Costello v. City of Los Angeles

California Court of Appeal Dec 24, 1975 No. Civ. 46248Published

Before: Kingsley

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that the city's method of spreading street improvement assessments based on an arbitrary 135-foot depth limit was invalid and constituted an unauthorized alteration of the assessment district boundaries. Consequently, the original assessments were void, necessitating a reassessment in accordance with the Streets and Highways Code.

Issues

Whether the city's method of spreading street improvement assessments based on an arbitrary lot depth limit was valid.
Whether the city had the authority to effectively alter the boundaries of an assessment district established by ordinance.
Whether the trial court properly ordered a reassessment after finding the original assessments void.

Disposition. affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“Nothing could be more arbitrary. Put in simpler words, a city official picks, out of thin air, a depth figure that he thinks is fair and, on that hunch, assesses the property of the lot owners.”

“In short, the differentiation on the basis of lot depth was arbitrary, an abuse of discretion and the trial court properly so found.”

“The statutes give to the assessing authorities no such power to amend the council-established district boundaries.”

Opinion

KINGSLEY, Acting P. J.

This is an appeal from a judgment holding void the assessments on three pieces of property within an assessment

[30]

district created by the City of Los Angeles under the Street Improvement Act of 1911 (Sts. & Hy. Code, §§ 5000-6794).

On the merits, the case involves the question of whether the method used to spread the assessments for a work of street improvement resulted in an over-assessment of the three lots herein involved. The trial court held that it did; we agree.

On October 10, 1967, the Los Angeles City Council adopted an ordinance providing for the improvement of Aqua Vista Avenue, in that city, between Fair Avenue and Vineland Avenue “in accordance with the Improvement Act of 1911.” The work involved the widening of Aqua Vista Avenue to a uniform width of 46 feet. The total cost of the improvement was $49,554.53. All of the property within the assessment district was zoned for multiple residential housing. The properties lying on the north side of Aqua Vista Avenue are relatively short, running from 132 to 232 feet in depth. The lots on the south side of the street are substantially longer, running from the street back to a curving flood control channel; those herein involved vary from 230 feet to 549 feet.

Of the 38 lots involved, three had no access to Aqua Vista Avenue and were not assessed; one belonged to the city and was not assessed; four were what Mr. Farias (the city official who had spread the assessments) referred to as “flag” lots

and were assessed at a low rate. No objection was made in the trial court, or here, to the special treatment given to those eight lots.

The contention made below, and here, is that the method used by Mr. Farias in spreading the assessments among the remaining 30 lots resulted in an overassessment of the lots on the north side of Aqua Vista with a resulting under-assessment of the lots on the south side of Aqua Vista and that that differentiation rested on no valid distinction and was arbitrary and void. After that contention had unsuccessfully been urged

Costello v. City of Los Angeles

AI Brief

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

III

AI Brief