A sanitation district has exclusive jurisdiction to provide sewer service to an area annexed by Corona, and the city cannot interfere with that right, the Fourth District Court of Appeal has ruled. The lawsuit was forced by the Riverside County Local Agency Formation Commission's decision 16 years ago not to decide who would provide sewer service to the area.
Formed under the Sanitary District Act of 1923 (Health & Safety Code § 6400 et seq.), the Home Gardens Sanitary District has provided sewer service to the area near the intersection of Magnolia Avenue and East Sixth Street since 1963. In 1986, the Riverside County LAFCO approved Corona's application to annex the territory. LAFCO identified the potential for the duplication of sewer services by Home Gardens and the city, but LAFCO simply suggested that the two entities work things out.
They didn't. Instead, the city in 1999 adopted a policy for the area that said a property could connect to the district's sewer only if the property fronted on a street with a district sewer line, if there were no city sewer line in that street, and if the district had signed an interagency agreement with the city. Otherwise, the city required the property to connect to the city's sewer line.
Home Gardens sued, and Riverside County Superior Court Judge Sharon Waters struck down the city policy. Judge Waters also ruled that both the city and Home Gardens have the right to provide sewer service to the area.
Both sides appealed. A unanimous three-judge panel of the Fourth District, Division Two, upheld Waters decision to invalidate the city policy. But the appellate court went further and ruled that Home Gardens has the sole right to provide sewer service to the area.
In the published portion of its opinion, the appellate court addressed three questions: Was the lawsuit filed too late? Can the city interfere with the district's exercise of statutory powers? Does the district have the exclusive right to provide sewer service?
The city argued that Home Gardens filed the lawsuit way too late because LAFCO decided the matter years ago. But the court held that the challenge was not untimely because "LAFCO ducked the issue by leaving it to the city and the district to resolve." Thus, the lawsuit was not contesting a LAFCO decision because there was no LAFCO decision.
On the second question, the city argued that its police powers allow it to decide how sewer service is provided within the city limits. Again, the court disagreed. Home Gardens "is a creation of state law and is exercising the authority conferred by state law to collect and treat sewage," Justice Art McKinster wrote for the court. "Any attempt by the city to exercise its police powers in a way that limits the district's statutory authority conflicts with state law and is void."
The city pointed to a similar dispute decided in favor of a city in City of Fresno v. Pinedale County Water Dist., (1986) 184 Cal.App. 3d 840. However, the result there was different because Fresno is a charter city and Corona is not, the court held.
As for exclusivity, the court again noted the superiority of state law over local ordinances. "State law authorizes the district not only to construct its sewers in any public street, but also to ‘compel all residents and property owners in the district to connect their houses and habitations and structures … with the sewers.' Here, the district has constructed those sewers and has adopted that requirement. Its decision that it will be the sole provider of sewer service within its boundaries has the force of state law," McKinster wrote.
Home Gardens Sanitary District v. City of Corona, No. E029777, 02 C.D.O.S. 1467, 2002 DJDAR 1777. Filed February 11, 2002.
For Home Gardens: Alan Burns, Harper & Burns, (714) 771-7728.
For Corona: Victor Wolf, Best, Best & Krieger, (909) 686-1450.
A tiered environmental impact report has been thrown out because the program EIR on which the tired document was based had been invalidated. The Second District Court of Appeal ruling came in a case involving the Castaic Lake Water Agency's proposed purchase of water from Kern County to serve Newhall Ranch and other development in Los Angeles County's Santa Clarita Valley.
Counties do not have the authority to recover the cost of investigation and criminal prosecution of code infractions, the Fourth District Court of Appeal has ruled. The court held that cities do have the power to recover the costs of criminal code enforcement activities, but state law treats counties differently.
San Mateo County must approve plans for expansion of San Francisco International Airport before the project is considered by a state panel that decides on development along San Francisco Bay, according to a state Attorney General's opinion.
A Superior Court ruling that blocked the Chula Vista Redevelopment Agency from condemning a 3.2-acre parcel has been overturned by the Fourth District Court of Appeal. The appellate panel rejected all arguments from the landowner and ruled that the city's eminent domain lawsuit was an appropriate action that served the public use.
In 1974, Chula Vista adopted the Bayfront Redevelopment Project for territory west of Interstate 5. In 1998, the redevelopment agency amended the project area to include land
A county can require an applicant for a development permit to indemnify the county in any attempt brought by a third party to void the permit, according to an opinion from the Attorney General's office.
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.