Laserfiche WebLink
<br /> . ' <br /> 1.A -l5 <br /> RECENT LEGAL ADVOCACY FILINGS <br /> -, The League would like to provide special thanks Presumption of Bias and Due Process <br /> to the indiv.iduals listed below, who wrote friend-of-the- <br /> court letters or briefs, for thej~ efforts on behalf of the The League filed a friend-of-thlKOUrt letter brief <br /> League. League action and ...brief summary of the urging the California Supreme Court to hear a case <br /> case appear below. Copies of."e filings are available concluding that a deputy city attomey that appeared <br /> at: www.cacities,orclrecentfilinas. before a city personnel board as an advocate on a <br /> disciplinary matter is presumed to be biased because <br /> Telecommunications Filings the deputy had previously advised the board on <br /> unrelated matters. <br /> There were two cases that the League recently The League thanks Kevin Collins with Best, <br /> weighed in on involving local governments and <br /> telecommunications issues, The first impacts the Best and Kreiger, for writing the letter brief on <br /> ability of local governments to regulate use of the behalf of the League. The opinion presents signifi- <br /> public rights-of-way by communication providers, and cant concem for local governments, and particularly <br /> their ability to collect franchise fees to fund local those with small legal staffs because it concludes that <br /> services, The second case involves municipal liability an attomey who has interacted with an administrative <br /> for attorneys' fees relating to application denials for board on several occasions may not serve in a <br /> wireless telephone towers. prosecutorial function due to the probability of influ- <br /> ence on the board compromising the fair hearing <br /> The League filed a friend-of-the-court letter brief process. <br /> urging the California Supreme Court to hear a case The name of the case is Quintero v. City of Santa <br /> that concluded a city may not charge a telephone Ana, 114 Cal. App. 4~ 10 W Dist. Dec. 23, 2003) <br /> corporation a license fee to use the public rights of mview filed (Jan. 28, 2004). <br /> way to construct and maintain facilities that are not <br /> intended for use as telephone lines. The League CEQA and Farmland Mitigation <br /> thanks William Sanders with the City and County of <br /> - San Francisco for writing the letter brief on behalf of The court of appeal recently issued an unpub- <br /> the League. lished opinion concluding that if the environmental <br /> impact of a project converting farmland to urban use <br /> The name of the case is Williams Communica- can not be mitigated below a level of significance, <br /> tions v. City of Riverside, 114 Cal. App. 4~ 642, 9 Cal. other mitigation measure must still be adopted if they <br /> Rptr. 3d 96 (4" Dist. Dec.18, 2003). would substantially lessen the environmental impact <br /> of the project. Adopting a statement of overriding <br /> The League filed a friend-of-the-court brief urging consideration does not exempt the local agency from <br /> the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals to grant rehearing mitigating measures such as the payment of fees for <br /> en banc in a case that would allow individuals to conservation easements to limit Mure loss of farm- <br /> recover attorneys fees for violations of the T elecom- land. <br /> munication Act of 1996. The League thanks Jennifer <br /> Henning with the California State Association of The League thanks Dan McHugh, City Attor- <br /> Counties for writing the brief on behalf of the League ney, Redlands, for writing the brief on behalf of the <br /> and the California State Association of Counties. League. <br /> The current opinion would expose local govern- The name of the case is South County Citizens <br /> ments to increased liability because telecommunica- for Responsible Growth v. City of Bk Grove, currently <br /> tion companies may elect to sue cities when their unpublished (3d Dist. Feb. 5.2004). Since the <br /> applications to install wireless telephone towers are opinion is currently unpublished it may not be relied <br /> denied and potentially recovery attorney's fees. upon by other local agencies. There is a request for <br /> publication currently pending with the California <br /> The name of the case is Abmms v, City of Ranqhp Supreme Court. <br /> Palos Verdes, 354 F.3d 1094 (9~ Cir. Jan 15, 20d4t.'. <br /> - <br /> Visit the League's Official Web Site--www.cacities.org PRIORITY FOCUS/PAGE 3 <br />