HomeMy WebLinkAboutAGENDA REPORT 1994 0518 CC REG ITEM 08LCITY OF MORGAN HILL
ITEM 8'11 •
17555 PEAK AVENUE MORGAN HI( I. C'�\LIFORNIA 95037
May 2, 1994
Re: Berger v. City of Morgan Hill
Case Number: H011759
Dear City Attorney:
C.- Gary M. Baum
C' NCB 4 I yy / 779 / 7271
j qq y FAX 408/779.,.3117
I am writing to ask you to join in on an amicus brief filed on the City of Morgan Hill's behalf in the
above- mentioned case. Morgan Hill has appealed a $5.3 million judgment for breach of an alleged
oral agreement. The landowner /developer contends that the assistant city manager promised millions
of dollars' worth of concessions to him in exchange for running a sewer line across his property. The
landowner then contends that this underground line stopped him from building California's most
successful bowling alley. With a $6,000,000 general fund, this case is of critical concern to the City
of Morgan Hill. We believe that the issues of authority of city officials, waiver by staff of a condition
under the Subdivision Map Act, contracting away of police powers, and estoppel are of serious
concern to all cities.
The League of California Cities' Legal Advocacy Committee has passed a resolution urging cities to
join in an amicus brief. The brief is being prepared by Dave Larsen, the City Attorney of Milpitas.
The amicus brief will be filed in conjunction with the City of Morgan Hill's appellant's opening brief,
which is being prepared by Crosby, Heafey, Roach & May. The brief is scheduled to be filed on May
23, 1994. Barring unforeseen circumstances, a draft of the amicus brief should be ready for
circuiation the week of May 9, i 994.
The League's interest in this case arises from the trial court's ruling that the City of Morgan Hill was
bound by an alleged oral agreement by an assistant city manager that countermanded a final land use
decision by the City Council In this case, the developer obtained approval in 1976 of a final
subdivision map. As part of the conditions of approval, the City Council required that off site
improvements (i.e., sidewalks, curbs, gutters) be made along adjacent roadways. After this approval,
the City needed to lay a sewer line underneath a corner of the developer's property. The developer
claimed that they were promised a set of development concessions by the assistant city manager in
exchange for granting the easement. These concessions included: abandonment of one of the adjacent
roads, elimination of all off site improvements, perpetual zoning allowing for commercial use of the
M AY 0 5 V94
City of Moorpark
City Attorney
Page Two
May 2, 1994
property; waiver of all development fees for any development of the property; waiver of sewer fees;
and cooperation with any future development plans.
The trial court ruled that the developer could not enforce those parts of the alleged oral agreement
that promised abandonment of the roadway and perpetual commercial zoning, since those were
matters that required action by the City Council. Although exactly the same analysis applies to the
off site improvements, the trial court allowed the developer to proceed on that portion of the alleged
promise and that became the focal point of the case
While this case raises numerous issues, the issues of concern to municipalities include the authority
of city officials to enter into oral agreements, waiver by staff of a condition under the Subdivision
Map Act, contracting away of police powers, and estoppel. Morgan Hill's position has always been
that like abandonment and zoning the conditions imposed on a final subdivision map cannot be
eliminated or modified by a city employee. Mr. Larsen's amicus brief is, thus, focusing on these
issues.
It would be greatly appreciated if your city would join in on the amicus filing,. I have included a
postcard for your response. A response is necessary by May 20, 1994. I apologize in advance for
the short notice. If you have any comments or questions please contact Dave Larsen at (408) 942-
2324.
Very truly yours,
Gary . Baum
Ci Attorney
cAgmMberger\smiciu.502