HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Report - September 6, 1989 (67)C 0„-N C I L C 0 M M U N I C A 't O N
TO: THE CITY COUNCIL CIOUNC]L MET'IIlVG DATE
FROM: THE CITY RAVAGER' S OFFICE SEPTEMBER 6, 1989
SUBJECT: AMICI CURIAE BRIEF
PREPARED BY: City Attorney
RECOMMENDED ACTION City Council approval of the inclusion of the City of
Lodi in the list of cities on Amici Curiae Brief: La
Quinta Dunes vs City of La Quinta.
BACKGROUND P4i1MATUI: The City of La Quinta, California has requested that
Lodi. add its name to d list of amici curiae in the
case titled La Quinta Dunes vs Cite c La Quinta
(Riverside County Superior Court). This mater
iriudgment-by the=RiVe6, .S
orderingthe City of La Quinta to rezone a parcel of property to multi -family
residential (R-3) and further prohibiting the City from ever making any future
general plan density changes to the property.
I agree with the attorney representing the City of La Quinta that this
represents an unprecedented and dangerous intrusion of the courts into an area
involving the City's authority to plan for land use. I t is on that basis that I
recommend that Lodi be added as an amici curiae in this case.
There will be no expense to Lodi if 1Ae add our name to the list of amici.
Respectfully submitted,
Bob McNatt
City Attorney
BMN :br
LAW OFFICES OF reply to:
statewide practice _
limited to land use law ew
Berkeley, CA 94708
(800)345-0834
stattswidenoll free
xi
i
AUgUSt 10, 1939 'b
Ll Selected City Attorneys
Re: City of La Quinta Amici 4rieL
we need your help, Riverside Counter Superior Court has issued
mandate judgment against the City of La Quints (1) commanding the
City to adopt a specific ordinance rezoning a parcel of land to a 3
^ighe density than that desired by tie City; and (2) prohibiting i
the City from making any future general plan density amendments
relative to the property. This judgment cane out of a case involving' f
the City's two year delay in bringing about zoninc consistency with r
its general plan. No vested rights are involved. I believe this
judgment constitutes an unprecendented invasion into the City's
planning and zoning discretionary decision ma ing powers.
The case is now on appeal. The Legal Advocacy Committee of the City
Attorneys Department has reviewed this case and recommmEnds AmiCU5
s-pport.
will be Hritinc an Amicus brief for joining cities. Enclosed is
the proposed draft. If you agree with, cur position and wish to show
your support, please aavise me imme iately, by p'.:one or letter, so
Flat we may inClU e your nai-ne on. t5e `rie: That :s al we nirea i
:'oyie'ver, if any oI v6u have su?;c st_ons or e}:-G•ence Wit:. silmil.;_
issues, your co---ments are —ap:rec_ateC.
Fours t_ul_ ,
t
3.11
Y.S. Scrry :cr t::_S f3rn letter. _i.e iS s11 a en tae 1Z C=