HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Report - December 1, 1999 E-09CITY OF LODI COUNCIL COMMUNICATION
AGENDA TITLE: Request that the City Join Amicus Briefs in Four Cases
MEETING DATE: December 1, 1999
PREPARED BY: City Attorney
RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council authorize City participation in the Amicus
Briefs for the following designated cases.
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.
Friends of MamMoth et al v. The Mammoth Lakes Redevelopment ftlec . California Court of Appeal,
Third Appellate District, Case No. C031043. The town of Mammoth Lakes adopted its Redevelopment
Plan in July 1997. Based upon the detailed report of its redevelopment consultant, the Town Council
concluded that the project area suffered from conditions of economic blighting and conditions of physical
blighting. No state or local taxing agency affected by the plan objected to its adoption. A local citizens
group and several residents of the town brought suit challenging the validity of the plan. The trial court
concluded that substantial evidence existed in the administrative record supporting the Town Council's
findings of physical and economic blight, thereby finding in favor of the Town Council's action and
concluding that it substantially complied with the Community Redevelopment law and therefore was valid.
This particular case will deal with three particular issues that are of significance to the City. Those issues
are an analysis of the physical blighting criteria, an analysis of the combination of blighting conditions as
they constitute serious physical and economic burdens on the community, and the standard of review to
be used at the appellate level in assessing the validity of a redevelopment plan. This particular case is
one of the first to reach the appellate level since the redevelopment law in California was amended a few
years ago. It is therefore important to all cities to have the issues before this Court resolved in favor of
cities.
Marguerite Treweek v. City of Naa, California Court of Appeal, First Appellate District, Case No.
A087820. The issue in this case is fairly easily framed and is as follows. Does a publicly maintained boat
ramp qualify for the immunity provided in Government Code §831.4 as a path or trail which provides
access to recreational activities? The trial court in this matter found that in deed a publicly maintained boat
ramp qualified for the immunity contained in Government Code §831.4. This case is significant to us as
well as other cities because just about every city and town in California can boast about maintaining
recreational paths and trails within its jurisdiction. These areas provide much needed recreational
activities for their own residents as well as tourists. The Legislature in enacting Government Code §831.4
sought to encourage the construction of such recreational paths and trails by providing immunity to cities
APPROVED:
H. D' on Flynn -- City Manager
and towns which do so. Since its enactment, courts have tended to expand this area of law into the area
of paved bicycle paths and other walkways. It is tremendously important to all cities and towns to monitor
and have input into the decisions of the courts of this state in terms of the expanding nature of the
application of this immunity. The impact of the decision to be made in this case may have far reaching
implications, in deed statewide implications in terms of the enthusiasm with which cities and towns will
thereafter be willing to create and construct areas of access to recreational activities. Specifically, this
case is on point since the City of Lodi does maintain a boat ramp at Lodi Lake that clearly is used to
facilitate recreational activities. This City would directly benefit from a decision which upholds the trial
court finding in this case.
Zelig v. County of Los Angeles, California Supreme Court, Case No. S081791. This case while being
one against a county is really a case involving public buildings. Dr. Zelig shot and killed his wife in the Los
Angeles County Courthouse. Mrs. Zelig's heirs sued the county for negligence and dangerous condition
liability because the county did not use a metal detector to screen persons entering the courthouse. The
trial court found in favor of the county. However, the Appellate Court held that the heirs in fact could sue
the county. The case has been granted review by the California Supreme Court. The California Supreme
Court will hand down an important decision on governmental tort liability. If the Supreme Court sustains
the Appellate Court position, a substantial new duty and burden will be placed upon local governmental
entities relative to creating a duty for the acts of citizens over which they have absolutely no control.
Utility Cost Management v. East Bay Munici al Utili District (EBMUD), Court of Appeals, First
Appellate District, Case No. A087191. This particular case involves the application of a statute of
limitations contained in California Government Code §66022 and Public Utilities Code §14402 which sets
forth the procedures that public utility customers should use to challenge a decision by a water or
wastewater provider who adopts or amends certain fees and services charges for water and sewer
service. These particular sections set forth that a challenge to the adoption of certain fees or service
charges must be made within 120 days of the effective date of the ordinance, resolution or motion that
establishes them. This particular statute of limitations is based upon important policy considerations.
Principal among those is that it is necessary to insure stability and finality to governmental fiscal decisions
and to deter delayed raids on public treasuries. Public agencies do not accumulate profits and as a result
the Legislature has recognized that belated claims for monies that have been collected and spent will
penalize not only the agency but also the public since rates would have to be further adjusted in order to
address and satisfy untimely claims. In this particular action, suit was brought against EBMUD in 1997
arguing that portions of water and wastewater service rates paid since 1986 should be refunded. The
Superior Court of Alameda County found that the 120 days statute of limitations applied thereby resolving
the matter in favor of EBMUD. That particular decision has now been appealed by Utility Cost
Management to the Appellate Court. Clearly the public policy behind the 120 -day statute of limitations
deserves support.
The Legal Advocacy Committee of the League of California Cities requests participation in all of the above-
mentioned cases.
FUNDING: Not applicable.
Respectfully submitted,
Ran all A. Hays, City Atto ey