The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About1990-03-06; City Council; 10516; Amicus Brieft, ' f i 0 w ' ~ + a: a.. a.. ~ ' I 1 l z 0 "· g . ~ .., Ii -c., z :) 8 CIT_.pf CARLSBAD -AGENDW5ILL A!! /i?. ,,/t- MTQ, 3/1, /czo DEPT.__,;;;;,C=A __ ImE; RECOMMENDED ACTION: PARTICIPATION AS AMICUS IN CASES OF INTEREST TO CARLSBAD DEPT. HD.___.,. · CITYATT!~ CITYMGR~ That, the City Council by motion authorize joining the city of Carlsbad as an AMICUS in support of other cities when that action has been recommended by the League of California Cities and approved by the council's Legislative Subcommittee. ITEK EXPLANATION The League of California Cities has an organized effort to provide support to cities involved in litigation of statewide importance. The Legal Advocacy committee meets four times a year to evaluate these cases and make recommendations to the League's Board of Directors. If the Board approves, all of the cities in California are asked to help. It has been my practice to only join as AMICUS when expressly authorized by the Council. That means that it is necessary to prepare an Agenda Dill on each case. Frequently, the timing of the report, the Appellate Court's deadlines, and the City Council agenda schedule means that the City does not participate. AMICUS support of this kind is at no cost to the City. The affected city or the City Attorney's department provides the brief. It is, therefore, recommended that provided the Counc~l•s legislative Subcommittee approves the League's position, the city Attorney is authorized to join the City as an AMICUS. l'ISCAL IMPACT None IXBIBITS 1. The Legal Advocacy Committee Roster 2. January 16, 1990 Legal Advocacy Committee Report ', CP.1'T!'lt.\L VAf.I.EY DIY!SION R. 'lnomas Harris City Attorney, Stockton City Hall 425 North El Dorado Street Stockton, CA 95202 209/944-8333 FAX 209/463-1550 r:IIANNEI, COUNTIES DIVISION Judy Skousen (Unpublished Committee) City Attorney, Morro Bay 595 Harbor Street, City Hall Morro Day, CA 93442 805/n2-1214 FAX 805/m.2157 EAST BAY DIVISION Jayne Williams City Attorney, Oakland City Hall One City Hall Plaza Oakland, CA 94612 4IS/273-3812 FAX 41S/273-2221 IMPERIAL COUNTY DIVISION James Darrow City Attorney, El ~ntro 1243 Main Street El Centro, CA 92244 619/352-mt FAX 619/352-2246 INTAND EMPIRE DMSION Jean Leonard Harris City Attorney, Rancho Mirage 69-825 Highway 111, City Hall Rancho Mirage, CA 92270 619/324-4511 FAX 619/324-8830 LOS ANGELES COUNTY DIVISION J. Robert Flandrick City Attorney, Baldwin Park & Bell One Wilshire Building 624 S. Grand Avenue, 11th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90017 213/236-0600;213/236-27(,9 FAX 213/236-2700; 213/236-2800 LEGAL ADVOCACY COMMnTEE ifO~'TERIT'/ DAY DIVISIOt.: Stephanie Atigh City Attorney, Salinas 200 Lincoln Avenue, City Hall Salinas, CA 93901 408/758-7256 FAX 408/758-7257 NORTit BAY DIVISION John Powers (Executive Committee) City Attorney, Vallt'jo 555 Santa Qara Avenue, City Hall Valle;o, CA 94590 707/648-4545 FAX 707 /648-4426 ORANGF. COUNIY DIVISION Alan Bums (Unpublished Committee) City Attorney, Fountain Valley 453 South Glassel! Street Orange, CA 92666 714/771-7728 FAX 714/744-3350 PENINSULA DIVISION Jeny Coleman City Attorney, Burlingame 501 Primrose Road, City Hall Burlingame, CA 94010 415/342-8931 FAX -415/342-8386 REDWOOD EMPIRE DIVISION Jeffrey Walter City Attorney, Cotati 2455 Bennett Valley Road #302D Santa Rosa, CA 95404 707 /523-0732 FAX 707/523-@24 SACRAMENfO VALLEY DIVISION James P. Jackson City Attorney, Sacramento 921 10th Street, Suite 700 Sacramento, CA ~!!14 916/449-5346 FAX 916/448-3139 EXHIBIT 1 SAN DiEGO COUNTY lJTViSION Daniel S. Hentschke (Unpublished Committee) City Attorney, San Marcos & Solana Beach 12770 High Bluff Drive San Diego, CA 92130 619/4S6-1915 FAX 619/259-0292 SO. SAN JOAQUIN YAU.HY DIVISION Leland D. StephelliOn City Attorney, Clovis and Kingsburg P.O. Box 1752 2344 Tulare Street, #400 Fresno, CA 93717-1752 209/486-1203 FAX 209/486-8171 CITY OF LOS ANGELF.S Pedro B. Echeverria (Executive Committee and Chair) Assistant City Attorney, Los Angeles (For James Kenneth Hahn, City Atty.) 1800 City Hall East 200 N. Main Street Los Angeles, CA 90012 213/485-5412 FAX 213/680-3634 CITY OF SAN DIEGO John Witt . City Attorney, San Diego 202 C Street, City Hall San Diego, CA 92101 619/236-6220 FAX 619/236-721.'i CITY OF SAN FRANQSCO Burk Delvcnthal (Executive Committee; Unpublished Committee) Chief Deputy City Attorney II 400 Van Ness, City Hall San Francisco, CA 94102 415/554-4233 FAX 41S/554-7716 CITY OF SAN JOSE Joan Gallo (Executive Committee) City /\tlorney, San Jose 1S1 West Mission Street San Jose, CA 95110 408/277-4454 FAX 408/277-31S9 LEAGUE STAFF: JoAnne Speers, Staff Attorney, League of California Cities, 1400 K Street, 4th Floor, Sacramento, CA 9S814 (916/444-S790); (FAX 916/444-8671) Ex Officio: (City Attorneys' Department Officers) PRESIDENT Steven L Dorsey City Attorney, San Marino, Artesia, Rancho Palos Verdes & South El Monte 333 So. Hope, 38th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90071 213/626-8484 FAX 213/626-0078 1ST VICE PRESJDEr-IT Louis B. Green City Attorney, Sunnyvale City Hall 456 W. Olive Avenue Sunnyvale, CA 94086 408/730-7464 FAX 408/730-765S 2ND VICE PRF..SIDEITT Stephen M. Eckis City Attorney, Poway ~60 N. Magnolia Avenue P.O. Box 1466 El Cajon, CA 92020 619 /440-4444 FAX 619/440-4907 DIRECTOR Vincent F. Biondo, Jr. City Attorney, Carlsbad 1200 Elm Avenue Carlsbad,CA 92008 619/434-2891 FAX 619/720-9461 January 16, 1990 IV. UTIGATION COORDINATION PROCEDURE A. Contact IAC Representative B. City attorneys involved in litigation or other disputes which may be of interest to other cities should contact their representative on the Legal Advocacy Committee (newly revised roster attached). Send Cover Letter Plus Relevant Documents A short letter outlining the legal issues involved and the status of the litigation or dispute, along with copies of relevant documents (~ trial court decision) is especially helpful. Please send copies of correspondence to the League's Staff Attorney in Sacramento. c. Note Deadlines for LAC Action The LAC meets quarterly and will be meeting again on April 6, 199Q. The I.AC's recommendations must then be approved by the League's Board of Directors, which meets approximately two weeks thereafter. The LAC Report is then sent out two weeks after the Board of Directors meets. However, the LAC's Executive Committee may be convened when necessary and "interim" I.AC reports may be sent out. It is ~ important that the IAC be contacted as early as possible about litigation or disputes of interest. The lAC must know what the pertinent deadlines are so that it may take timely action. D. Indicate the Availability of An Amicus Writer If an amicus writer is already available, please indicate in the cover letter describing the case. If you have suggestions for potential amicus writers, please indicate these as well. Enclosure: LAC Roster 1: \iegal\lac\rprtjan.90 9 •••• 1111 •• l •• l ■■IIIL California C1tie~ Work. Together TO: FROM: RE: League of California Cities 1400 K STREET • SACRAMENTO, CA 95814 • (916) 444-5790 All City Attorneys Sacramento, California January 16, 1990 JoAnne Speers, General Counsel Legal Advocacy Committee Report EXHIBIT 2 I. ClTIBS lNYITBP TO JOIN AS AMICI Both the Legal Advocacy Committee (LAC) and the League's Board of Directors have voted to recommend that cities join amicus briefs in the following cases. A Gara,t Y, City of Riverside, No. 191567 (Riverside County Superior Court). 1. Description 2. 3. In this case, Riversicie Superior Court held that two land use initiatives were invalid because the City of Riverside did not have a legally adequate general plan at the time of the initiatives' adoption. The city is arguing, among other things, that the remedy for a defective general plan is to bring the general plan into compliance with the law, not to invalidate the plan or limit citizens' initiative rights. Statm The city filed its appeal on November 4, 1989. The record for the appeal has not yet been prepared. The city expects the matter to be briefed in May. Amicus Writer The city has retained Dan Selmi, Professor of Law at Loyola University Law School, to write the amicus brief. To obtain more information about the brief and the issues it will cover, contact: Katherine E. Stone Freilich, Stone, Leitner & Carlisle The Wilshire Landmark Suite 1230 11155 Wilshire Blvd. Los Angeles, CA 90025-1518 (213) 444-7805 B. Hock Investm~nt Ca, ~. Cit)'. and CQUDb: Qf San Francis~a, No. A042059 (1st Dist.). 'i 1. D •• ' escnpt10n '' ,' This case raises the issue of whether a city department can make I representations to a property owner which limit the city council's or board of supervisors' ability to modify'the development requirements for the property, even when the landowner has not gone far enough with his project to obtain a vested right to proceed. 2. ~ The California Supreme Court has not yet ruled on San Francisco's petition for review, which was filed in November. 3. Amicus Writer ;.', ' ' If the supreme court grants review, cities are urged to join in an-~ brief supporting the city's position by contacting: 'i Steve Dorsey City Attorney, San Marino, Artesia, . Rancho Palos Verdes and South El Monte 333 So. Hope, 38th Floor Los . .<\ngeles, CA 90071 " ' (213) 626-8484 ,. C. Rocha Y, Cit):-of Dixon, No. 95312 (Solano County Superior Court). :\ i '' 1. Description ' ' ·1 The ·question raised in this case is whether a police officer may be ) " disabled within the meaning of Government Code section 21022 i ' (requiring police officers incapacitated from the performance of duty '' as the result of an industrial disability be retired for disability 1• I' regardless of age or amount of service), when his physicians say he still may be able to perform police duties in other jurisdictions. 2. &a1m The citf s opening brief is due on February 19, 1990. 2 3. AmiC'JS Wri~ Cities are urged to join an amicus brief supporting the city's position by contacting: Scott Howard Assistant City Attorney City of Glendale 613 East Broadway, #220 Glendale, CA 91206 (818) 956-2080 D. City of Simi Valley v, Superior Court, No. B046558 (2d Dist.). 1. Description At issue in this case is whether a city's pre-annexation planning activities may subject it to liability for taking property which is outside its city boundaries. Also at issue is whether a city may be liable for a regulatory ta.'lcing before a final decision has been made with respect to the property's development. 2. ~ 3. The court of appeal issued an alternative writ requiring the superior court to sustain the city's demurrer or show cause why a peremptory writ of mandate ordering the superfor court to sustain the demurrer should not issue. The alternate writ specifies that the respondents' return be made by January 31, 1990. The amicus brief should be filed within this time frame. Amicus Writer Cities are urged to join a brief supporting the city's position by contacting: J. Robert Flandrick City Attorney, Baldwin Park, Bell and Whittier One Wilshire Building 624 So. Grand Avenue, 11th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90017 (213) 236-0600 or (213) 236-2709 3 E. Lesher v. Walnut Creek, Cal. App. 3d , Cal. Rptr. , 89 Daily Journal D.A.R. 11678 (1st Dist. September 14, 1989).* - F. 1. Description At issue in this case is the validity of a growth control initiative which was inconsistent with the city's existing general plan. The city argued and the court of appeal held that the initiative should not be invalidated because it could be construed as an amendment to the general plan. The court then allowed the city to eliminate any internal inconsistencies created in the general plan as the result of this amendment. 2. ~ 3. The California Supreme Court granted review in early December. The city's brief is due on February 15, 1990. Amicus Writer Cities are urged to join in an amicus brief supporting the city's position by contacting: Katherine E. Stone Freilich, Stone, Leitner & Carlisle The Wilshire Landmark Suite 1230 11755 Wilshire Blvd. Los Angeles, CA 90025-1518 (213) 444-7805 Wofsy y. City of Berkeley, 214 Cal. App. 3d 218, _Cal. Rptr._, (1st Dist. September 25, 1989). 1. Description The question presented in this case is whether a city may be held liable for damages for failing to certify and transmit a final subdivision map pursuant to Government Code section 66458(b) (requiring that final map be "deemed approved" if legislative body fails to approve or disapprove map within prescribed time). The court of appeal held, relying in part on Palmer v. City of Ojai, 178 Cal. App. 3d 280, 223 *Reviewed by the LAC Executive Committee only due to time constraints. 4 II. Cal. Rptr. 542 (2d Dist. 1986), that the appropriate remedy for violation of a mandatory duty is an action for a writ of mandate or declaratory relief, not monetary damages. 2. Strum 3. The petition for supreme court review was filed in early November. Amicus Writer If the California Supreme Court grants review, cities are urged to join an amicus brief supporting the city's position by contac~ing: . Craig Labadie McDonough, Holland & Allen 1999 Harrison Street, Suite 1300 Oakland, CA 94612 ( 415) 444-7372 FOR CITY AITORNEYS INFORMATION There were other cases in which the IAC voted only to disseminate information about the cases. A. Pacific Power and Li~ht Co, v, Surprise Valley Electrification Corp,, CVF 89-020 MDC (E.D. Cal.). 1. 2. Description This case raises the issue of whether a city may condemn electric utility property for transfer to a local electric cooperative without obtaining prior approval from California Public Utilities Commission (PUC). A federal district court has issued a condemnation judgment; however, an administrative law judge at the PUC has ruled that the cooperative must obtain PUC approval prior to beginning service to the city. The utility plans to raise this jurisdictional issue in its appeal to the Ninth Circuit. Sm1m Appellant's opening brief is due on February 28, 1990. 5 B. C. 3. For Further Information Contact John P. Baker City Attorney, Alturas The Niles Building 300 South Main Street P.O. Box 1886 Alturas, CA 96101 (916) 233-3200 Nordlinier v. Los Anieles Countl'., No. ____ (Los Angeles Superior Court, filed September 28, 1989). 1. Description This is another challenge to validity of Proposition 13 in light of Alle&heny Pittsbur~h Coal Co. v, County Commission of Webster Countl'., _U.S._, 109 s. Ct. 633, 1021 L. Ed. 2d 688 (1988). • 2. ~ 3. The case is still at the trial court level. For Further Information Contact Los Angeles County Counsel's Office 500 West Temple Street 648 Hall of Administration Los Angeles, CA 90012 (213) 974-1801 National Federation of Independent Business v. Eu, No. (2d ----Dist. filed November 28, 1989). 1. Description Plaintiffs are challenging the validity of split roll property tax initiative in light of article II, section 8(d) of the State Constitution (the so- called "single subject rule"). 2. ~ The Secretary of State certified in early December that the initiative failed to qualify for the ballot; the case is presumed to be dead. 6 'i' f !. t t m. i \ j; i 'l r ', .1 : .t ,,, ,, .,· )) 3. for Further Information Contact Thomas W. Hiltachk Law Offices of Nielsen, Merksamer, Hodgson Parrinello & Mueller 770 L Street, Suite 800 Sacramento, CA 95814 (916) · 446-6752 D. Lusardi Constmttion Company v, Aubrey. No. S011121 (California Supreme Court). 1. Description 2. 3. This case raises many issues, among them the applicability of prevailing wage law, Cal. Lab. Code §§ 1720-1815, to local public agency construction projects funded by "certificates of participation," rather than state or local funds. The California Supreme Court granted the State Labor Commissioner's petition for review on September 25, 1989. For Further Information Contact Kenneth H. Lounsberry Vice President, General Counsel Lusardi Construction Co. 1570 Linda Vista Drive San Marcos, CA 92069 (619) 744-9064 IJPPAIE OF CASES PREVIOUSLY ACTED UPON A Hall v, City of Santa Barbara, No. CV84-9506-LEW (C.D. Cal.) (constitutionality· of mobile home rent control ordinance) •· settlement pending. B. City of Redlands Y, Selinaer, ,_Cal. App. 3d_, _ Cal. Rptr."":'T', 89 Daily Journal DAR. 14465 (4th Dist. November 13, 1989) (autolllatic approval provisions of the Permit Streamlining Act (prior to the Act's amendment) impermissib1y deny affected landowners notice and an opportunity to be heard). 7 - C. BY.s! v, City of Vallejo, cal. App. 3d , Cal. Rptr._, 89 Daily Journal D.A.R. 13706 (1st Dist. November 16, 1989)(a retired police officer may be required to take a lie detector test as a condition of returning to work). D. Citizens c.f Goleta Valley v. Board of Supervisors (Goleta ID, _Cal.App. 3d , Cal. Rptr. , 89 Daily Journal D.A.R. 1921 (September 22, 1989), ~cision on reh'i,= Cal. App. 3d_, Cal. Rptr._, 89 Daily Journal D.A.R. 14390, (2d Dist. November 29, 1989)(supplemental E.I.R. must contain at least brief discussion why alternative sites which are apparently or ostensibly reasonable are rejected). E. Davis v. Berkeley; 47 Cal. 3d 512, Cal. Rptr. , P.2d (December 19, 1988), vacated b_y minute order &rantfo& reh'&, March 2, 1989 (requirements for elections under Article 34 of State Constitution, relating to public housing project law) --Berkeley City Attorney is asking all cities which would like to have an article 34 election but are not willing to do so without some kind of clarification of the law to write her so that she can pass this information on to the legislature and the governor. Cities should write to: Manuela Albuquerque City Attorney, Berkeley 2180 Milvia Street Berkeley, CA 94704 ( 415) 644-6380. F. Seawall Associations v. City of New York, No. 127 (New York Court of Appeals) (validity of single room occupancy hotel conversion ordinance ( opinion attached as requested), ~ denied. _U.S._, _S. Ct._, _ L. Ed. 201, 57 U.S.L.W._, (November, 1989). G. Loeblich v. City of Davis, 213 Cal. App. 3d 1272, Cal. Rptr._, 89 Daily Journal D.A.R. 11594 (3d Dist. September 13, 1989) (scope of immunity under Child Abuse and Reporting Act) decertified from publication, _Cal. 3d _, _Cal. Rptr._, 89 Daily Journal D.A.R. 14942 (December 14, 1989). H. Loder v. City of Glendale. Cal. App. 3d , Cal. Rptr. , 89 Daily Journal D.A.R. 14958 (2d Dist. December ts-;-1989) (issuance of preliminary injunction reversed on ground that plaintiff, as a taxpayer, failed to prove or plead facts demonstrating irreparable injury). I. Williams v. Foster, _Cal. App. 3d _, _Cal. Rptr._, 89 Daily Journal D.A.R. 14769 (6th Dist. n.d.) (city, and not landowner, is liable for pedestrian injury on sidewalk in absence of "clear and unambiguous" language creating landowner duty to public). 8