This provision does not permit judicial review of legislative actsโsuch as the passage of a code or ordinanceโbut only of quasi-judicial actsโsuch as the application of the ordinance to a particular set of facts. See Liquor & Beer Licensing Advisory Bd. v. Cinco, Inc. , 771 P.2d 482, 486 (Colo. 1989) (stating that Rule 106(a)(4) actions "are designed to permit review of quasi-judicial governmental conduct only and do not authorize review of legislative governmental acts"). ยถ17 Of course, the Neighbors could have challenged the constitutionality of the Code by bringing a C.R.C.P. 57 declaratory judgment action, which they could have filed at the same time as their Rule 106 action.
Such review occurs by means of declaratory judgment under C.R.C.P. 57 and sections 13-51-101 to -115, 6A C.R.S. (1987), not by way of on-the-record review under the state Administrative Procedure Act, ยง 24-4-106, 10A C.R.S. (1988), or C.R.C.P. 106(a)(4). See Liquor Beer Licensing Advisory Bd. v. Cinco, Inc., 771 P.2d 482, 485 (Colo. 1989). The General Assembly has plenary power to establish legislative authority in municipal and quasi-municipal entities over matters of public policy, and narrow judicial review thereof under a declaratory judgment action is available.
The grievance did not assert that defendants abused their discretion in the application of the policy to plaintiff. C.R.C.P. 106(a)(4) proceedings are limited to review of whether the decision of the governmental body was an abuse of discretion or was made without jurisdiction, based on the evidence in the record before that body. C.R.C.P. 106(a)(4)(I); Liquor Beer Licensing Advisory Bd. v. Cinco, Inc., 771 P.2d 482 (Colo. 1989). Thus, because they were not asked to apply the DOC policy to plaintiff's situation, defendants made no such decision, and there can be nothing in the record for the trial court to review.
However, no constitutional challenge based on due process was raised on appeal or addressed by the court. Cf. Liquor Beer Licensing Advisory Board v. Cinco, Inc., 771 P.2d 482 (Colo. 1989). This is not to suggest that in no circumstances could it be appropriate to consider the needs of the community in deciding whether good cause exists not to renew a liquor license.