Item 8 Staff Report Authorize Participation in Amicus Curiae Brief in Apartment Association of Los Angeles County v. City of Los Angelesm Supreme Court Docket Number S082645, at no Cost to TownMEETING DATE: 3/20/00
ITEM NO.
COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
DATE: March 9, 2000
TO: MAYOR AND TOWN COUNCIL
FROM: ORRY P. KORB, TOWN ATTORNEYS '
SUBJECT: AUTHORIZE PARTICIPATION IN AMICUS CURIAE BRIEF :IN APARTMENT
ASSOCIATION OF LOSANGELES COUNTY v. CITY OFLOSANGELES, SUPREME COURT
DOCKET NUMBER S082645, AT NO COST TO TOWN
RECOMMENDATION:
Authorize the Town Attorney to join the Town of Los Gatos in the amicus curiae brief in the case of Apartment
Association of Los Angeles County v. City of Los Angeles, Supreme Court Docket No. S082645, at no cost to Town.
DISCUSSION:
The City of Los Angeles charges an annual inspection fee to defray the costs of regular code compliance inspections of
residential rental property. The Apartment Association of Los Angeles County, Howard Jarvis Taxpayer's Association
and other organizations filed suit against the city, claiming that the inspection fee was a property -related service fee and,
therefore, subject to Proposition 218 restrictions. [Proposition 218 places certain restrictions on fees incident to property
ownership that public entities can charge.] The City responded that this is a regulatory fee rather than a property -related
fee and therefore not subject to Proposition 218 restrictions. The trial court agreed with the City, but the Court of Appeal
reversed that decision. The Supreme Court has agreed to review the matter.
The amicus brief in this case will support the City of Los Angeles' appeal from the Court of Appeal decision that
broadens the interpretation of Proposition 218 and thereby further restricts public entities' ability to charge certain fees.
This is an important issue to all California public entities, such as the Town, that charge regulatory fees to businesses.
Attachments: Memo dated February 29, 2000 from San Jose City Attorney's Office
Distribution: Amy Stagi, Administrative Assistant, San Jose City Attorney's Office, 151 West Mission Street, San
Jose, CA 95110
OPK/ct [N:WTYWPARTMNT.Alwj
PREPARED BY: ORRY P. KORB, TOWN ATTORNEY
Reviewed by
Manager Revised: 3/9/00 3:21 PM
Reformatted: 10/23/95 File# 301-05, 704-15.87
RICHARD DOYLE
City Attorney
CITY OF SAN JOSE, CALIFORNIA
OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY
151 WEST MISSION STREET
SAN JOSE, CALIFORNIA 95110
Telephone (408) 277-4454
Facsimile (408) 277-3159
INVITATION TO JOIN AMICUS BRIEF
February 29, 2000
REC -- :Y.'ED
MAR 7 -
T C, !AIN A'l?TNY
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 Taxpayer's 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 Associ,' 7 of Los Angeles County v. City of Lc igeles
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:
Enclosure
124987_1
Robert Fabela
Deputy City Attorney
Town Council Minutes March 20, 2000
Redevelopment Agency Los Gatos, California
PARKS COMMISSION/APPOINTMENTS/DEBBIE GARY/APRIL MAITEN (YX.20)
Mayor Blanton announced that three applications had been received from Debbie Gary, April Maiten
and Chris Miller for two openings on the Parks Commission. Voting was held and Ms Gary and Ms
Maiten were appointed to terms expiring 04/01/04.
RENT ADVISORY COMMITTEE/APPOINTMENTS/KRAUS/MIRASSOU (XY.20)
Mayor Blanton announced that two applications had been received from William Kraus and Gerry
Mirassou for two openings on the Rent Advisory Committee. Voting was held and Mr. Kraus and Mr.
Mirassou were appointed to terms expiring 03/01/03.
SCHEDULE OF PUBLIC HEARINGS (01.01)
Informational report regarding currently scheduled public hearings was received and filed.
COUNTY REFERRALS (02.47)
Motion by Mr. Pirzynski, seconded by Mr. Hutchins, that Council accept report on County Referrals:
NUMBER LOCATION APPLICATION REQUEST RECOMMENDATION
7697 14610 Clearview Drive Korns Special Permit! Approval/One Condition
Carried unanimously.
PLANNING COMMISSION/PLANNING DEPARTMENT MONTHLY STATUS REPORT (03.46)
Informational report regarding activity ofPlanning Commission and Department was received and filed.
RATIFICATION OF PAYROLL/FEBRUARY-MARCH 2000 (04. V)
Motion by Mr. Pirzynski, seconded by Mr. Hutchins, that Council ratify the check register for the
payroll of February 26, 2000 through March 4, 2000, paid on March 10, 2000, in the amount of
$377,636.99. Carried unanimously.
ACCOUNTS PAYABLE/RATIFICATION/MARCH 2000 (05. V)
Motion by Mr. Pirzynski, seconded by Mr. Hutchins, that Council ratify the accompanying check
registers for accounts payable invoices paid on March 3, 2000, and March 10, 2000 in the amount of
$387,076.95. Carried unanimously.
MINUTES OF MARCH 6, 2000 (06.V)
Motion by Mr. Pirzynski, seconded by Mr. Hutchins, that Council approve the Minutes of March 6,
2000 Town Council/Redevelopment Agency Meeting as submitted. Carried unanimously.
TREASURER'S REPORT (07.V)
Informational report submitted by the Treasurer to the Council for the month ended January 31, 2000
was received and filed.
AIVIICUS BRI E F
APARTMENT ASSOC OF LOS ANGELES/CITY OF LOS ANGELES (08.10)
Motion by Mr. Pirzynski, seconded by Mr. Hutchins, that Council authorize the Town Attorney to join
the Town of Los Gatos in the amicus curiae brief in the case of Apartment Association of Los Angeles
County vs. City of Los Angeles, Supreme Court Docket So82645, at no cost to the Town. Carried
unanimously.
TC:DI I :NEM032000
2