HomeMy WebLinkAbout1987-07-07; City Council; 9073; Amicus Brief.. - 4J- cr- ,F CARLSBAD - AGENF-I-' L
AB# 9073 TITLE: IDEPT. HD.-
MTG. 71 7/87 I P.MICUS APPEARANCE IN AB 884 CASES
DEPT. CA
RECOMMENCED ACTION:
CITY AITY.-!L&?!!&!
CITY MGR~.
That the Citv Council bv motion authorize the Citv to join as
amicus in SnGdaker v. County of San Bernardino an2 Hermansen Construction Co. V. County of San Bernardino.
STATEMENT OF THE MATTER
The Executive Committee of the Leoal Advocacy Committee has urqed that interested cities join as an amicus in two cases involving the AB 884 automatic approval of development statute. Attached is a letter dated J-Jne 22, 1987 explaining the cases. This issue is a continual problem in Carlsbad and the situations at issue
occur. Fortunately we haven't been sued and are not at the
present time faced with the automatic approval of unacceptable projects, however, we could have been on many occasions. I think
these cases are important to us. In my opinion the co-called
Permit Streamlining Act is unconstitutional because it denies affected property owners the right to be heard on the project. In-action I word on the part Df the City should not deprive the citizens of a say on what happens in their communities. I recommend that the City Council authorize us to join as an amicus in these two cases, it will be on a no cost to the City basis.
EXHIBIT
1. Letter dated June 22, 1987 from League of California Cities,
Paul Valle-Riestra, Staff Attorney
,- . .. -.. L
League of California Cities
1400 K STREET 6 SACRAMENTO, CA95814 (916) 444-5790
Sacramento, CA. June 22, 1987
TO : All City Attorneys
FROM: Paul Valle-Riestra, Staff Attorney
RE: Request io Join in Amicus Briefs
The Permit Stream1 ining Act ("PSA") (Government Code section 65950 et seq.) provides that development, projects will be approved by operation of law if a city does not approve or disapprove the project within certain time deadlines. In Palmer v. Gjai, 178 Cal .App.3d (19&6), the First District refused to hold that the PSAis uncmstitutional. Two cases out of San Bernardino County offer an opportunity to get a different district to examine the serious constitutional issues raised by the PSA. issues of whether projects approved by operation of iaw must conform to the general plan, zoning and CEQA and whether the withdrawal of an application or submission of a revised Gpplication starts a new time period. Subcommittee of the Legal Advocacy Committee urges you to consider joining as amicus in the following cases:
The cases also raise the
The Executive
1. Snedaker v. County of $an Bernardino. In this case, a developer filed an application for approval of atentative subdivision map. After nearly a year had passed, the developer and the county agreed to extend the deadline for acting on the application by 90 days ac authorized by the PSA. This 90 day 2eriod expired without ar.y action on the application. requested the developer to withdraw and resubmit his application. developer agreed to do so on the condition that the project not be disapproved sole'iy on the basis of the withdrawal. The planning commission then approved the project. On appeal, the board of supervisors reduced the size of the project from 367 units to 110 units. full 367 unit project had been approved by operation of law. The trial court agreed and ordered the County to iscue all necessary permits.
2. Hermansen Construction Co. v. County of San Bernardino. In this case, a developer filed an application for approval of a tentative subdivision map. The EIR prepared for the project demonstrated significant adverse effects that were not mitigatible. The developer then filed a revised map which apparently did not, and was not intended to address the adverse impacts. cmmission approved the project, but the board reversed on appeal. Both decisions were nade more than one year after the original map was filed, but less than one year after the revised map was filed. The developer then sued
the County. The trial court held that the project was approved by operation
of law and ordered the County to issue all necessary permits.
brief in each of thes? cases in support of the County.
The County then The
The developer sed, arguing that the
The planning
The San Francisco City Attorney's Office has agreed to draft an amicus City attorneys willing
L
to add their cities to the brief are urged to contact the following by July 14.
Andrew Schwartz Deputy City Attorney 214 Van Ness Ave. San Francfsco, CA 94102 415/864 - 1952
As an aside, if a developer brings a suit based on the PSA against your city, please consider getting a property owner adjacent to the project involved in the suit. The court in Palmer v. O’ai refused to let the city
parties . raise the due process rights of affecte --6--”L property owners because they were nct
PV622Ml. 1 egal