Laserfiche WebLink
A/s <br />ADVOCATING CITIES' INTERESTS BEFORE THE COURTS: RECENTLY FILED BRIEFS <br />The League would like to provide special <br />thanks to the volunteer brief writers listed below <br />for their efforts on behalf of the League. League <br />action and brief summaries of the cases appE 3r <br />below. I - <br />Regulating False and Misleading Statements <br />in Voter Pamphlets <br />The League recently filed a friend -of- the -court <br />brief with the court of appeal in a case involving a <br />local agency's ability to keep statements made by <br />a community organization out of the ballot pam- <br />phlet. The League thanks Michael Houston <br />with Rutan & Tucker for writing the friend- of -the- <br />court brief on behalf of the League to the court of <br />appeal. <br />fiscal burdens. The League thanks Zach <br />Cowan, Assistant City Attorney, Berkeley, for <br />writing the letter in support of review to the Califor- <br />nia Supreme Court <br />The case involves the transition of a former <br />military base, Ford Ord, to a civilian use as a state <br />university. At issue are the costs of traffic impacts <br />and fire safety associated with the transition, and <br />whether they are the responsibility of the university <br />or the local public agencies that are impacted. <br />The court of appeal concluded that the university <br />could not be compelled to pay for the mitigation of <br />the traffic impact and fire safety services. It <br />reasoned that if the university were required to pay <br />for the costs to mitigate the impacts they created, <br />it would constitute a tax on public property in <br />violation of the state constitution. <br />Local governments have the ability to regulate <br />elections to ensure that they are honest and fair. <br />In this case a local agency sued to keep state- <br />ments made by a community organization out of <br />the ballot pamphlet. The agency determined that <br />the statements were false and misleading. The <br />community organization argues that local <br />agency's action constituted a strategic lawsuit <br />against public participation (known as a SLAPP <br />suit). <br />The local agency argues that anti - SLAPP suits <br />are not available to challenges involving mislead- <br />ing and false statements in voter information <br />pamphlets. The ability for local agencies to <br />challenge such statements, and to prevent them <br />from appearing in voter information pamphlets is <br />necessary to preserve the integrity of the voting <br />process The name of the case is Moraga Del <br />Rey Homeowners Association v. Moraga- Orinda <br />Fire Protection District (No. Al01235)(1st Dist.). <br />CEQA and Mitigation Costs Involving Public <br />Entities <br />The League wrote a letter urging the California <br />Supreme Court to review a case involving whether <br />a state agency is required to pay for the costs to <br />mitigate the impacts created by their project. A <br />court of appeal concluded that they are not re- <br />quired, exposing local governments to increased <br />This troubling conclusion overrides the legal <br />requirements of the California Environmental <br />Quality Act that government agencies consider, <br />and if feasible mitigate, the impacts of their <br />projects. The name of the case is City of Marina <br />v. Board of Trustees of the California State Univer- <br />sity, 109 Cal. App. 4'h 1179(6 1h Dist. Jun. 17, <br />2003). <br />Increased Liability for Takings Claims <br />The League is urging the court of appeals to <br />grant rehearing in a case would increase claims <br />and litigation by landowner that are unsatisfied <br />with the outcome of land use decision made by <br />local agencies. The League thanks Fran <br />Layton with Shute, Mihaly & Weinberger for <br />writing the letter in support of rehearing and <br />rehearing an banc on behalf of the League to the <br />court of appeals. <br />The Supreme Court has previously concluded <br />that an individual may not bring a takings claim <br />before the federal court until the individual has: (1) <br />been denied compensation by the state; and (2) <br />has received a final determination from the regula- <br />tory agency regarding how the property may be <br />developed. The case arose in the context of <br />dissatisfied landowner after a local agency denied <br />his request for land use permits to develop his <br />Continued on Page <br />PAGE 2 /PRIORITY FOCUS Visit the League's Official Web Site -- www.cacities.org <br />