Griffith v. City of Santa Cruz
207 Cal. App. 4th 982
| Cal. Ct. App. | 2012Background
- Petitioner Griffith challenges Santa Cruz’s Residential Rental Dwelling Unit Inspection and Maintenance Program (Ordinance 2010-17) enacted Sept. 7, 2010, requiring annual inspections of non-owner-occupied residential rental units to identify substandard housing.
- Ordinance codified as SCMC §21.06.010 et seq.; it authorizes access requests, landlord/tenant consent, and entry by reasonable force if necessary for safety.
- Program includes fees: $45 per unit registration; $20 per unit inspection; $20 per unit self-certification (up to 20% of units); $107 per hour for reinspection.
- Inspectorly process: document violations, advise owners, schedule reinpection, and use remedies under the City’s code for noncompliance.
- Self-certification allows avoidance of inspection for some properties; waivers and exigent-entry provisions exist for hazardous conditions.
- Griffith, as owner of rental properties, sued claiming preemption by State Housing Law, privacy/equal protection concerns, and Prop. 218/Prop. 26 tax issues; the superior court denied relief and upheld the Ordinance.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Preemption of the Ordinance by State Housing Law | Griffith argues a conflict with UHC and State Housing Law. | City contends no actual conflict; enforcement is allowed and checklists do not modify statewide standards. | No preemption; Ordinance does not create conflicting or new standards. |
| Right to privacy | Griffith contends warrantless inspections violate Fourth Amendment/privacy rights. | Ordinance requires landlord/tenant consent; exigent-entry allowed with reasonable cause. | No privacy violation; standing issues aside, exigent-entry provisions lawful; consent required absent cause. |
| Equal protection | Rental units treated differently from owner-occupied property; potential irrational discrimination. | Rational basis; inspections target where violations are most likely; similar treatment for owner-occupied remains. | Rational basis; no equal protection violation. |
| Legality of fees (Prop. 218/Prop. 26) | Fees may be impermissible taxes under Prop. 218/Prop. 26. | Fees are regulatory costs; exempt from taxes under Prop. 26; supported by cost data. | Fees are valid regulatory fees, not taxes; costs reasonably related to regulatory activity. |
Key Cases Cited
- Rental Housing Owners Assn. of Southern Alameda County, Inc. v. City of Hayward, 200 Cal.App.4th 81 (2011) (independent review; rational basis/equal protection context in housing)
- College Area Renters & Landlord Assn. v. City of San Diego, 43 Cal.App.4th 677 (1996) (occupancy/land use distinctions; rational basis analysis in equal protection)
- Apartment Assn. of Los Angeles County, Inc. v. City of Los Angeles, 24 Cal.4th 830 (2001) (regulatory fees under Prop. 218; fees vs taxes)
- California Farm Bureau Federation v. State Water Resources Control Bd., 51 Cal.4th 421 (2011) (regulatory fees; proportionality and cost-recovery standard under Prop. 26)
- San Diego Gas & Electric Co. v. San Diego County Air Pollution Control Dist., 203 Cal.App.3d 1132 (1988) (fee vs tax analysis; regulatory cost justification)
- Camara v. Municipal Court, 387 U.S. 523 (1967) ( Fourth Amendment; warrantless inspections in context)
- Briseno v. City of Santa Ana, 6 Cal.App.4th 1378 (1992) (need for express findings to diverge from statewide standards)
- Associated Builders & Contractors, Inc. v. San Francisco Airports Comm., 21 Cal.4th 352 (1999) (charter city autonomy vs preemptive state law)
- Rental Housing Owners Assn. of Southern Alameda County, Inc. v. City of Hayward, 200 Cal.App.4th 81 (2011) (independent review; standard of review for preemption/equal protection)
- City of Watsonville v. State Dept. of Health Services, 133 Cal.App.4th 875 (2005) (preemption analysis under state health standards)