Dahms v. Downtown Pomona Property 3/30/06 CA2/1

SUPREME COURT CASES

Laws-info.com » Cases » California » Court of Appeal » 2006 » Dahms v. Downtown Pomona Property 3/30/06 CA2/1

State: California

Court: 1st District Court of Appeal 1st District Court of Appeal

Docket No: B183545

Case Date: 07/12/2006

Preview:Filed 3/30/06

CERTIFIED FOR PARTIAL PUBLICATION* IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION ONE

ROBERT DAHMS, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. DOWNTOWN POMONA PROPERTY AND BUSINESS IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT et al., Defendants and Respondents.

B183545 (Super. Ct. No. BS 092125)

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County. David P. Yaffe, Judge. Affirmed. ________ Martineau & Knudson, Ronald C. Friendt and Gerald R. Knudson, Jr. for Plaintiff and Appellant. Alvarez-Glasman & Colvin and Scott E. Nichols for Defendants and Respondents Downtown Pomona Property and Business Improvement District and City of Pomona. _________

* Pursuant to California Rules of Court, rules 976(b) and 976.1, this opinion is certified for publication with the exception of parts II, III, and IV.

2

Robert Dahms appeals from the trial court's rejection of his challenge to the creation of a special assessment district in downtown Pomona, California. We affirm. BACKGROUND This case concerns the formation of the Downtown Pomona Property and Business Improvement District (PBID), a special assessment district created by the City of Pomona (City) in 2004. The PBID levies assessments on properties within downtown Pomona in order to fund certain services for the properties within the PBID's boundaries. Dahms owns a number of properties within the PBID. The process of creating the PBID apparently began with a request the City received from four property owners in the spring of 2003. The City subsequently hired a consultant, MuniFinancial, to assist in the creation of the PBID. On June 14, 2004, after receiving a management plan for the PBID and a petition signed by property owners representing over 50 percent of the assessments to be levied, the city council passed and approved a resolution declaring its intention to form the PBID. The resolution set August 2, 2004, as the date for a public hearing on the formation of the PBID. On June 18, 2004, the City mailed ballots to the affected property owners. On August 2, 2004, the city council held the public hearing, at the conclusion of which the ballots were tabulated. One hundred and twenty-six ballots favored the PBID; 66 opposed it. The ballots were also tabulated after being weighted by the dollar amount assessed for each affected property, as required by California law; the weighted vote was $338,461.29 in favor, and $153,156.86 against. At the conclusion of the hearing and the tabulation of the ballots, the city council passed and approved three resolutions relating to the PBID. The first resolution declared the results of the balloting. The second approved the formation of the PBID, specified its boundaries and the services to be provided, stated the total amount of the assessments and the maximum annual rate of increase in the assessments, and took various other, related measures. The third resolution approved the engineer's report that MuniFinancial had prepared concerning the PBID, as required by California law.

3

The engineer's report describes the services that the PBID will provide: (1) security, (2) streetscape maintenance (e.g., street sweeping, gutter cleaning, graffiti removal), and (3) marketing, promotion, and special events. All the services are over and above those the City provides within the boundaries of the PBID and are to be provided only to the properties within the PBID. As the engineer's report explains, the amount of the assessment for each assessed property within the PBID is based on three factors: street frontage (i.e., the length of street on the street-address side of the property), building size, and lot size. Those factors account for 40 percent, 40 percent, and 20 percent, respectively, of the amount assessed for each property. On the basis of those factors, the amount of the assessment for each assessed property is calculated as a portion of the total cost of the services that the PBID provides. The engineer's report also explains that various nonprofit entities ("religious organizations, clubs, lodges and fraternal organizations") within the boundaries of the PBID are to be assessed for only 5 percent of the amount that they would otherwise have to pay (i.e., the "basic assessment rate"). After discussion of the issue, the City justified the discount on the ground that such entities will "only slightly benefit" from the services provided in the PBID. In addition, properties within the PBID zoned exclusively residential will not be subject to assessment. On August 25, 2004, Dahms filed this action challenging the City's formation of the PBID. His complaint named the City, the PBID, and "all persons interested in the matter of the [PBID]" as defendants. (Block capitals omitted.) The trial court sustained the City's demurrer to two causes of action, and the case proceeded to a bench trial on Dahms' remaining claims. After the parties filed trial briefs and participated in a hearing, the trial court entered judgment against Dahms. This appeal followed. STANDARD OF REVIEW Before California's voters enacted Proposition 218 in 1996, the Supreme Court had repeatedly held that " `[a] special assessment finally confirmed by a local legislative body in accordance with applicable law will not be set aside by the courts unless it clearly appears on the face of the record before that body, or from facts which may be judicially

4

noticed, that the assessment as finally confirmed is not proportional to the benefits to be bestowed to the properties to be assessed or that no benefits will accrue to such properties.' [Citations.]" (Knox v. City of Orland (1992) 4 Cal.4th 132, 146, quoting Dawson v. Town of Los Altos Hills (1976) 16 Cal.3d 676, 685.) "[T]he establishment of a special assessment district takes place as a result of a peculiarly legislative process" (ibid.), and, because of California's constitutional separation of powers, such legislative determinations are entitled to judicial deference. (Connecticut Indemnity Co. v. Superior Court (2000) 23 Cal.4th 807, 814; Western States Petroleum Assn. v. Superior Court (1995) 9 Cal.4th 559, 572; California Hotel & Motel Assn. v. Industrial Welfare Com. (1979) 25 Cal.3d 200, 211-212; Cal. Const., art. III,

Download Dahms v. Downtown Pomona Property 3/30/06 CA2/1.pdf