HomeMy WebLinkAboutAS1- City Attorney CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO - REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
From: James F. Penman Subject: Apartment Association of Los Angeles County v.
City of Los Angeles- Authorization to Join Amicus Brief
Dept: CITY ATTORNEY in Support of the City of Los Angeles.
Date: March 17, 2000 0RIL] j'laM' L
Synopsis of Previous Council action:
None.
Recommended motion:
Authorize the City of San Bernardino to join amicus brief in support of the City of Los Angeles.
Signature
Contact person: Robert L. Simmons Phone: 5355
Supporting data attached: Staff Report Ward: All
FUNDING REQUIREMENTS: Amount: None
Source:
Finance:
Council Notes:
//3 �0
Agenda Item No. A
Ili
I
STAFF REPORT
Council Meeting Date: March 20, 2000
TO: Mayor and Common Council
FROM: James F. Penman, City Attorney
DATE: March 17, 2000
AGENDA ITEM: Apartment Association of Los Angeles County v. City of Los
Angeles - Brief in Support of the City of Los Angeles
The City of San Jose is preparing an amicus brief in support of the City of Los
Angeles in the matter of the Apartment Association of Los Angeles County v. City of Los
Angeles. The City of San Bernardino has been asked to join the brief.
The Court of Appeal treated an apartment inspection fee as a property related fee
under Proposition 218. Thus the fee is illegal unless the property owners vote to approve
it.
The City of Los Angeles contends that the inspection fee is simply a fee levied
under its police powers to defray the costs of inspecting the housing.
The California Supreme Court has agreed to review this matter.
The City Attorney recommends that the City of San Bernardino join in the amicus
brief.
L
D
SA* CITY OF SAN JOSE, CALIFORNIA 3\3
v OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY
* * 151 WEST MISSION STREET
C9ttFOR�N SAN JOSE.CALIFORNIA 95110
Telephone(408)277-4454
Facsimile (408)277-3159
RICHARD DOYLE
City Attorney
INVITATION TO JOIN AMICUS BRIEF
February 29, 2000
Re: Apartment Association of Los Angeles County v. City of Los Angeles
Supreme Court Docket Number S082645
Dear Colleague:
The Executive Committee of the League of California Cities Legal
Advocacy Committee is urging that cities participate as amici in this important
California Supreme Court case interpreting Proposition 218. As you know,
Proposition 218 places various restrictions on a public entity's ability to charge fees
imposed "upon a parcel or upon a person as an incident of property ownership."
Currently before the Supreme Court is whether Proposition 218 should be interpreted
to apply to certain regulatory fees. The purpose of this letter is to request that you join
in the amicus brief being prepared by the San Jose City Attorney's Office in support of
the City of Los Angeles in the above-referenced case.
This case concerns a challenge to the City of Los Angeles' annual residential
rental inspection fee used to defray the costs of regular inspections of multi-family
residential rental properties within the City. The City used the collected fees to ensure
that rental units are in compliance with the California Health and Safety Code,
specifically Health and Safety Code Section 17920.3, as well as the State and local
Building Codes. In July 1998, the Apartment Association of Los Angeles County, the
Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association, and other organizations filed suit against Los
Angeles, claiming that the inspection fee was a property-related service fee for which
compliance with Proposition 218 was required.
The trial court sustained the City's demurrer to the complaint on the grounds
that the inspection fee was not a "property-related fee" in that it was not imposed by
virtue of the ownership of property, but rather was a regulatory fee imposed under the
City's police power.
The Court of Appeal, First Appellate District, reversed the trial court's decision.
The Court of Appeal found that "a fee imposed upon the owners of rental units so the
City can locate and eradicate substandard housing is . . . a user fee or charge for
property related service" and was thus covered by Proposition 218. See Apartment
Association of Los Angeles County, Inc. v. City of Los Angeles (1999) 88 Cal. Rptr. 2d
255, 258.
124987_1
Re: Apartment Association of Los Angeles County v. City of Los Angeles
February 29, 2000
Page 2
The California Supreme Court has agreed to review this decision. Because of
the expansive interpretation given to Proposition 218 by the Court of Appeal, the
reversal of its decision is of great importance to all California cities that charge
regulatory fees to businesses.
The City of San Jose -- which in October 1999 submitted a Letter Brief in
Support of City of Los Angeles' Petition for Review on behalf of the League of
California Cities and the California State Association of Counties -- anticipates briefing
the following arguments:
1. The avowed purpose of Proposition 218 was to end perceived
"loopholes" in Proposition 13's restrictions on property taxes, not
to create new laws curtailing a local agency's police power;
2. The Court of Appeal incorrectly broadened the scope of
proposition 218 beyond the intent of the voters by deeming the
City's regulatory fee to be a property related fee;
3. As a matter of public policy, Proposition 218 cannot be interpreted
to impede a city's police power.
It has also been suggested that the City of San Jose's brief include arguments
that Proposition 218 violates the single subject rule and that it improperly revises the
state Constitution. The City of San Jose, working in conjunction with other cities, is
currently reviewing these additional arguments to determine whether they should be
part of the amicus brief.
If you are interested in joining in the amicus brief and have not already done
so, please complete the attached form and return it to this office via mail or facsimile
no later than Thursday, March 30, 2000. The brief is due to be filed on April 4, 2000.
Thank you for your time and interest in this matter.
Sincerely,
RICHARD DOYLE, City Attorney
By: a�-4 ZZ4,
Robert Fabela
Deputy City Attorney
Enclosure
124987_1