HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Report - September 1, 1999 E-15CITY OF LODI COUNCIL COMMUNICATION
AGENDA TITLE: Request that the City Join Amicus Brief in the case of
Headlands Reserve LLP v. City of Dana Point, Court of
Appeal, 6"' District,
MEETING DATE: September 1, 1999
PREPARED BY: City Attorney
RECOMMENDATION: That the City join the Amicus Brief in the case of
Headlands Re,W= LLP Y. C& of Dana Point.
BACKGROUND: Amicus Briefs are filed in various actions which involve matters of
wide ranging concern to provide information and additional
argument to the court in order to assist the court in understanding
all of the issues and arrive at a conclusion.
This case involves judicial interference into the planning activities of local government. The City of Dana
Point was in the process of preparing a general plan amendment and a specific plan relative to a certain
part of the community. After spending eighteen months and approximately $500,000 on that activity, the
court held that the City could not process a general plan and specific plan simultaneously. The Court
further directed that the City must process a specific plan submitted by a private party and suspend its
pending consideration of a City proposed specific plan.
This decision establishes a precedent that is contrary to general planning practice throughout the State.
The concurrent processing of general plan amendments and specific plans and other land use approvals is
common throughout California. This particular practice saves substantial time and expense and promotes
efficient planning. The concurrent processing concept has been approved by one of the Court of Appeals
in the State of California. Mountain Defense League v. Board of Suj2ervisors, (1977) 65 Cal.App.3d 723.
Unfortunately there is no express statutory authorization for concurrent processing of general plan
amendments and related specific plans. Authority for concurrent processing has been assumed as part of
local governments inherit powers to adopt planning regulations and procedures not expressly inconsistent
with State law. DeVita v. CountyofofNapa (1995) 9 Cal.e 763, and Govt. Code §565102, 65450-65456. A
successful appeal in this case would confirm such inherent governmental powers and the consistent
practice of cities throughout the State.
The decision if allowed to stand also would impact cities discretion to conduct their governmental affairs.
Because the adoption or amendment of a specific plan is a legislative act, Yost v. Thomas (1984) 36
Cal.3d 561, a city's decision to accept or deny a landowners proposed specific plan for consideration is
normally an act of legislative discretion. As a general rule, courts do not have authority to control city's
exercise of such discretion, nor do courts have authority to order city councils to enact particular
APPROVED:
H. DIfon Plynn — Ci pager
legislation. See Common Cause v. Board of Sunenrisors (1989) 49 Cal.3d 432, City and County of San
Francisco v. Superior Couft (1959) 53 Cal.2d 236, Hutchinson y. City of Sacramento (1993) 17 Cal.App.4'"
791, City Council of the City of Santa Barbara y. SWerior Court (1960) 179 Cal.App.2d 389. The trial
court in this case however asserted authority to compel processing of the landowners proposed specific
plan even though the city's specific plan ordinance is discretionary in nature.
This case is important to the City because it represents an effort on the part of the Defendant City to turn
back attacks on local governmental powers of planning and land use activities. If this decision is allowed
to stand, it would represent a further ceding of local governmental powers to others. The Director of
Planning and Community Development and I urge the recommendation upon you.
FUNDING: Not applicable.
Respectfully submitted,
Randall A. Hays, City Atto