The California Supreme Court will decide a case involving the City of Los Angeles's inspection fee on apartments. In December, five of seven justices voted to grant the petition from Los Angeles, which lost a Second District Court of Appeal ruling on a lawsuit filed by apartment owners. (See CP&DR Legal Digest, October 1999.)
The Los Angeles City Council approved the $12 annual inspection fee on each of the city's approximately 750,000 apartments in July of 1998. The fee was intended to generate revenues for the city's renewed effort to fight slum housing. However, apartment owners quickly sued the city, alleging that Proposition 218 required voters to decide on what amounted to a $12 annual tax. The city argued that the fee was placed on a business — operation of rental units — and not on real property, so it was not subject to Proposition 218.
The city won at the trial court level, but a three-judge panel of the Second District reversed the decision. The appellate court said the fee was clearly a "fee or charge for property related service" and was therefore subject to Proposition 218. The fact that the city assessed only owners of rental units, and not all property owners, was irrelevant under Proposition 218, the court ruled.
The state Supreme Court has not yet set a date for oral arguments.
The case is Apartment Association of Los Angeles v. City of Los Angeles, No. B130243, 99 C.D.O.S. 7038, 1999 Daily Journal D.A.R. 8951, filed August 26, 1999.
The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that citizens can sue alleged polluters under the Clean Water Act. The high court's January decision in a case from South Carolina was a significant victory for environmentalists, who argue that the government sometimes does not adequately enforce the Clean Water Act and other environmental protection laws.
On a 7-2 vote, court ruled that Friends of the Earth (FOE) had standing to sue Laidlaw Environmental Services over the company's violation of a National Poll...
The Ninth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals has sided with a miner in a feud between the miner and the U.S. Forest Service. In interpreting the Mining Law of 1872 and the 1955 Multiple Use Act, the court ruled that the Forest Service could not kick a miner off his claim in the Tonto National Forest, and that the Forest Service may not have had justification for increasing a reclamation bond requirement.
In an opinion that recounted the history of mining laws in the United States, Circuit Judge Andrew K...
Property owners who never filed a development application have no basis for a takings claim, the Fourth District Court of Appeal has ruled. The court also said a landowner whose one application for a specific plan amendment that was rejected also has no takings argument.
The case arose from the City of San Diego's lengthy planning process for the East Elliott community, a former Navy base that the federal government sold during the 1960s. As early as 1981, the city conceded that a 1971 East Ellio...
An appellate court has ruled that an environmental impact report for a proposed San Diego County rock quarry was closer to acceptable than a trial judge had ruled, but the EIR still lacked a proper analysis of air quality impacts. The Fourth District Court of Appeal overturned San Diego Superior Court Judge Judith McConnell's ruling that the rock quarry EIR improperly deferred study of highway widening, and that the EIR failed to account for prior illegal mining on the property. Still, the unanimou...
Delays by the City of Los Angeles in issuing a permit to demolish a burned-out hotel amounted to a temporary taking, the Second District Court of Appeal has ruled. The unanimous three-judge appellate panel upheld a trial court's ruling that awarded the landowner $1.2 million, plus interest, for the inverse condemnation.
The court upheld the trial court's monetary award after concluding that the city's delay in issuing the demolition permit was not part of the normal development review process, and...
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.
