HomeMy WebLinkAboutAGENDA REPORT 1994 0504 CC REG ITEM 08Ic,
NAPA COUNTY
ROBERT WESTMEYER, County Counsel
MARGARET L. WOODBURY, Chief Deputy
JOSEPH C. FOLKARD, Deputy
DAVID L. ZALTSMAN, Deputy
KEVIN C. STOBAUGH, Deputy
JAYNE F. HERMAN, Deputy
ITEM. • �
OFFICE OF COUNTY COUNSEL
.Q5 THIRD STREET, ROOM 301 * NAPA, CALIFORNIA 94559 -3001
AREA CODE 7071253 -4521 F&X 707/253 -4176
April 14, 1994
Re: DeVita v. County of Napa 20 Cal. App. 4th 1716.
26 Cal.Rptr. 274; Review granted (March 25, 1994)
94 Daily Journal D.A.R. 3838
Dear Colleague:
Our File No.
.I
y�
The County of Napa requests that you join the amicus brief in DeVita v. County of Napa (1993)
20 Cal.App.4th 1716, 26 Cal.Rptr. 274, which has been granted review by the California
Supreme Court. The amicus brief is being written by Katherine E. Stone, pro Bono, on behalf
of California cities and counties. The Executive Committee of the League of California Cities
Legal Advocacy Committee urges that cities join the brief
The case involves a challenge to Measure J, an initiative general plan amendment designed to
protect Napa County's agricultural lands. Petitioners' principal argument is that local land use
planning is a matter of statewide concern, and that the state Legislature therefore has the power
to preempt local control in the area; they contend that the Legislature has used this power to
require, in the state Planning and Zoning Law, that general plan amendments be adopted only
by city councils (and boards of supervisors). therebv precluding the voters from enacting such
amendments by initiative.
The local government amicus brief will not take a position on the merits of planning by
initiative, but instead will focus on replying to petitioners' argument that general plans are a
matter of statewide concern. This issue is of great importance to all cities and counties because
an adverse ruling by the Supreme Court could greatly inhibit local governments' autonomy and
flexibility to plan for local conditions. The amit tls brief will argue:
Local land use planning is an exercise of the police power granted directly to
local governments by the Califom a Constitution.
2. Local land use planning is essentially a matter of local, rather than statewide,
concern.
3. The State Legislature has not preempted local governments from adding to the
- RECEIVED -
APR 1 8 1994
�ii.� ni 11A�r►r�..nrli
De Vita v. County of Napa - Amicus Brief
April 14, 1994
Page 2
minimum criteria set forth in the general plan statutes with regulations such as
Measure J.
4. The court should defer to legislative intent (allowing local autonomy over
planning) and not impose judicial land use planning.
Katherine E. Stone, the amicus brief author, has been lead counsel in a number of reported
cases dealing with these issues: e.g., Building Industry Association of Southern California v.
City of Camarillo ( "Camarillo ") (1986) 41 Ca1.3d 810, 226 Cal.Rptr. 81, 718 Pd.2d 68; Garat
v. City of Riverside (1991) 2 Cal. App.4th 259, Cal. Rptr.2d 504; Long Beach Equities v.
County of Ventura (City of Simi Valley) (1991)' 31 (al . App. 3d 1016, 282 Cal. Rptr. 877.
Ms. Stone has also written a number of amicus hriefs for local governments, including briefs in
Lesher Communications, Inc. v. City of Walnut Creek (1990) 52 Cal.3d 531, 802 P.2d 317, 277
Cal.Rptr. 1, Nollan v. California Coastal Commission (1987) 483 U.S. 825, 107 S.Ct. 3141,
Lucas v. South Carolina Coastal Council (1992) U. S. , 112 S.Ct. 2886, 120
L.Ed.2d 798. You may have joined an amicus Brief ,n some or all of these cases.
If you would like to join the brief in this case phase return the enclosed form by June 1, 1994
to:
Katherine E. Stone
P.O. Box 7209
Ventura, CA 93006
805 -644 -7188
805- 644 -7621 fax
If you have any questions regarding the DeVita case or this amicus brief, please contact Ms.
Stone (see above for telephone number) or Rachel Hooper or Christy Taylor of Shute, Mihaly
& Weinberger (415 -552 -7272) Shute, Mihaly & Weinberger are special counsel to Napa
County in this litigation.
Very truly yours, _
ROBERT WESTMEYER
'papa County Counsel
RW /lmh
[7615.003 amicus.cty]
AUTHORIZATION TO PARTICIPATE AS
AMICUS IN DEVITA V. COUNTY OF NAPA
You are hereby authorized to add the name of the City of
_ to the amicus brief prepared on
behalf of the County of Napa by Katherine E. Stone in the Califomia Supreme
Court in the matter of DeVita v. County of Napa. I understand that there is no
financial contribution requirement for our participation.
Date:
Signature
Print Name and Title
Name and address of City Attorney
as you wish it to appear on brief:
Please mail to:
Katherine E. Stone, Esq.
P.O. Box 7209
Ventura, CA 93006