HomeMy WebLinkAbout1980-04-01; City Council; 6213; Pending Legislation\
CI'rY OF C\RLSBAD
AGENDA BI~L NO,__:G~o~~w/~,3~-----------Initial:
Dept.I-Id.
DATE: Ap~il 1, 1980
DEPAR'.!:MENT: City Attorney
subJect:
PENDING LEGISLATION
Statement of the Matter
c. AttyVF8
C, Mgr.~
Attached is a page from the League's March 21, 1980
Legislative Bulletin calling for urgent action in
opposition to two pending bills. One (AB 2474) would
severely intrude on the Attorney/Client relationship by
severely restricting the ability of the City council to
meet with the City Attorney in executiv~ session to
.~iscuss litigation. The other (AD 3017/SB 1869) would
overrule Agins v,, Tiburon a~d again make cities Liable
for inverse condemnation damages--not only for taking
property but also for "substantial impairment" of.
property values. The League requests letters of strong
opposition.
Exhibit
Page 4 from League of California Cities Legislative
Bulletin, dated March 21, 1980.
Recommendation
City Council direct City Attorney to ~end letters of
opposition on the two pending bills.
Council Action!
4-1-80 Council directed the City Attorney to send letters of opposition on the two
bills as uutlined above.
..
i
\'
\
At the hearing on Mrmtlay, March 24, the League will attempt to per.:'luad.:i the Com-
mittee to pass SB 1352 (~farks) and SB 1389 (Craven) as the minim,11 legislation
needed. All cities should urge the Senate C~ee on Local Go•,ernment to defeat:
SB 1594. The members are'. Marks (Chair), Vuich (Vice Chair), Ayala, Beverly,
Craven, Robbins, and Watson. It is unlikely that the Committee will co1nplete its
discussion of these three important measures on the 24th. Therefore, your com-
ments to Corranittee members after Match 24 will still be valuable.
7. URGENT Litigation Discussions to be Held in Open Public Meetings Under Brown
Act Amendment. AB 2474 (Mello). Hearing: Wed., April 9, Assembly
OPPOSE Comraittee on Local Government. The Brown Act (Gov.C. §54950 et seg.)
generally requires meetings of the city council to be open to the pub-
lic with prescribed exceptions. Judicial interpretation of the Act has added a
significant uncodified exception: the discussion of potential litigation. Under
the Sacramento Newspaper Guild ci:ise and several Attorney General opinions, an
"executive session" may be held to discuss potential litigation. AB 2474 sub-
stantially erodes this exception by p2rmitt:ing an executive session "for the pur··
pose of consulting ;,ith an attorney" only when litigation has been filed, or when
the city council, upon a 4/5ths vote, determines that litigation is "about to be
flled" (thereby divulging the parties to the "about to be filed litigation").
AB 2474 represents an intolerable intrusion into the attorney-client: privilege that
this sanctioned use of the e:cecutive session attempts to protect:. Clearly a city
council must be able to discuss with its city attorney litigation which potentially
might result from a particular action or failure to act. This consultation must be
protected from, at the very least, potential plaintiffs. Letters of strong opposi-
tion to AB 2474 should be se~t: inunediately to the members of the Assembly Committee
on Local Government. They ar~: Chappie (Chait), Frazee (Vice Chair), Knox, Mello,
Perino, Ryan, Tanner, Tnur-...a."'l., and N. Wal.;ers.
8. URGr:NT Legislative ?:--::~osals to Overturn Agins ...-. Tiburon. Damages for "Sub-
stantial !::r.:;a--:::-::nt": AB 3017 (Naylor); SB 1869 (Maddi.), Hearings:
OFPOSE AB 3017--Asse:::::.y Committee on Resources, I.and Use, and Eners_v;
SB 1869--Se:a::e Judlciary Committee--Tues., April 8. Identical legis-
h1t:ion establishing "subst:a:r.ial impairment compensation" has been introduced by
Assemblyman Naylor and S-anat:or Maddy. Under these measures, ,equitable or monetary
relief could be granted ::o c1 property owner demonstrating that a "regulation" or
"act" (including an 'n:o:?.7.a!., unwritten action of a city, the grant or denial of a
use permit, variance, zone change or any other official act, prohibition, repre-
sentation or policy affecting the value, marketability, use or economic return of
real property) "destroys or substantially impairs" the use or value of property,
"severely ::.::i?airs its marketability or economic return" or "substantially interferes
wit:h a prc-;,e::ty right".
'£he bills ovet·turn Agins by providing for damages wi.en a court determines that
plaintiff's property has been "taken" within the meaning of Article I, Section 19
\
of the California Constitution and establish a new cause of action under the bills'
provisions for "substantial impairment". If a court determines that no "taking"
occui:rcd, but that the property owner is entitled to damages under this statute, 1
the city would have the option of rescinding or otherwise correcting the "unlawful" t
nctlon. or paying damages.
The bills are drafted in a sufficiently pervasive manner as to include any an<l all
actions and "non-actions" within their scope. The obvious increase in costly liti-
gation (for which the bills provide plaintiff's attorney fees and ccsts but not
defendant's) resulting from these proposals, is unjustified. Nowhere within the
tcl·ms of the btlls is explained why the !!Bins remedy is not sufficient to remedy
nhuscH of the Constitutlon. Each city should refer these bills to its city attorney.
Strong lc!ttcrs of opposltion should be sent to the Assembly Committee on Resources,
I.and Use, and Energy and the Senate Judiciary Committee. The members are:
-4 -3/21/80