Facts

The City of Santa Rosa adopted an ordinance in 2008, which required owners of real property that sought discretionary approvals to annex to a special tax district that was previously created by the City to fund the increased costs of providing public safety services. The Special Tax District was created after Environmental Impact Reports identified significant impacts for new public safety services resulting from new development, which the City did not have sufficient funding to provide.

Under Ordinance 3092, a property owner could not obtain a discretionary approval unless the property owner annexed to the special tax district. The ordinance impacted landowners seeking to intensify the use of their property and the tax would impact the owners of the newly constructed homes.

Plaintiff Building Industry Association challenged the ordinance on three grounds: (1) Ordinance 3092 violated the right, entailed in the California Constitution, to vote on special taxes; (2) Ordinance 3092 violated the federal Constitution under the Equal Protection Clause; and (3) Ordinance 3092 violated the unconstitutional conditions doctrine under both California and federal law.

Both plaintiff and defendant filed for summary judgment. Plaintiff's motion challenged the action on procedural grounds, and also on the grounds that the City was authorized under the Mello-Roos Act to adopt such a special tax district and require it as a condition of development.

PLAINTIFF'S CONTENTIONS:
The City sought to force applicants for discretionary approvals to sign a paper saying that they unanimously consent to being included in the Special Tax District. The City argued that this constituted a voting procedure that fulfilled the California Constitution's voting requirements. But in forcing landowners to sign this unanimous consent form, as a condition of receipt of a permit, the City was being coercive, and thus failing in its duty to ensure a free and fair vote. A free and fair vote does not exist against the threat of permit denial.

DEFENDANT'S CONTENTIONS:
Defendant argued that the City, as a charter city, had the right to create such a special tax under its municipal powers and authority under the state Mello-Roos Act, and that the unanimous consent form was the same procedure specifically authorized under the Mello Roos Act.

Result

The court issued a tentative decision in favor of plaintiff on Aug. 10, 2010. The court tentatively granted summary judgment to plaintiff. Sonoma County Superior Court Judge Mark Tansil stated "it seems that the express conditioning of...land-use permits upon surrender of voting rights amounts to an unconstitutional enactment... [and] [t]he city has not justified that weighty exchange." On January 27, 2011, the court granted summary judgment for the plaintiff. The court ruled that the California Constitution's guarantee of the right to vote ensures that individuals must have freedom to vote without coercion. Accordingly, Judge Mark Tansil applied strict scrutiny, and struck the ordinance down on Equal Protection grounds, because it infringed upon the fundamental right to vote for some property owners in Santa Rosa. In May 2011, the court awarded nearly a quarter of a million dollars in attorney fees to plaintiff.