Property rights advocates won a potentially far-reaching victory with a First District Court of Appeals ruling regarding San Francisco's hotel conversion ordinance. In a takings lawsuit filed by a hotel owner, the court held that the "heightened scrutiny" test applies to the San Francisco law, meaning there must be a close relationship between the exaction and the project's impact.
The court ruled that the lawsuit filed by owners of the San Remo Hotel should proceed in trial court. The hotel owners argued that the city's hotel conversion ordinance (HCO) violates state and federal constitutional provisions against taking private property without just compensation. San Francisco's ordinance prohibits the conversion of residential units to tourist use unless the hotel owner replaces the converted units with new affordable housing or pays a substantial mitigation fee.
The city has successfully defended the 21-year-old law against repeated legal challenges, but that track record could change. Under the heightened scrutiny test, the city must show both an "essential nexus" between the permit conditions and the impact of the proposed development, and a "rough proportionality" between the exaction and the development's effects.
"If the trial court has to apply the heightened scrutiny test to this exaction, the city loses," predicted Andrew Zacks, attorney for the San Remo Hotel owners. "I think the ordinance is in trouble and this case could be the death knell for it. … We think the law ultimately is going to be declared facially invalid."
Deputy City Attorney Andrew Schwartz agreed that the heightened scrutiny test would mean trouble, but he argued that court precedent indicates the test should not apply here.
"Legislative land-use regulations of general application are to be reviewed in the political process, not in the courts," Schwartz said. He noted the state Supreme Court reached that conclusion last year in a rent control case, Santa Monica Beach Ltd. v Superior Court (1999) 19 Cal.4th 952 (see CP&DR Legal Digest, February 1999). But the court held that San Francisco's regulation is discretionary and not of general application because it applies only to residential hotels, of which the city has about 500.
"I think this decision is potentially far-reaching. It would shift policy-making decisions for land use to the courts," Schwartz added. "This decision is a prescription for a very activist court."
In response to an affordable housing shortage, the city began regulating the conversion of residential hotels to tourist use in 1979. At that time, the 62-unit San Remo was classified as a residential hotel based on a survey of the hotel operator. The hotel owners, Thomas and Robert Field, dispute that contention, saying they have always provided the majority of rooms to tourists. When the Fields sought permission to provide all rooms to tourists, the city required them to pay a $567,000 conversion fee — equal to $9,000 per room, or 40% of replacement costs — and to offer lifetime leases to long-term tenants.
In 1996, the hotel owners paid the fee in protest and sued the city in federal court alleging violations of federal civil rights law, 42 U.S.C. 1983. But the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals kicked the case over to state court. San Remo Hotel v. City and County of San Francisco (9th Cir. 1998) 145 F3d 1095 (San Remo I); see CP&DR Legal Digest, July 1998.
The San Francisco Superior Court sustained numerous demurrers from the city. On appeal, however, the First District, Division Five, ruled that the hotel owners should be allowed to proceed with the case at the trial court level.
The Fields challenged both the hotel conversion ordinance itself and the city's application of it to the San Remo. They contended the law does not substantially advance legitimate government interests as required by the Fifth Amendment and that the law forces a small group of property owners to "bear the full cost of providing a general public benefit." Those arguments found favor with the unanimous three-judge appellate panel.
Importantly, the court ruled that San Francisco's exaction is discretionary, as were those in Nollan/Dolan. The court specifically rejected the city's argument that the hotel conversion law is a zoning regulation of general application. "The $567,000 mitigation fee obviously was not imposed on every other property in the City," Justice Lawrence Stevens wrote. "Consequently, a heightened level of scrutiny is proper because this is the type of particularized governmental exaction imposed upon a property owner which was seen in Ehrlich." In, Ehrlich v. City of Culver City (1996) 12 Cal.4th 854, the state Supreme Court held that exactions must meet the Nollan/Dolan "essential nexus" and "rough proportionality" standards only when they are imposed ad-hoc on a specific project.
Justice Stevens wrote: "The 1990 version of the HCO [hotel conversion ordinance] explicitly states that it demands increased fees from property owners, since other official sources of public funding for low-cost housing became more difficult for the City to procure, thereby shifting the burden of public funding for low-cost housing to the property owner. This is potentially the type of individual taking of property by the government, for an asserted public purpose, which the jurisprudence developed under the takings clause was designed to protect citizens against, and for which heightened scrutiny is appropriate."
"We recognize that the HCO may be a well-intentioned measure intended to aid persons on limited incomes by providing affordable housing, but even well-intentioned measures may create unconstitutional takings," Stevens continued.
Interestingly, the Fifth District's ruling came only four months after U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia called San Francisco's hotel conversion ordinance extortionate. Scalia argued, but failed, for the high court to take a different case challenging the law (see CP&DR Legal Digest, May 2000). In a written dissent from the court's denial of certiorari, Scalia questioned whether the state appellate court was willing to follow the Nollan/Dolan precedent. Zacks, the San Remo attorney, called Scalia's dissent "an invitation" for the First District to rule as it did.
San Remo Hotel v. City and County of San Francisco, No. A083530, 00 C.D.O.S. 6609, 2000 Daily Journal D.A.R. 8745, filed August 8, 2000.
For San Remo: Andrew Zacks, (415) 956-8100.
For San Francisco: Andrew W. Schwartz, deputy city attorney, (415) 554-4620.
A sharply divided three-judge panel of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has upheld an environmental impact statement prepared for expansion of the Kahului Airport in Maui, Hawaii. The court majority ruled that the Federal Aviation Administration had taken the "hard look" at the project's impact on native habitat required by the National Environmental Policy Act, while a dissenting judge called the FAA's study inadequate and deceptive.
The FAA and the Hawaii Department of Transportation proposed repa...
An appellate court has ruled against environmentalists in a California Environmental Quality Act lawsuit because the project in question was not approved and because environmentalists did not exhaust their administrative remedies.
In a peculiar case from Rancho Cucamonga, the Fourth District Court of Appeal, Division Two, ruled that the lawsuit brought by opponents of a 40-home subdivision was moot because the city denied the developer's design review application for a previously approved su...
In a major victory for developers of Playa Vista, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeal has reinstated an Army Corps of Engineers permit to fill 16 acres of wetlands. The unanimous three-judge appellate panel overturned a district court ruling that the Corps did not adequately consider environmental impacts of the overall project.
The Ninth Circuit held that the Corps did not need to complete an environmental impact statement and that the Corps was correct to review only the wetlands portion o...
In an important water rights ruling, the state Supreme Court has held that farmers' long-standing water rights superceded water claims by downstream cities. The unanimous court ruled in favor of seven alfalfa and dairy farmers in the Mojave Valley that had refused to join a pact that allocated water to more than 200 farmers, cities and other entities without regard to historical water rights. "This preserves the farmers' position at basically the top of the water chain," Robert Dougherty, t...
The State Supreme Court decertified a Second District Court of Appeal opinion that overturned portions of Santa Monica's rent control law.
The appellate court ruled that Santa Monica could not modify conditions established by state law under which landlords can increase rents for voluntarily vacated units. The court also held that the city cannot demand more information than state law requires when registering rent-controlled units. (See CP&DR Legal Digest, June 2000.)
In reviewing the Cos...
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.