes of use — water used for agricultural purposes and water used for all other purposes. (§ 75594.) Subject to exceptions not at issue here, section 75594 prohibits a district from equalizing the rates charged for the two types of use.
In the 1980s and early 1990s, the District planned and constructed the Freeman Diversion project (Freeman), a major improvement to its surface water diversion facilities along the Santa Clara River near Saticoy. Freeman permanently diverted water from the Santa Clara River to recharge groundwater in the Oxnard Plain basin in order to mitigate declining water levels and seawater intrusion. To help finance Freeman, the District imposed groundwater pumping charges in the area that it determined received the recharge benefit from Freeman. This area, designated as zone B, currently comprises the basins south of the Santa Clara River's north bank, which include the Oxnard Plain basin, the Oxnard Forebay basin, the Pleasant Valley basin, and a portion of the West Las Posas basin.
The settlement agreement expired at the end of the 2010-2011 water year when the District paid off its construction loan for Freeman. Beginning in the 2011-2012 water year, Zone C was abolished and incorporated into Zone B, resulting in substantially higher pumping rates for groundwater extractors in the former Zone C. It is this increase in rates to which the City objects.
A series of judicial decisions diminished Proposition 13's import by allowing local governments to generate revenue without a two-thirds vote.
While Proposition 218 sharply limited local governments' ability to raise revenue from property owners without their consent, it did little to limit the imposition of regulatory fees imposed on a basis other than property ownership. Fees classified as something other than "taxes" were not subject to Proposition 13. For example, in Sinclair Paint Co. v. State Bd. of Equalization (1997) 15 Cal.4th 866 [64 Cal.Rptr.2d 447, 937 P.2d 1350], the Supreme Court considered certain "fees" imposed on manufacturers that contributed to environmental lead contamination. Sinclair Paint concluded that the fees
In order to levy a property related fee or charge, a number of procedural and substantive requirements must be met. As relevant here, the fee must not "exceed the proportional cost of the service attributable to the parcel." (Cal.
After Freeman was paid off and the terms of the 1987 settlement were no longer in force, the District proposed to eliminate Zone C and merge it with Zone B, effectively tripling the City's rate per acre-foot of water. In addition, in both the 2011-2012 and 2012-2013 water years, the District proposed increasing the rate charged Districtwide (Zone A). The District notified well owners of the proposed changes and invited them to comment. Only a minority of the well owners, including the City, submitted protest letters. Over the City's objections, the District eliminated Zone C and adopted the proposed rates.
The City filed two lawsuits, which were consolidated. It sought to overturn the District's rate decisions through a writ of mandate (Code Civ. Proc., § 1085), an administrative mandate (id., § 1094.5), declaratory relief (id., § 1060), and a reverse validation action (id., § 860 et seq.). The California Federation of Farm Bureaus, the Ventura County Farm Bureau, and the Pleasant Valley County Water District answered the validation cause of action and intervened in the others.
The City challenged the rates on two fronts. First, it asserted that the statutorily mandated three-to-one ratio between groundwater extraction rates
The trial court concluded that the groundwater extraction charges (1) bore a reasonable relationship to the City's burdens on and benefits from the regulatory activity and thus were valid regulatory fees rather than special taxes subject to Proposition 13; (2) were property-related fees and charges subject to article XIII D (Prop. 218); and (3) were not, as property-related fees, taxes under Proposition 26. The court did not determine whether the San Marcos legislation or the common law of utility ratemaking applied to the extraction charges but found that, if they did, the charges did not exceed the reasonable cost to the District of providing the service and were reasonable, fair, and equitable.
Analyzing the extraction charges under article XIII D, the trial court similarly found that the charges in the aggregate were reasonably proportional to the District's costs and comported with Proposition 218. However, it found that the three-to-one ratio between rates for nonagricultural and agricultural water use mandated by section 75594 was unconstitutional under Proposition 218 for the water years in question because the District failed to present evidence that the rate differential reflected a cost differential. The court found that the City was entitled to a partial refund in the amount it paid in excess of a rate based upon the District's average cost for all types of water usage. It issued writs of mandate awarding the City a partial refund of $548,296.22 for 2011-2012 and $794,815.57 for 2012-2013, plus prejudgment interest.
The District appeals the trial court's conclusion that Proposition 218 applies to its groundwater extraction charges. In the alternative, it appeals the court's ruling that to satisfy Proposition 218, the District must present
The City cross-appeals, seeking declaratory relief. First, it asks us to hold that section 75594's rate ratio is facially unconstitutional. It also requests a declaration that the District must limit its groundwater extraction charges to the cost of providing services that have a demonstrated relationship to groundwater use. In addition, the City seeks a declaration that the District's rate structure must take into account the scientific evidence regarding how different groundwater basins respond to specific recharge efforts rather than charging all groundwater users a uniform rate for Districtwide conservation efforts. The City does not challenge the trial court's findings that the groundwater extraction charges were not "special taxes" under Proposition 13 and did not violate the common law of utility ratemaking.
We conclude that the pump charges paid by the City are neither propertyrelated fees nor taxes, that they do not exceed the District's reasonable costs of maintaining the groundwater supply, and that the District allocates those costs in a fair or reasonable relationship to the City's burdens on this resource. Accordingly, we reverse the judgment in favor of the City and direct the trial court to vacate its writs of mandate.
We review de novo a trial court's determinations whether taxes, fees, and assessments imposed by a local governmental entity are constitutional, exercising our independent judgment. (Silicon Valley Taxpayers' Assn., Inc. v. Santa Clara County Open Space Authority (2008) 44 Cal.4th 431, 448-450 [79 Cal.Rptr.3d 312, 187 P.3d 37].) In the trial court, the governmental entity has the burden of showing, by reference to the face of the record before it, that its charges satisfy the Constitution. (See Cal. Const., arts. XIII A, § 3, subd. (d), XIII C, § 1, subd. (e), XIII D, § 6, subd. (b)(5); see also California Farm Bureau Federation v. State Water Resources Control Bd. (2011) 51 Cal.4th 421, 436-437 [121 Cal.Rptr.3d 37, 247 P.3d 112].) On appeal, as in
"[W]e exercise our independent judgment in reviewing the record ...," but "we do not take new evidence or decide disputed issues of fact." (Morgan v. Imperial Irrigation Dist., supra, 223 Cal.App.4th at p. 912.) Instead, we review the resolution of factual conflicts by the trial court under the substantial evidence standard. (Id. at p. 916.) "Under this standard, `the power of an appellate court begins and ends with the determination as to whether there is any substantial evidence, contradicted or uncontradicted, which will support the finding of fact.' [Citation.]"
The trial court determined that it was constrained by Pajaro and, as a result, concluded that the pump fees at issue constituted property-related fees or charges. Before explaining why Pajaro is distinguishable, we must discuss the trio of Supreme Court cases underlying its holding: Apartment Association; Richmond v. Shasta Community Services Dist. (2004) 32 Cal.4th 409 [9 Cal.Rptr.3d 121, 83 P.3d 518] (Richmond); and Bighorn-Desert View Water Agency v. Verjil (2006) 39 Cal.4th 205 [46 Cal.Rptr.3d 73, 138 P.3d 220] (Bighorn).
Apartment Association involved a municipal housing code provision that imposed an annual $12 fee on residential rental property owners to finance the city's cost of inspection and enforcement. (Apartment Association, supra, 24 Cal.4th at p. 833.) The Supreme Court held that the fee was not subject to Proposition 218 because it was "imposed on landlords not in their capacity as landowners, but in their capacity as business owners." (Id. at p. 840.) It thus was "more in the nature of a fee for a business license than a charge against property." (Ibid.)
Richmond again considered the scope of a property-related fee or charge. The district that supplied water to residential and commercial users imposed a connection fee for new water service, one component of which was a fire suppression charge used to purchase equipment for the volunteer fire department. (Id. at pp. 415-416, 425.) A group of real property owners challenged the ordinance as levying an illegal property-related fee. (Id. at p. 416.)
While agreeing with the plaintiffs' contention "that supplying water is a `property-related service' within the meaning of article XIII D's definition of a fee or charge," Richmond rejected their broader argument "that all water service charges are necessarily subject to the restrictions that article XIII D imposes on fees and charges." (Richmond, supra, 32 Cal.4th at pp. 426-427.) The Supreme Court distinguished "[a] fee for ongoing water service through an existing connection" from "a fee for making a new connection to the system." (Id. at p. 427.) The former "requires nothing other than normal ownership and use of property" whereas the latter "results from the owner's voluntary decision to apply for the connection." (Ibid.) Because the charge on the owner's voluntary decision to apply for a service connection was not a charge on the property-related service itself, it was not subject to Proposition 218. (32 Cal.4th at p. 428.)
Finally, in Bighorn, a case that Pajaro ultimately found dispositive, the Supreme Court reiterated that rates and other charges for water delivery were "property-related" within the meaning of Proposition 218. Bighorn involved a local agency that provided domestic water service to residents within its special district. A resident in the district sought to place an initiative on the ballot that would have limited the agency's rates and other water delivery charges. (Bighorn, supra, 39 Cal.4th at pp. 209-210.) The Court of Appeal held that article XIII C, section 3 of the California Constitution, which vests local voters with the power to "reduc[e] or repeal[] any local tax, assessment, fee or charge" (italics added) by initiative, did not apply to the fees and charges at issue. (See Bighorn, at pp. 211-212, fn. omitted.)
The Supreme Court disagreed, finding it obvious that section 3 applied to "fees and charges." The only issue was whether the meaning of "fees and charges" in article XIII C, which does not define the phrase, is coextensive with its meaning in article XIII D, where it is limited to property-related fees
Relying on dictum in Apartment Association that "it is unclear ... whether a fee to provide gas or electricity service is the same as a fee imposed on the consumption of electricity or gas" (Apartment Association, supra, 24 Cal.4th at p. 844), the agency in Bighorn argued that its volumetric charges were based on consumption rather than property and were not subject to Proposition 218. In its view, only the fixed monthly charge that it imposed on all customers regardless of usage was property related.
Like the District here, the Pajaro Valley Groundwater Basin faced problems of overdraft and seawater intrusion from decades of groundwater overuse. The Pajaro Valley Water Management Agency was created by special statute to combat these problems, in part by supplementing the area's water supply with sources other than groundwater. To that end, the agency was authorized to impose groundwater augmentation charges on the extraction of groundwater. (Pajaro, supra, 150 Cal.App.4th at pp. 1370-1372.)
The agency adopted a groundwater management plan that included the construction of a 23-mile pipeline to import water from a neighboring county. It planned to fund the project in part through higher groundwater augmentation charges against all extractors of groundwater. The charges were levied at a set rate per acre-foot. Metered pumpers, many of which were large, agricultural users, paid based on their actual usage. Nonmetered residential
The agency brought an action to validate the increased groundwater augmentation charges. The trial court declared the charges valid but the Court of Appeal reversed, holding that they constituted a charge incidental to property ownership. Because the agency had not complied with Proposition 218's procedural requirements for imposing such a charge, the augmentation charge was held invalid. (Pajaro, supra, 150 Cal.App.4th at pp. 1374-1375, 1393.)
The appellate court characterized the augmentation fee as being "charged in return for the benefit of ongoing groundwater extraction and the service of securing the water supply for everyone in the basin." (Pajaro, supra, 150 Cal.App.4th at p. 1381, fn. omitted.) Ultimately, though, Pajaro concluded that whether the agency's fee was for a "service" was immaterial because it was "imposed as an incident of property ownership." (Id. at p. 1389.) Water extraction, the court posited, is "an activity in some ways more intimately connected with property ownership than is the mere receipt of delivered water." (Id. at p. 1391.)
Pajaro recognized that the conceptually similar Apartment Association undermined its conclusion, insofar as that case held that "as an incident of" property ownership means "solely by virtue of" property ownership rather than "on an incident of" property ownership. (Pajaro, supra, 150 Cal.App.4th at p. 1389.) However, Pajaro dismissed Apartment Association as being of questionable vitality given that Bighorn "did not mention the case at all." (Ibid.) Pajaro found no material distinction, for article XIII D purposes, between a charge on groundwater extraction and a charge on delivered water. (Id. at pp. 1388-1389.) Although the court speculated that the extraction charge might survive scrutiny under Bighorn if it were imposed only on nonresidential users, the fact that a large majority of pumpers were using the water for residential or domestic uses was dispositive. (Id. at p. 1390.)
The level of abstraction at which we should analyze the constitutional text is unclear. Do we determine whether groundwater extraction fees in general are imposed as an incident of property ownership? Or do we focus on the specific fee imposed by the District? And if the latter, do we consider the District's fee without regard to the payor at issue or do we consider the City's purpose in pumping groundwater?
We need not resolve this issue. Whether we consider this specific pump fee or pump fees in general, we conclude that the fee is not property related and that article XIII D does not apply.
Pajaro was based upon a unique set of facts — "that the vast majority of property owners in the Pajaro Valley obtained their water from wells, and that alternative sources were not practically feasible." (Pajaro, supra, 150 Cal.App.4th at p. 1397 (conc. opn. of Bamattre-Manoukian, J.).) That is far from the case here. While the record does not disclose the exact number of residential customers who pump water in lieu of connecting to an existing water delivery network, it is evident that this number is insubstantial relative to the number of residential customers receiving delivered water. There are at most 840 parcels with wells in the District. The City, whose 11 parcels account for only about 6 percent of the water extracted from these wells, delivers water to approximately 30,000 residential dwelling units in the District. And of course the City itself uses the water it pumps for commercial rather than residential purposes.
Even if there were no factual record regarding the relative number of residential versus commercial well owners and a clear regulatory purpose, we would still conclude that a charge on groundwater extraction is not imposed as an incident of property ownership. In Orange County Water Dist. v. Farnsworth (1956) 138 Cal.App.2d 518 [292 P.2d 927], the Court of Appeal considered a similar pump fee. The charge was challenged, among other reasons, on the ground that "the water which underlies real property is a part of the property itself and that the charge in question is, in effect, a tax levied by reason of ownership of the property...." (Id. at pp. 529-530.) The Court of Appeal summarily rejected this argument. It found that "[t]he charge in question is more in the nature of an excise tax levied upon the activity of producing ground water by pumping operations" than "a tax levied by reason of the ownership of property." (Id. at p. 530.)
That Bighorn did not cite Apartment Association is unsurprising. Richmond squarely stood for the proposition that charges for domestic water delivery service are property related, even though other charges less directly associated with the provision of water, namely connecting a property to the delivery system, are not. Bighorn, like Richmond, dealt with "a public water agency's charges for ongoing water delivery." (Bighorn, supra, 39 Cal.4th at p. 216.) It merely clarified that the charges for this service were subject to Proposition 218 whether they were volume-based "consumption" charges or flat-rate charges "imposed regardless of water usage." (Bighorn, at pp. 217, 216.) Apartment Association was far less relevant than Richmond to this issue. The Supreme Court's failure to cite a marginally relevant case does not signal that case's implicit overruling. (See Griffith v. City of Santa Cruz (2012) 207 Cal.App.4th 982, 995 [143 Cal.Rptr.3d 895] [characterizing Apartment Association as "dispositive" of a Prop. 218 challenge].)
Nor do we think it overly important that pumping may not always be a "business operation." (See Pajaro, supra, 150 Cal.App.4th at p. 1391, fn. 18 [discussing the distinction set forth in Apartment Association between "[a] charge ... imposed on a person because he owns land" and one "imposed because he engages in certain activity on his land" and doubting "that it is satisfactorily captured by a distinction between business and domestic uses or purposes"].) In the City's case, of course, it is. The City pumps water for the municipal supply, which it then sells to residential customers. (See South Pasadena v. Pasadena Land etc. Co. (1908) 152 Cal. 579, 593 [93 P. 490] ["In administering a public utility, such as a water system, even within its own limits, a city does not act in its governmental capacity, but in a proprietary and only quasi-public capacity"].) But even with respect to the individual household that elects to pump water for its own consumption, the Supreme Court made clear in Richmond that residential business operations are not the only household activities exempt from California Constitution, article XIII D. That article applies only to charges on an activity that "requires nothing other than normal ownership and use of property." (Richmond, supra, 32 Cal.4th at p. 427, italics added.) Voluntarily generating one's own utilities arguably is not a normal use of property, and in any event, it is a "business operation" in the sense that it affects the demand for municipal services. (Cf. Wickard v. Filburn (1942) 317 U.S. 111 [87 L.Ed. 122, 63 S.Ct. 82].)
We also disagree with Pajaro that the groundwater extraction charge need not constitute a fee for "service" provided by the District in order to fall within California Constitution, article XIII D's scope. (See Pajaro, supra, 150
California Constitution, article XIII D, section 3 confirms this interpretation. It provides in relevant part that "[n]o tax, assessment, fee, or charge shall be assessed ... upon any parcel of property or upon any person as an incident of property ownership except ... [f]ees or charges for property related services as provided by this article."
The recently enacted Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (§ 10720, added by Stats. 2014, chs. 346, 347, 348) (SGMA) bolsters our conclusion that the groundwater extraction fees here are not subject to California Constitution, article XIII D. Although the SGMA's amendments to the Water Code do not apply to the District because it is not currently part of a groundwater sustainability agency, the SGMA's treatment of groundwater extraction fees is instructive. The Legislature authorized such fees in two separate sections. In section 10730.2, the Legislature expressly required that fees "to fund costs of groundwater management," including the "[s]upply, production, treatment, or distribution of water," be adopted in accordance with article XIII D. (§ 10730.2, subds. (a), (c).) Fees authorized pursuant to section 10730 "to fund the costs of a groundwater sustainability program" have no such requirement. (§ 10730, subd. (a).) That the Legislature required groundwater sustainability agencies to impose some but not all groundwater extraction fees in compliance with article XIII D suggests that, in its view, compliance is not constitutionally required. (See In re Ethan C. (2012) 54 Cal.4th 610, 638 [143 Cal.Rptr.3d 565, 279 P.3d 1052] ["When language is included in one portion of a statute, its omission from a different portion addressing a similar subject suggests that the omission was purposeful."].)
The trial court found that the pump charges did not constitute "taxes" under Proposition 26's broader definition because they fell into the exception for property-related fees and charges under California Constitution article XIII D. Since we hold otherwise, we must address the City's alternative contention that the pump charges are taxes that were imposed in violation of Proposition 26.
Pursuant to Proposition 26's presumption that "any levy, charge, or exaction of any kind imposed by a local government" is a tax, the pump fees must be taxes unless they fall into one of seven enumerated exceptions. (Cal. Const., art. XIII C, § 1, subd. (e).) We only need consider two of these exceptions, which apply to varying extents.
The third exception contains an exhaustive list of regulatory activities for which a local government can recover its reasonable costs through fees: "issuing licenses and permits, performing investigations, inspections, and audits, enforcing agricultural marketing orders, and the administrative enforcement and adjudication thereof." (Cal. Const., art. XIII C, § 1, subd. (e)(3).) Many of the costs associated with managing, protecting, conserving, and enhancing the District's water resources lie beyond the scope of this exception, but not all. In particular, the District is authorized to "make surveys and investigations" of its water supply and resources. (§ 74520.) These costs, to the extent they are included in the pump fees, are not taxes.
The City does not dispute that the actions of one pumper in the District affects every other pumper to some degree; rather, it criticizes the District for "impos[ing] District-wide rates that assume an equal degree of service to pumpers throughout its basins and three times the service to [municipal and industrial users] as to agriculture." Yet, by imposing fees based upon the volume of water extracted, the District largely does charge individual pumpers in proportion to the benefit they receive from the District's conservation activities. The District ensures water availability Districtwide. Large-scale users such as the City receive a far greater benefit from individual landowners who pump water for personal consumption. That is more than is required. The District need only ensure that its charges in the aggregate do not exceed its regulatory costs.
The City specifically challenges three expenditures allocated to the Districtwide Zone A charges: the cost to treat and deliver surface water to overdrafted coastal areas; the cost of purchasing water from the State for delivery to water customers; and the "recreation activities subfund," which the City asserts includes the cost of potable water delivery to the concessionaire at Lake Piru. The City contends these costs are unrelated to groundwater augmentation and management.
Contrary to the City's assertion, the recreation activities subfund is actually supported by revenue from the concessionaire at Lake Piru and the ad valorem property taxes collected by the District. Likewise, the District pays for its state water allocation primarily from an annual voter-approved property assessment.
More generally, the City is incorrect that the District's costs associated with the acquisition, treatment, transport, and delivery of state and surface water are unrelated to its groundwater management goals. The District sells water to customers who use the delivered water in lieu of water pumped from the ground, particularly in coastal areas where the problem of seawater intrusion is most acute. Although the City's wells are not located in these critical areas, it pumps the majority of its water from wells in the Oxnard Plain basin, which contributes to the problem by removing water that would otherwise flow to the critical areas near the coast. In any event, providing pumpers with a substitute to groundwater use eases the overall burden on the resource in the District.
The judgment is reversed insofar as it granted mandamus and declaratory relief to the City. The matter is remanded to the superior court with directions to vacate its writs of mandate in cases Nos. VENCI00401714 and VENCI1414739. The judgment is affirmed in all other respects. The District shall recover its costs on appeal.
Gilbert, P. J., and Yegan, J., concurred.
