Two Oakland ordinances that crack down on shoddy motels have been upheld as constitutional by the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.
The unanimous three-judge panel rejected contentions from motel owners that the ordinances were an unconstitutional taking, denied the owners their due process and equal protection rights, and were too vague.
After years of wrestling with illegal activity in and around run-down motels, the Oakland City Council in 1999 adopted two ordinances aimed at improving the physical condition of motels and rooming houses. Ordinance No. 12136 required regular housekeeping, proper security and good record-keeping. Ordinance No. 12137 placed all legal, nonconforming motels into a new "deemed approved hotel program" that required all such motels to abide by the other ordinance or face misdemeanor prosecution and possible closure.
The Hotel & Motel Association of Oakland and a number of motel owners challenged the new laws on constitutional grounds. District Court Judge Thelton Henderson upheld the ordinances. The motel owners appealed but got no further at the Ninth Circuit.
The appellate panel ruled that the takings claim — based on motel owners being denied economically viable use of their land — was not ready for judicial review because the owners had never sought state administrative or judicial remedies. The court also rejected the argument that because they did not advance a legitimate state interest, the ordinances amounted to takings.
"Based on legislative findings, the ordinances target an increasing concentration of illegal activity, unsanitary and dangerous conditions, and a variety of nuisances associated with problem hotels," Justice Margaret McKeown wrote. "The purpose is undeniably legitimate … and the means chosen substantially advances that purpose."
The court quickly disposed of due process and equal protection claims because the city ordinances applied to all hostelries in town. As for the vagueness argument, the court held that the motel owners had to prove that there was no set of circumstances in which the ordinances would be valid. The motel owners failed that test.
The Case:
Hotel & Motel Association of Oakland v. City of Oakland, No. 02-15220, 03 C.D.O.S. 8496, 2003 DJDAR 10613. Filed September 17, 2003.
The Lawyers:
For the association: Frank Weiser, (213) 384-6964.
For the city: Arlene Rosen and Christopher Kee, city attorney's office, (510) 637-0360.
Claims that Sacramento County violated the California Environmental Quality Act while approving a commercial development have been dismissed by the Third District Court of Appeal because the project opponent did not submit a written request for a hearing within 90 days of filing a lawsuit.
The attorney for opponent Forster-Gill, Inc., argued that a telephone call to the court clerk within the 90-day period was adequate, but the appellate court disagreed, ruling that the law "plainly contemplates a written request that can be, and is, filed with the court."
A state appellate court has upheld the California Coastal Commission's denial of a development permit for a small mixed-use project in Morro Bay.
The court rejected developer Dan Reddell's arguments that the commission violated his due process and equal protection rights, and that its decision was a regulatory taking of property. Instead, the Second District Court of Appeal ruled that substantial evidence supported the commission's finding that Reddell's project was inconsistent with Morro Bay's local coastal plan (LCP).
A state appellate court has thrown out an Inyo County general plan amendment that the county argued was nothing more than a clarification of a longstanding policy.
A unanimous three-judge panel of the Fourth District Court of Appeal, Division Two, concluded that the amendment was more than a mere clarification and that the county should have completed an environmental impact report before approving the amendment.
A City of West Hollywood moratorium on new multi-family housing development has been declared invalid by the Second District Court of Appeal. The court ruled that the city had not made required findings for the moratorium.
The Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has set back a plan to develop the country's largest solid waste landfill near Joshua Tree National Park. The court ruled that the environmental analysis for the project was inadequate and that the Bureau of Land Management undervalued land it would provide to the landfill developer.
A state appellate court has struck down a California Environmental Quality Act exemption for an air district rule permitting new power plants to offset emissions by paving roads. The court found that the Mojave Desert Air Quality Management District did not have adequate evidence to support its finding that the rule could not have a negative impact on the environment.
A developer is not entitled to reimbursement or damages from a consultant hired by a local government to complete an environmental impact report, the First District Court of Appeal has ruled. Even when the consultant fails to complete an EIR in a timely manner, the consultant owes no contractual duty to the developer that paid for the consultant, the court concluded.
In the first decision of its kind, a divided Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals panel has declared that the City of Goleta's mobile home rent control ordinance constitutes a regulatory taking.
The City of Claremont's moratorium on dispensaries of medical marijuana and a Superior Court injunction shuttering a dispensary have been upheld by the Second District Court of Appeal.
A city may determine that project alternatives once considered potentially feasible for California Environmental Quality Act analysis are infeasible as actual projects, the Sixth District Court of Appeal has ruled.
The City of Los Angeles had no obligation under the California Environmental Quality Act to complete an environmental impact report for a project that it had rejected, the Second District Court of Appeal has ruled.
The court dismissed all arguments put forward by the developer of the 555-acre Las Lomas project at the junction of Interstate 5 and Highway 14. "[I]f an agency at any time decides not to proceed with a project," the court said, "CEQA is inapplicable from that time forward."
The state Supreme Court will review an appellate court ruling that California's prevailing wage law does not apply to a charter city's public works projects that are funded exclusively with city revenues.
