The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutAGENDA REPORT 1992 1007 CC REG ITEM 08Pa ��c ITEM 2 - P. DATE: TO: FROM: RE: September 22, 1992 All California City Attorneys Craig Labadie Request for Amicus in Kawaoka v. City Participation �f Arroyo Grande. or 19? 2— ACTIOM Because this pending appeal raises land use issues of importance to cities statewide, the Legal Advocacy Committee of the City Attorneys Department of the League of California Cities has determined that the case merits participation as amicus curiae. Our office will prepare and file an amicus brief supporting the League's position, and the City of Arroyo Grande is being represented by Katherine Stone of Freilich, Stone, Leitner & Carlisle. Your city is invited to participate in supporting the amicus brief, which is due on October 19,1992. The plaintiffs in Kawaoka v. City of Arroyo Grande (U.S. District Court, Central District) own thirty -five acres of strawberry fields, a use which assertedly is no longer economically viable. During an update of the City's general plan, they requested a change in the land use designation from agriCU!ftire to residential to facilitate sale of the property for development. The City Council did redesignate the property, but it also adopted a land use element policy that required preparation of a specific plan covering the subject property and adjoining lands before development could occur. Specific plans are authorized by statute as a mechanism to achieve logical development patterns and coordinated provision of infrastructure. (Gov. Code, § 65450 et seq.) Among other claims, the property owners contend that the specific plan requirement violates their substantive due process rights. This case presents several interesting land use issues, including immunity of city council members, racial discrimination, and ripeness. However, the amicus brief will focus on the question whether a city can validly impose a requirement to prepare a specific plan as a precondition to - RECEIVED -- YUBA CITY OFFICE ///�� A ATM� A4AA// SACRAMENTO OFFICE 422 CENTURY PARK ORIvE SUITE A \�� / �JV` LCKA3016 555 CAPITOL MALL. NINTH FLOOR P O BOX 776 J SACRAMENTO. CALIFORNIA 95614 YUBA CITY, CALIFORNIA 95992-0776 ) 9 TELECOPIER (916) 4-8334 4 -6334 TELECOPIERB(916)7671 -0990 City of Moorpark McDONOUGH. HOLLAND & ALLEN JOSEPH E. COOMES. JR. SHARON D. ROSEME A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION DAVID J. SPOTTISWOOD SUSAN L SCHOENIG EDWARD J. WRIGHT. JR. DANIEL V. POTASH RICHARD W. NICHOLS JAMES L. LEET ATTORNEYS MICHELLE MARCHETTA KENYON TODD M. BAILEY DONALD C. POOLE MARK A. WASSER KIMBERLY MITCHELL BOTT RAOUEL A. BRISKIN RICHARD W. OSEN DAVID S. SALEM MICHELE M. CLARK DANIEL V. MARTINEZ RICHARD E. BRANDT VIRGINIA A. CAMILL 1999 HARRISON STREET, SUITE 1300 STEPHEN L. D OFF ROBERTN. KATZ GARY F LOVERIDGE HARRIET A. STEINER SETH P. BRUNNER JAN PATRICK SHERRY G. RICNARDBROWN WILLIAM A. LICHTIG OAKLAND. CALIFORNIA 94612 MICHAEL K. IWAHIRO DON F. HARRIS DAVID W. POST EDWARD J. QUINN. JR. JANET D. ROBINSON U SA M. CROFT SUSAN K. EDLING MARK GORTON (510) 444 -7372 ROBERT S. FISHER TODD R. LOWELL DAVID F. BEATTY ROBERT R. RUBIN DAVID L. KROTINE MOLLY T TAMI MICHAEL T. FOGARTY PATRICIA O. ELLIOTT TE LE CO PI E R. (510)839-9104 GLENN W. PETERSON HEIDI B. PRIMACK HARRY E. MULL JR. WI WILLIAM C. NILSON. JR. MARCIA A. KINCANON NATALIE E. WEST IRIS P. YANG TIMOTHY P HAYES ANN O'CONNELL MARY POWERS ANTOINE NANCY T. TEMPLETON -CO L ALFRED E. HOLLAND ROBERT W. O'CONNOR CATHY DEUBEL SALENKO MICHAEL V. BRADY BRUCE F. ALLEN JEFFRY R. JONES ANDREANNA KSIDAKIS DAVID E. MACCHIAVELLI V. BARLOW DOFF T. BRENT HAWKINS CRAIG LABADIE L. STUART LIST JAMES M. RUDDICK JACK D. BROWN KENT W. SILVESTER ANN TAYLOR SCHWING RICHARD M. ROSS NANCY P. LEE JULIE E. GREEN DANIEL L SIMMONS DAWN M. COLE MARY E. OLDEN JAMES R. ROSS MARTIN MCDONOUGH MEMORANDUMSHEILA M. TATAYON 11915 -1987) DATE: TO: FROM: RE: September 22, 1992 All California City Attorneys Craig Labadie Request for Amicus in Kawaoka v. City Participation �f Arroyo Grande. or 19? 2— ACTIOM Because this pending appeal raises land use issues of importance to cities statewide, the Legal Advocacy Committee of the City Attorneys Department of the League of California Cities has determined that the case merits participation as amicus curiae. Our office will prepare and file an amicus brief supporting the League's position, and the City of Arroyo Grande is being represented by Katherine Stone of Freilich, Stone, Leitner & Carlisle. Your city is invited to participate in supporting the amicus brief, which is due on October 19,1992. The plaintiffs in Kawaoka v. City of Arroyo Grande (U.S. District Court, Central District) own thirty -five acres of strawberry fields, a use which assertedly is no longer economically viable. During an update of the City's general plan, they requested a change in the land use designation from agriCU!ftire to residential to facilitate sale of the property for development. The City Council did redesignate the property, but it also adopted a land use element policy that required preparation of a specific plan covering the subject property and adjoining lands before development could occur. Specific plans are authorized by statute as a mechanism to achieve logical development patterns and coordinated provision of infrastructure. (Gov. Code, § 65450 et seq.) Among other claims, the property owners contend that the specific plan requirement violates their substantive due process rights. This case presents several interesting land use issues, including immunity of city council members, racial discrimination, and ripeness. However, the amicus brief will focus on the question whether a city can validly impose a requirement to prepare a specific plan as a precondition to - RECEIVED -- YUBA CITY OFFICE ///�� A ATM� A4AA// SACRAMENTO OFFICE 422 CENTURY PARK ORIvE SUITE A \�� / �JV` LCKA3016 555 CAPITOL MALL. NINTH FLOOR P O BOX 776 J SACRAMENTO. CALIFORNIA 95614 YUBA CITY, CALIFORNIA 95992-0776 ) 9 TELECOPIER (916) 4-8334 4 -6334 TELECOPIERB(916)7671 -0990 City of Moorpark All City Attorneys September 22, 1992 Page 2 development, even if the city has not formally adopted procedures for processing specific plan application. An adverse ruling on this issue would have broad impact on cities because it would inhibit the use of an important planning tool. The City prevailed in the trial court on a motion for summary judgment, and the case has been appealed to the Ninth Circuit U. S. Court of Appeals. If your city would like to be listed as a supporter of the amicus brief, please Completes the attached form and return it to me at your earliest convenience. CC JoAnne Speers Katherine Stone LCKA3016 AMICUS CURIAE REGISTRATION FORM If you would like to participate in the aforementioned Amicus Curiae Brief, please complete and detach the bottom portion of this sheet and forward to: Craig Labadie McDonough, Holland & Allen 1999 Harrison Street, Suite 1300 Oakland, CA 94612 Your Name: Phone No. Address Client City /Cities: Subject to receipt of permission from the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals to file the brief of Amicus Curiae in support of Appellee City of Arroyo Grande, a copy of the brief will be forwarded to the City Attorney of all participating cities. Thank you for your assistance.