California Court of Appeals, First District, First Division
[256
Cal.Rptr.3d 833] San Francisco City and County Superior
Court. Hon. Harold Kahn. (San Francisco City & County Super.
Ct. No. CPF-18-516020)
Page 797
COUNSEL
Charles
K. Seavey and Allen Grossman, San Francisco, for Plaintiff
and Appellant.
Nossaman,
Stanley S. Taylor, III, Carl L. Blumenstein, San Francisco,
and Jennifer L. Meeker, Los Angeles, for Defendants and
Respondents San Francisco County Transportation Authority,
Tilly Chang, and Cynthia Fong.
Dennis
J. Herrera, City Attorney and Wayne K. Snodgrass, Deputy City
Attorney, for Defendant and Respondent City and County of San
Francisco.
OPINION
Margulies,
Acting P. J.
Page 798
This
appeal arises from a dispute between appellant SF Urban
Forest Coalition (SF Urban) and respondents the City and
County of San Francisco (City), San Francisco County
Transportation Authority (SFCTA), Tilly Chang, and Cynthia
Fong (jointly respondents) regarding whether the SFCTA is
subject to the San Francisco Sunshine Ordinance of 1999 (S.F.
Admin. Code, � 67.1, et seq.; Sunshine Ordinance). The trial
court concluded the SFCTA is not an agency of the City and
thus is not subject to the Sunshine Ordinance. On appeal, SF
Urban disputes the trial court’s holding. It further contends
the SFCTA, even if it were a state agency, is subject to the
Sunshine Ordinance pursuant to City and County of San
Francisco v. Regents of University of California (2019)
7 Cal.5th 536, 248 Cal.Rptr.3d 352, 442 P.3d 671. We disagree
and affirm the judgment.
I. BACKGROUND
A. Relevant Statutory History
1. Creation of the SFCTA
The Bay
Area County Traffic and Transportation Funding Act ( [256
Cal.Rptr.3d 834] Pub. Util. Code, � 131000 et seq.; Bay Area
Transportation Act) "was adopted in 1986
Page 799
after the Legislature found that the Bay Area was
experiencing ‘serious traffic congestion and transit mobility
problems that threaten the economic viability of the area and
adversely impact the quality of life therein.’ ([Pub. Util.
Code,] � 131001, subd. (a).) The Legislature addressed this
problem by establishing a framework whereby ‘the counties and
cities within the nine-county San Francisco Bay area’ could
‘collectively develop and implement, on a county-by-county
basis, near-term local traffic and transportation projects
that responsibly and adequately deal with current and
anticipated traffic congestion and transit mobility
problems.’ ( [Id.] � 131001, subd. (c).) To this
end, the [Bay Area Transportation] Act authorized the voters
in each of the designated Bay Area counties to create a
‘county transportation authority’ in order to ‘implement a
retail transactions and use tax for the purpose of funding a
local transportation expenditure plan ....’ ( [Id.]
� 131001, subd. (e).)" (Hayward Area Planning Assn.
v. Alameda County Transportation Authority (1999) 72
Cal.App.4th 95, 99, 84 Cal.Rptr.2d 744, fn. omitted.) In the
alternative, the voters could authorize the Metropolitan
Transportation Commission[1] to perform this function. (Pub.
Util. Code, � 131001, subd. (e).) Section 131240 of the
Public Utilities Code sets forth the process for creating a
"county transportation authority": "Upon
approval of a retail transactions and use tax at an election
conducted pursuant to Chapter 3 (commencing with Section
131100) in a county with an adopted county transportation
expenditure plan that includes a provision for the creation
of a county transportation authority, the authority shall be
created at that election."
In
1989, voters approved Proposition B, entitled "Sales Tax
for Transportation." (S.F. Voter Information Pamp. (Nov.
7, 1989) p. 23.) The text of Proposition B described its
purpose as follows: "Pursuant to Division 12.5 of the
Public Utilities Code, the San Francisco Transportation
Committee has recommended that the Board of Supervisors
submit to the voters of the City and County of San Francisco
for their approval an ordinance which would, if so approved,
create the [SFCTA], authorize the [SFCTA] to impose a
one-half of one percent transactions and use tax for a period
of twenty years to finance the transportation improvements
set forth in the Transportation Expenditure Plan approved by
the Board of Supervisors and to issue limited tax bonds in a
total outstanding aggregate amount not to exceed
$742,000,000.00." (S.F. Voter Pamp., supra,
text of Prop. B, p. 30.) The proposition explained the
imposition of the transactions and use tax was "in
accordance with ... Sections 131100 et seq. of the California
Public Utilities Code, which directs the County Board of
Supervisors to adopt the tax
Page 800
ordinance for voter approval, exercising the taxing power
granted to the [SFCTA] in Public Utilities Code Section
131102 on behalf of said Authority." (S.F. Voter
Pamp., supra, text of Prop. B, at pp. 30-31.) The
proposition further noted its " ‘Operative date’ "
was set "pursuant to Public Utilities Code Section
131105(a)," its " ‘Effective date’ " was set
"pursuant to Public Utilities Code Section
131102(c)," [256 Cal.Rptr.3d 835] the term of the tax
was "pursuant to the authority granted by Section
131102(c) of the Public Utilities Code," and the SFCTA
would have those powers "set forth in Division 12.5
(commencing with Section 131100) of the Public Utilities
Code," including issuing limited tax bonds
"pursuant to the provisions of California Public
Utilities Code Sections 13109 et seq." (S.F. Voter
Pamp., supra, text of Prop. B, pp. 30, 31, 32.)
2. The ...