HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Report - October 1, 1986 (102)L
POSTING OF PEMING VACANC2ES'ON
VARIOUS BOARDS AND CM�ESSIONS
si
LODI ARTS CammLiSSION
_
Unexpired term of Shawn Allen, which term is due to"expire, May 5,
1987
z:
z
s•
MEASURE A TASK FORCE COMMITTEE'
One unspecified term
ms's
.00 A;, i.ii(D.RIZTM RY TfM}
CIMCOt7N If.OF THE MY OF
s
LODI,-CALIFORNIA ON _
Se teir�ber 17 1986
P ,
,F
57,
A
6�g-7k
ALICE M.
City Clerk ---.
� •
t �
,
Posted 9/18/86
i aY
f
�tEC :. [_..:
APPLICATION FOR APPOINIMER2 'SEP I v i"1 1
bEASURE A TASK FORCE
GtTY rj ERK
-
Name: Eileen M. St.Yyr.q
Address: 310 S. Oramge #60
Telephone: 334-94Q1
G
Date: September 16. 1986
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 Force to
seek viable alternatives to Measure A. (See attached metro from City
Attorney dated 12/3/85)
Please indicate your interest and reasons why you are interested in
serving on the City of Lodi Measure A Task Force.
r
The best for th City of Lodi, is-= n 'mkry e)ne ern_ 'T 1 »ve attended
with the exception of one netting, v11 of tho Meanure A Ti_ -'k Force
I
meetings. I have also been ntten&nre at thg &stside �br-tcL1lr1II__
� k'
i
I ^m .in f.yor of 12miteci ,nd qunlity growth for the City -if Lodi.
The developers have had Carte Blanc on their projects before the
__Plsanning Comairssion. The majority of the voters,.who took the time ..
to vote, favored measure A. These sr -.me people fee{ they are being
betrayed by the City of Ledi, in favor of the develepea. Prime
-
agriculture land is being lost, in favere of shopping centers and
x
Eulti-ftmily dwellinga we do rot need. The resiidents of Lodi do not_ugr,lf
1
_
a
to be Steckt- or.Saeraaiento.
z
r
Ifeel;that ,my knowledge of tho task force cnd'its werkinpa, qualify
�
Signature (Applicant)
Applicant)
-
me zs member of this body
q
�/
To: Honorable Mayor and Council Members
From: City Attorney
Re: L.I.F.E. vs. City of Iodi (Green Belt Initiative) -
Date: December 3, 1985
on November 25, 1985, Superior Court Judge James P. Darrah"ruled on a
Sunk -ay Judgment Motion by the L.I.F.E. Camiittee (hereinafter referred
to "is, "Petitioner")`' that Measure A (Green Belt Initiative) was
invalid. The ruling has as its', basis that the measure interfered with
the process of annexation, utdch is a matter of ccszipelling: State
interest in which the State has preempted the field, not allowing
cities by their councils or voters to prescribe any requirement
relating to annexation.
=
A number of questions have been asked of this office since the decision
was rendered, and I feel that it would be very important, in order for
i'
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 will make myself available to answer any
additional questions regarding this matter. I felt that the format to
is
use should be a question and answer type format that would simplify and
clarify the issues:
k
(1) Q. What did the Court decide?
t ;-
A. Before the Court were two lines of cases which the Court was
r
required to apply to its decision on the constitutionality of
iz
Measure. A. The first line of cases, in effect, disallowed
..
citizens of a municipality from'voting on - annexations, discussed
i..i Ferrini "v. The "City `of San `Luis Obis (Ferrini) . 'The
�
second 'line of : cases. allowed - the citizens- of a municipa-litq to
vote .on zoning '`matters, including; general plans discussed in.
'
Associated Home" Builders ' of the ' Greater ' Eastbay v. City of
Livermore (Livermore).
3'
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 .and -
€
determined that the language _of the initiative, the arguments in
k
favor; thereof, .and _the impartial' analysis"by the City, Attorney,.
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 therefore was invalid.
i
�-
4