HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Report - August 20, 1986 (63)Ron Thomas
Robert Mullen
Jenanne Benjamin
Walter Pruss
Beryl Georqus6n
G
TO: THE CITY COUNCIL
FROM: THE CITY MANAGER'S OFFICE
CIL COI1IMUNICATIO
DATE
AUGUST 20,1986
SUBJECT: CHARGE OF MEASURE A TASK FORCE
Council will recall at'the December 18, 1985 Council Meeting, following receipt
of a report from the City Attorney regarding the L.I.F.E. vs the City of Lodi
(Green Belt Initiative) suit and discussion, Council, on motion of Council
Member Snider, Olson second, agreed to proceed with the appeal process and to
move forward with the development of a Task F-)rce to seek viable alternatives
to Measure A.
The Measure A Task Force consisting of Ann Cerney,-Frank Johnson, A. Fred
Baker, John Ledbetter, Ron Thomas, Robert Mullen, Jenanne Benjamin, Walter
Pruss,`and Beryl Georguson, have met on numerous occasions:
{'
Following the most recent meeting of the Task. Force, July 24, 1986, Council
Member Snider asked that a copy of the minutes of the City Council meeting of
}
December 18, 1985 be forwarded to the Task Force as well as a copy of his =
letter to the Council dated July 28, 1986.
-
Council Member Snider feels that it is important for this Council to reiterate
its charge to the Task Force and has requested that this matter be placed on
the Agenda for the Regular Council Meeting of August 20, 1986.
For your information I have included with this Council Communication the
following documents regarding this matter:
a) Letter from City Attorney Stein dated December 3, 1985
4:, k
b),Copy of December 18, 1985 City Council Meeting Minutes
c) letter from Council Member Snider dated July 28, 1986
d) Letter from Council Mmber Snider to the Measure A Task Force z
s
gated August 11, 1986 F
j;
{
ALICE M. REIMC HE
City Clerk
Y.
c
t
i
To: Honorable Mayor and Council Members _
Fran: City Attorney
Re: L.I.F.E. vs. City of Lodi. (Green Belt Initiative)
Date: December 3, 1985
P
Cn November 25, 1985, Su;,erior Court Judge James P. Darrah ruled on a
Sunaary Judgmt Motion by the L.I.F.E. Cauaittee (hereinafter referred
to as "Petiticcier") that Measure A (Green Belt Initiative) was
invalid. The ruling has as its basis that the measure interfered with
the process of arube>ation, uiuch is a matter of compelling State .
interest in Which the State has preeapted the field, not allowing
cities by their councils or voters to prescribe any ra�ixemert
relating to annexation.
A number of questions have been asked of this office since the decision
was rendered, arra I feel that it would be very important, in order fon-
this Council to make a decision regarding the appeal process, to have
these questions answered. I am sure that these are not the 'only
questions,and obviously I'wiL' make myself available to "answer any
additional questions regarding this matter.' I felt. that the %=mat to
use should be a question and answer type format that would simplify and
clarify the issues:
(1) Q. haiat did the Court decide?
A. Before tin Court were two lines of cases which the Court was
required to apply to its decision .on the constitutionality ° of
Measure ' A. .r be first line of cases, in effect, disallowed
citizens of a municipality from voting on annexations, discussed
in Ferr:ni v. The City of San Luis Obispo Werrini) . The
second line of cases allowed the citizens of a m nicipaLity to
f
vote on zoning matters, incljding general plans. discussed in
Associated' Home Builders' of the Greater Eastbay v.' City of
Livermore (O,ermre) .
In the Judge's decision, he determined that Measure A was in
effect, an initiative which would' allow. the citizens to vote on '-
annexations, an area which has been preempted by State' law
(Ferinni). The Judge looked at the initiative itself ani
determined_ that the language of the initiative, thn arguments in
favor thereof, andthe impartial analysis by the City Attorney,
x"
all referred to annexations. The Judge was of the opinion that
the initiative was in effect to allow a vote on annexations by the
'
citizens (a precondition to annexation); and therefnrs wan invalid.
e`
s
' ,,t► r Kms, �
the cost to date of defend -'ng Measure A?
iyproxirn+tely $32,0w.
(3) Q. what c -x uld be the cost of an appeal?
A. Approximately $10,000 - $15,000. Most of the work has already
t,ren done Superior Court. The cost of briefing and arguir- Will
))e sonewhat linAted.
x vt
(4)
Q. %Inat would be the issues on appeal?
A. Ci appeal, tt.- Third AFpellate Caurt would have to decide
whether Judge Darrah's decision should in fact be sustained. It
wduld be my understanding that the City would be arguing that the
C;seocnd
line of cases allowing the citizens of the City to vote cn
general plans (Livermore), is in fact the cases that the Judge in
the lower Court should have applied. V&at we would be arguing
would be that the Court should have looked at the way the City
interpreted Measure A, i.e., in our Measure A elections over the
1}
years, rather than the initiative lancvage itself.
4
(5)
Q. Vtot is the time frame for appealing the decision?
A. within 60 days of the issuance of the final Judgment and Cozier
of tlye Court. Attorney Steve. Heruan who represents the Petitioners
in the case, is in the F-3oess of preparing the order at this time.
Q. h3iat if we don't appeal? Can others appeal?
A. Yes,another party wind attempt to ink on behalf of the
citizens of the City of Lodi to pursue five appeal.
3
(7)
Q. Meat options does the City Cuancil have as it relates to the
Measure A litigation?
-i
A. The City Council may:
1. Appeal the decisicn.
2. Do nothing and assure that same other person may or may
not appeal.
(8)
Q, i4lsat happens if we go on appeal and Petitioner is
successful on appeal? Mtat can the City Council then do?
A. If the Petitioner is successful on appeal, the City Council
can at that time ask for a hearing before the California State
Supreme Cxirt.
(9)
Q. vftt if the City wins on appeal and Measure A is sustained?
h3
A. At that time, Petitioners can ask for a hearing before the
Supreme Cant. Further, in the laser Court, these were two issues
;1..
'7
x vt
W2 ig�
. �t�
In;
that were riot resr-lved, because Judge Darrah felt that the major
issue was whether or not the measure was valid as it relates to
the aforementioned lines of cases. The two other issues were not
resolver] and it is possible that the Petitioners can go back to
the Superior Court and have th-ise two issues resolved. Both
issues were on a sum Tery judgmie-L motion and the City's defense to
that was that there were facts in dispute and therefore they
issues that should be tried. The two isw:es were:
a) Whet -her or not Measure Jz. was unconstitutional in that it
limited the City's ability to take its regional share of homing
for low and moderate income people; and
b) V6ether Measure A was invalid because it made tl:-q other
elements of our General Plan inconsistent.
It should be noted that even if the City were to win on the above-
mentioned issues in the Superior Court, this would not stop the
Petitioner fran appealing those issues or from going to trial and
then having those issues decided after a trial in an Appellate
Court.
(10) Q. Are arj-x--xaticn requests stayed pending appeal?
A. Yes. Until the order of the Court is final, Measure A is
still in eff--!ct arxl once the order of Court is final and if the
City Council chooses to appeal or if someone else chooses to
appeal, Measure A could still be in effect pending the outcome of
(11) Q. Car: the Petitioner make a motion for the City to pay
A
Ply'
A. Yes they can according to Code of Civil Procedure -S-ztion
1021.5.
(12) Q. If the city cckricil should choose not to appeal the Judge Is
eecision, at what point and time could the City resume accepting
W2 ig�
. �t�
In;
that were riot resr-lved, because Judge Darrah felt that the major
issue was whether or not the measure was valid as it relates to
the aforementioned lines of cases. The two other issues were not
resolver] and it is possible that the Petitioners can go back to
the Superior Court and have th-ise two issues resolved. Both
issues were on a sum Tery judgmie-L motion and the City's defense to
that was that there were facts in dispute and therefore they
issues that should be tried. The two isw:es were:
a) Whet -her or not Measure Jz. was unconstitutional in that it
limited the City's ability to take its regional share of homing
for low and moderate income people; and
b) V6ether Measure A was invalid because it made tl:-q other
elements of our General Plan inconsistent.
It should be noted that even if the City were to win on the above-
mentioned issues in the Superior Court, this would not stop the
Petitioner fran appealing those issues or from going to trial and
then having those issues decided after a trial in an Appellate
Court.
(10) Q. Are arj-x--xaticn requests stayed pending appeal?
A. Yes. Until the order of the Court is final, Measure A is
still in eff--!ct arxl once the order of Court is final and if the
City Council chooses to appeal or if someone else chooses to
appeal, Measure A could still be in effect pending the outcome of
(11) Q. Car: the Petitioner make a motion for the City to pay
Pet-itioner's attorney's fees since Petitioner is the successful
Ply'
A. Yes they can according to Code of Civil Procedure -S-ztion
1021.5.
(12) Q. If the city cckricil should choose not to appeal the Judge Is
eecision, at what point and time could the City resume accepting
applications for annexations?
A. The City Council could again accept applicaticsis for
amexation 60 days from the date of the issuance of the final
Judgment, and Order of tkse Superior Court.
(13) Q. Assuring the Judge's decision is not appealed, what effect
does the Judc)e's decision have on the City's General Plan?
A. It places the areas between the 1AxU City -Limits and the
former growth lil&dts bac)( into the City's land use element of the
City's General Plan.
Ibope that these few questions and answers give you some insight into
the Court's decision, and some of the questi6ns that kwm been brought
P&ie _our
F
up regarding this matter. If you have any other yuesticmCr oas is ;tEt;
please feel frac: to contact me. ys
FCNAID '
CITY A sd
IM:VC
r ` 4
i
:t
10. :L ..
F
,
� L
t ,t
S.� L
z f� r� qtr., ,+ ,,•i. .,• ,. tt : 4-, r •,moi t tr t' {. r..,r� - ' r g
Continued December 18, 1985
Public Works Director Ronsko asked that the record show that
he reccamanded against the establishing of a mid-block
crossing in the subject area.
Following additional discussion Council directed Staff
to review the various locations suggested for a Turner
Road mid-block crossing and to bring back a report
regarding the matter to Council at the earliest possible
date.
REPORT FRGM CITY
ATTORNEY REGARDING 1
LIFE VS CITY OF
I)ODI (GREEN BELT {.
INITIATIVE) SUIT Following receipt of a report from the City Attorney f.
regarding the L.I.F.E. vs the City of Lodi (Green
Beit Initiative) suit and discussion, Council, on rroti-z of
Council Member Snider, Olson second, agreed to proceed with
the appeal process and to mnve forward with the
develogzent of a Task Force to seek viable alternatives
to Measure A.
ERNST AMID WHIM4EY
CITY OF LORI AUDIT
AMID MANAGD= LEI IM
Following introduction of the matter by City.Manager
Peterson Finance Director Robert Holm presented, for
Council's perusal, the 1984-85 Annual Audit and Managemnt
Letter, as submitted by the audit firm of Ernst and
Whinney. C a encs regarding the Management Letter wed
provided by Librarian Leonard Lachendro and Finance
Director Holm:
Following discussion, with questions being directed to
Mr. Holm, Council, on motion of Mayor Fro Tempore Reid,
Hinchman second,received for filing he :1984-85 Annual
Audit and Management Letter as submitted by, the audit
film of Ernst and W iinney.
TJ IG STREET
S'IR= LIGHTING
DISPRICT .'
City Clerk Reimche apprised the Council that on Noventer
J\ 18, 1985 property owners on-Liebiq Street, located
CITY COUNCIL THOMAS A. PETERSON
;FRED M_ REID. Mayor T TY ® O T City Manager -
.
., . 1 ALICE M REIMC
EVELYN M. OLSON 1 1 jY HE "
Mayor Pro Tempore CITY HAIL, 221 WEST FINE STREET City Clerk' '
DAVID M. HINCHMAN CALL BOX 3006 RONALD M. STEIN
JAMES W. PINKERTON, Jr. LODI, CALIFORNIA 95241-1910 City Attorney
JOHN R. (Randy) SNIDER (209) 334-5634
I.
z - -
August ' 111-1986
:i
Dear .
Enclosed please find a copy of my July, 28, 1986 Memorandum to the other
Members of the Lodi City Council regarding Measure A and the charge of
the Task Force to seek viable alternatives to Measure A.
I have requested that this matter be placed on the Agenda for the
Regular Council Meeting of August 20, 1986 at which time I will ask for
4
a clarification of the charge and duties of the Task Force.
You attendance at this Council Meeting would be most welcomed.
Very truly yours,
a
r,
r `
John "Randy" Snider
Member-.,:,,
Lodi City Council.'
{
by:'
i
Alice M.,Reimche
City Clerk
The above letter was sent to all Measure A_Task Force Monbers: .James
Schroeder,"Ann Cerney, Frank Johnson, A ,Fred Baker, John hedbetter;''. '
Ron Thomas, Robert Mullen,` Jenanne Benjamin, Walter.Pruss,. and Beryl
Georgusan
f �
,
MEMORANDUM
To: Honorable Mayor and Council Members
>
-
Fran: Councilman John "Randy" snider
-
Bate: July 28, 1986
y_
a
Re: Re: Measure A
_
I am sure that the Council has heard accounts regarding the Measure A
Task Force meeting of July 24, . 1986. I was presei_t at that meeting,
and frankly, do not necessarily agree with the 'perception regarding
confusion, or lack of consensus on the part of .the Task- Force.
However, I think that it is important for this Council to reiterate its
charge to the Task Forca. I have taken the liberty of"sending to each
Task Force mmber, a copy of the City Council minutes of December 181
1985, at which meeting I made the motion which was seconded :by
Councilwoman. Olson, to proceed with the appeal intheL.I.F. E. V. City
of Lodi suit, however, but to also develop a'Task Force, to seek viable
alternatives to Measure A.
It was my understanding of the Council's charge that the Task Force
could recommend that the City could do the following, although
certainly not limited to only the following:
(1) Recoamend to the City Council that we continue; with the appeal and
not worryabout an alternative to Measure until the. final Court
abo A
Y
�
decision on the constitutionality of Measure'A was rendered.
(2) Develop an alternative to Measure A which could include a general
-
plan update 'which would have'a
,pgrowth element thereto:
.
(3) Cane up with a growth management ordinance similar to Measure A._
E
Further, I believe that whatever the recamendation of the Task Force,
r
`that the City Council, at: the. very. 'earliest possible` time,, should
-
permit the citizenry of the City of Lodi, to take an active part in. .-
'= -
advising the .City Council,'' through an'advisory election,' whether this
alternative. is viable. For example:
F
If the Task Force were to recamTend as an alternative.' to Measure A a
general plan ::update which would 'include .a.growth management element
�
limiting ; the 'growth in the City of Lxli to a certain percentage, each
a.
year, it would be, my remotion.that the Council would then place
on the ballot, an advisory measure, seeking -fran the -citizenry., a
�-
positive or native vote on whether we should pursue that plan'
h fi
.....mss
{
.
ir
a
Honorable Mayor and Council Members
Re: Measure A
s
Page Two
It is my understanding that it has .never been Council's intent that the
Task Force.should go about ,the business'of:updating thelan
P
without an affirmative vote of the citizenry on this matter.
�
f
John." dy" Snider
€.
City Councilman
y-
4
9
s�
t'1 t'1
j
Continued June 25, 1986
I
1,'
r
{
MEMORANDUM'`_
Date: July 31, 1986'
'Ib: Honorable Mayor and
Members of the Lodi City Council
From: Alice M. Rein-che
-
City Clerk
Subject:.: Letter from Robert H. Mullen Regarding Measure A Task Force Charge
Attached please find letter from Robert H. Mullen addressed to the Task Force
Camdttee.Mmgibers which include his thoughts regarding the responsibility and
3 '
A
charge of that camdttee.
Mr. Nallen's letter is being forwarded to you at his request.
`
�heX111
Alice M.
City Clerk
AMR:jj
_
-E
MULLEN, SULLIVAN &. NEWTON
ROBERT M. MULLEN ATTORNEYS AT LAW
C. M. --BUO" SULLIVAN
THOMAS J. NEWTON (111 WEST TOKAY STREET O• ANTHONY NN, ERO. PEROVICM
CRAIG RASMUSSEN
THOMAS J. DRISCOLL, JR. - P. O. BOX 560 ROBERT C. LITTS
STEPHEN C. SNIDER LOD1, CALIFORNIA 95241-0560 -, -
- - - -
GAEL A. GISVOLO
. - (2091 334-5144 -
- -
July 30, 1986
Dear Task Force Committee Member:
a
I an sorry that I was unable -to attend the last
meeting the Committee as -I was out of town.
'.:
,of
I read of the meetingin thepaper and have read
Alice's July; 25th letter which enclosed a copy of the
Council meeting minutes of 12/18/85. These are my''
thoughts:
The City Council should place the respon-
sibility of: coming up with recommendations on our
Committee and our Committee in turn should be chaired by
"one of our members. I -believe that Ann Cerney:has the
mutual respect of 'all -of us'and-I would propose her for
s
chairperson of our group.
I think that our Committee should meet more
-
often than once a month so that we may complete our
assignment.
.,:
I think that the Committee should recommend
to the Council'that:
1. The City Attorney and legal staff be
.
instructed. to proceed as rapidly.as possible to obtain a
decision from the:Appellate.Court to determine the`consti-
=-.
tutonality'of Proposition, A.. If this recommendation is
adoptedby the Council, then if Proposition A is held
constitutional, -that will be the end of it. If it is held
unconstitutional, our.Committee,'could.then be reactivated
to come,up with a'proposed ordinance or initiative ordi-
`nance concern ng the future growth of the City.
OR:
2. Ask the Council to delay. the_ appeal fora
E;
one ,year',period in order to,permit technical advice and
x-
A
F{
News aw*iCmIAO."B""LLS
Vol. 2, No. 6/June 24, 1986
A Business Newsletter Published 11V the CALIFORNIAASSOCLAXION OF REAIXORStr
InsidePresident Rosenthal Alerts
This Issue ... Senators ®n Tax Concerns
JUNE FLECTION, page 2 C.A.R. President Richard from deducting losses against other
® COASTAL CASE, page 2 Rosenthal recently sent a forceful income such as salary, dividends
• "MARKET VALUE," page 3 message to California Sens. Alan and interest—even up to the
r Cranston and Pete Wilson amount of cash invested—
reiterating the Association's deep 'effectively taxing investors on their,
B.I.A. V. Cly Of CQmQrillO concern over a number of cash losses. A $25,000 partial
provisions in the tax revision bill exemption for taxpayers "actively
i Ce>idrt RUieS on recently passed by the Senate participating" in a rental real estate 4
Finance Committee. activity would be allowed for the
No -Growth Ballots
One of these provisions, the so- deductibility of losses.
in a long-awaited derision late called "loss disallowance" This allowance; however, is
' last month, the state Supreme proposal, would prevent a taxpayer phased out as adjusted income
a
Court reversed two tower courts from deducting real estate incurred increases from $100,000 to
and ruled that, while ballot losses from most other forms of $150,000. 'Active participation"
measures are a legitimate vehicle income. Intended to limit requires that the taxpayer own at
for no -growth initiatives, propo- deductions by passive investors, least 10 percent of all interests in
nents`must be prepared to defend this proposal would hurt middle- the activity and that he/she `_ ;
the measure if challenged in court. income owners who actively participate in a significant and
The case, Building Industry manage small-scale rental property. bonafide service.
's Association v. City of Camarillo, The loss disallowance rule The rule would apply
originated from the passage of an would also prevent both active and retroactively to real estate
initiative in June 1981 that limited passive rental property owners (Continued on page three) i
2 the number of new condominium More Than 400,000 Affected
units built in the city to 400 a year.
B.1.A. sued Camarillo to have the
FHA Extensti®n Remains at Impasse
i measure declared invalid, but lost
in Superior Court and the state On June 17, Rep. applications, even those received
t Courtof Appeal. Chalmers Wylie (R -Ohio) prior to the suspension... ;
In his opinion for the court, introduced House Joint Congress, meanwhile, has been
t i Justice Malcolm Lucas wrote that, Resolution 656 to extend the debating several other ' ve hides s
in exercising its power of initiative, Federal Housing Administrations which would attempt to resolve the', i
"the local government must bear operating authority through issue of FHA operating and credit
the burden of showing that the September 30, 1987, and to authority. Unfortunately; many of
ordinance, is reasonably related toincrease FHA credit autnority to these measures have fallen victim
i the protection of the public health, $132 billion for fiscal 1986 and to to other political manipulations,
safety or welfare of the affected $100 billion for 1987. and their passage does not appear 2
population." As of this writing, this is the latest promising. €
As a result of the ruling, law of many attempts to reinstate FHA C.A.R. recently wrote to the
for tl t- cityof Camarillo and operating authority, which was California members on the House
backers of the initiative must return suspended, for the sixth and Banking, Finance and Urban,Affairs t'
z
>„a to a Ventura County Superior Court longest time this fiscal year, on Committee and to the California t
' to prove that the ballot measure is June 5. It is also anticipated that Congressional Delegation urging
necessary to protect "public FHA credit authority could expire them to "actively support speufic
welfare” and alleviate such within the next day or so, at which legislation that will immediately
v" problems as traffic congestion and point the agency � will stop and fully _restore FHA mortgage
(Continued on page four) accepting or processing all (Contirtuerl'o» page forir)::
Y k
4 m^„'a'«^^s^,s.'^.•-• rn.+.w ds•oFrm=emvrw�^n+9.^tar.rn �ec+«� r k`.
Stout v. Edmonds
Some Fraud Recoveries Barred N® -Growth Ballots
(Continued from page one)
The California Court of Appeal, fraud and obtained a default overcrowded schools.
First District, recently reversed a judgment against the buyer and The issue at hand arises out of
trial court ruling and held that applied for payment from the Real 1980 legislation which shifted the
sellers defrauded by a broker -buyer Estate Recovery Fund. When the burden of proof from developers to
were not entitled to real estate trial court ruled that the sellers governments in cases involving city
recovery fund compensation were entitled to recovery, the Real or county ordinances that affect the
_ because the broker -buyer was Estate Commissioner appealed. housing supply
acting on her own behalf and not The Recovery Fund, which has In passing the law, the
performing acts requiring a real Iong been supported by C.A.R., was Legislature deci--red that "an
estate license. established as a means of compen- adequate supply of housing is
The case, Stout u. Edmonds, sating people defrauded by real necessary for the health, safety and
involved a real estate broker who estate licensees. The fraud, public welfare of all Californians"
purchased a parcel of property however, must arise "directly out and that initiatives prohibiting
from the sellers and defaulted after of any transaction when the expansion might lead to a shortage
collecting property rents and judgment debtor performed acts for of affordable housing.
making the first two installments which a Iicense is required." The court noted that, since 1980,
on three trusa deeds, resulting in State lair, in fact, specifies that voter -approved initiatives have
foreclosure and reacquisition of the anyone who directly performs the amounted to almost one-half of the:
property by the sellers. acts with reference to his/her.ow•n growth limitation ordinances
The sellers then filed suit for property does not require a license. passed in California. It was unclear
until the recent ruling
Five -Year Nigh statute also applied to such whether the .
Resale Rate Jumps 27.8 Percent in April initiatives.
Sales of existing single-family strong homebuying season, fixed ��� Extension homes in California rose by _ interest rates in the 10 percent
remarkable 27.8 percent in April range have resulted in even greater (Continued from page one)
from the previous month, the sales activity. Nationwide, April lending activity." -
highest level of sales activity since resales reached their highest level In addition, all C.A.R. members
October 1980. With a sales pace in more than six years. and their clients who have been
14.6 percent higher than that of . The median price of an existing adversely affected by the FHA
April 1985, this marked the tenth single-family home in California in program suspension are i
consecutive month in which sales April rose to a record $130,648,14 encouraged to communicate their
were higher than the year before. percent above the Ap:il 1985 concerns to their congressional
Al thoughspring is traditionally a median price of $114,648. representatives as soon as possible
t
3j -
t}t News a la C AR.
525 South Virgil Avenue PRESORTED
j Los Angelcs. California 90020 FIRST CLASS MAIL ,
j (213) -39-8200 US POSTAGE PAID
LOS ANGELES, CA
Permit No. 26306.;
Yy. .
r
080348
MULLEN, ROBERT H.
LITTS, MULLEN ET AL
„ P 0 BOX -560
„` LODI<`CA '95241