The State Supreme Court has accepted for review a Proposition 218 case from Shasta County. All seven justices voted to review the decision in Richmond v. Shasta Community Services District, No. S105078 (see CP&DR Legal Digest, April 2002).
In February, the Third District Court of Appeal ruled that the district's water connection fee was a development fee and, therefore, was not subject to the constraints of Proposition 218. However, the court ruled that a "fire suppression" assessment levied at the same time as the water connection fee was subject to Proposition 218 and required two-thirds voter approval. The difference, the court held, was that the water connection fee was based on the cost of providing new capacity and the projected number of eventual water users. The fire fee, however, was a general governmental assessment, which must be approved by voters.
The appellate court's decision appeared to satisfy no one. The League of California Cities sought to have the opinion depublished. The developers who filed the lawsuit sought a review by the state high court.
No date has been set yet for oral arguments.
Flat-rate "franchise fees" that the City of Roseville charges customers of its municipal water, sewer and refuse collections systems are in violation of Proposition 218, the Third District Court of Appeal has ruled.
Opponents of a proposed expansion of a hazardous waste dump in rural Kern County took the proper steps to earn a hearing before a state-appointed appeals board, the Fifth District Court of Appeal has ruled in one of its rare published opinions.
A city resolution restricting parking on certain residential streets to residents with parking permits was categorically exempt from environmental review, the Second District Court of Appeal has ruled.
An exemption to the California Environmental Quality Act for construction of a sea wall below two houses has been upheld by the Fourth District Court of Appeal. The court ruled that the potential collapse of a bluff could threaten public safety and qualified for an emergency exemption under CEQA.
In a case that touched on redevelopment law, the California Environmental Quality Act and general plan compatibility, an appellate court has upheld San Francisco's handling of a project on the site of the historic Emporium department store.
The City of Los Angeles was correct to treat as one project a builder's various proposals for 21 new houses on existing parcels on two streets, the Second District Court of Appeal has ruled. The court rejected the builder's contention that the city could not demand an environmental impact report on the 21 houses, five of which have already been built.
Opponents of a proposed recycling center were too late in filing a lawsuit regarding a city's failure to prepare an environmental study on the city's sale of land to the recycling company, the Fourth District Court of Appeal has ruled.
When a public agency acquires a property via eminent domain, only a trial court judge -- and not a jury -- can decide whether a business should receive compensation for loss of goodwill, a state appellate court has ruled.
The California Coastal Commission's decision to allow Malibu property owners who are building new houses to exchange existing public view corridors on their property for dedication of an off-site public access to the beach has been upheld by the Second District Court of Appeal.
The City of Rancho Palos Verdes does have the authority to regulate placement of radio antennas, but the city cannot deny a use permit for an antenna solely because the antenna would be used for commercial purposes, the Second District Court of Appeal has ruled.
A doughnut shop owner who remained in his place of business for six years after the city acquired the property for redevelopment still qualified for relocation benefits as a "displaced person," the Second District Court of Appeal has ruled.