5 Cal. App. 5th 540
Cal. Ct. App.2016Background
- In 1990 El Monte voters adopted MTRAP, repealing a prior rent-review ordinance and including section 10 prohibiting the City Council from passing any ordinance relating to mobilehome park rents or spending tax revenues in connection with such ordinances.
- In 2012 the City Council placed a council-sponsored repeal measure (Measure F / Ordinance No. 2804) on the ballot, voters approved it, and it became effective December 18, 2012.
- The City then adopted interim rent-moratoria measures and in 2013 enacted Ordinance No. 2829, a rent-stabilization regime applying to parks with 101+ spaces (Brookside owns a 421-space park).
- Brookside sued, alleging the City Council improperly initiated and advocated repeal of MTRAP in violation of section 10 and Elections Code limits, and that subsequent rent-control ordinances were void (including claims for inverse condemnation and § 1983 due process violations).
- The trial court granted summary adjudication/summary judgment for El Monte, holding (1) Elections Code § 9222 validly authorizes a city council to submit repeal/amendment measures to voters and did not conflict with the state Constitution, and (2) MTRAP § 10 did not bar the City’s placement of Measure F on the ballot or the ordinary election expenditures made in connection with it.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether MTRAP § 10 barred the City Council from proposing or placing a repeal measure on the ballot | MTRAP § 10’s broad prohibition on "passage of any ordinance" and related expenditures forbids any City-initiated hostile action to repeal MTRAP | Section 10 bars only the City Council from passing new ordinances on rents or spending city funds on such ordinances, not from submitting a council-sponsored measure to the voters | Court: § 10 did not prohibit the City’s act of submitting Measure F to voters or ordinary election expenditures; ballot submission is not the "passage of an ordinance" within § 10’s plain meaning |
| Whether Article II, § 11 (initiative power) and Elections Code § 9222 forbid a city council from proposing amendment/repeal of a voter-approved initiative absent express authorization in the initiative itself | Brookside: historical reasoning in People v. Kelly implies local legislative bodies lack independent authority to propose repeal/amendment unless the initiative expressly allows it | El Monte: the 1911 constitutional framework authorized the Legislature to adopt procedures (now § 9222) permitting a city council to submit repeal/amendment measures to the electorate; § 9222 is consistent with the initiative power because ultimate change still requires voter approval | Court: § 9222 validly authorizes a city council to submit repeal/amendment propositions; Kelly does not undermine § 9222 because historical context shows the Legislature had authority to enact such procedures for local initiatives |
| Whether the City’s election-related expenditures violated MTRAP § 10’s prohibition on spending tax revenues "in connection with any such ordinance" | Brookside: payments to run the election and publicity, and councilmembers’ advocacy, constitute prohibited expenditures under § 10 | El Monte: the expenses were ordinary election costs incurred for placing any measure on the ballot; advocacy by councilmembers did not use public funds | Court: expenditures were ordinary election costs and not barred; no evidence public funds were used for advocacy beyond standard election administration |
| Whether Ordinance No. 2829 (2013 rent stabilization) was invalid because the city unlawfully repealed MTRAP or otherwise effected a taking/due process violation | Brookside: repeal was void, so subsequent rent-control actions are void and may constitute a taking/deprivation without due process | El Monte: repeal and subsequent ordinances were valid; Brookside conceded that proving repeal unlawful was essential to its challenges to Ordinance 2829 | Court: because repeal and ballot placement were lawful, summary judgment for El Monte on remaining claims was proper; Brookside failed to show a triable issue on takings/due process |
Key Cases Cited
- Associated Home Builders etc., Inc. v. City of Livermore, 18 Cal.3d 582 (Cal. 1976) (initiative power is a constitutional reserve and state procedural laws that effectively bar initiatives may be invalid)
- People v. Kelly, 47 Cal.4th 1008 (Cal. 2010) (historical analysis of amendment/repeal limits on initiative statutes and the 1946 constitutional amendment permitting the Legislature to propose elector-approved amendments)
- Sherwin-Williams Co. v. City of Los Angeles, 4 Cal.4th 893 (Cal. 1993) (conflict/preemption: local legislation inconsistent with general law is void)
- Rossi v. Brown, 9 Cal.4th 688 (Cal. 1995) (municipal ordinances and charter limits; initiative power may bind future legislatures but a charter cannot restrict initiative rights)