Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout21 LEGAL ADVOCACY 05-16-94AGE DA .... .. NO/7 ~1 ATE: MAY 9, 1994 Inter-Com TO: HONORABLE MAYOR ~ND CITY COUNCIL FROM: CITY ATTORNEY SUBJECT: LEGAL ADVOCACY Attached is the latest report of the League of California Cities' Legal Advocacy Committee with the summaries of six cases and the Committee's recommendation regarding joinder in amicus curiae briefs. Council consideration for joinder is requested. JAMES G. ROURKE City Attorney IGR: mah: D:0~0994(IC-664 .mah) Attachment thin~ ~n~ League of California Cities m~mmm ~ ~lit~n~ ~ie~ Work T~etner MAY - 31994 wOoDRUFF & SPRADLII~ Legal Advocacy Committee Report April 1994 . TIME SENSITIVE MATERIALs -- .PLEASE REVIEW AND RESPO~.'IMMEDIATELY CONTENTS CAS~ IN WHICH crIIF. S ARE URGED TO JOIN AN ~ BRIEF A. City Council Member Immunity from Suit, Ti:eyinG v. Gates. B. ~ .-COnstitutionality of H~alth-CarcFacility 'Bubble Ordinances,' Sabelko v, City_ of ' · ;.: L';:": ;:~ ":g - --. - . -. _ . .- - C. City Liability for Planner's l?-Year Old Promise, Berger V, City of Morgan Hill. D. Two-Thirds Voter-Approval Requirements for Half-Cent Sales Taxes, Santa Clara Coun _ty Local Tran~p0rtation Authority v, Guardin.o.. me Fo City Authority to RegUlate Water-Softeners and Discharges to Sewer Systems, W~tcr Ouali _ty Association and Coastal Cities Water Treatment, Inc. v. City_ of Local Control ovlr Land USe Planning and the Initiative Process, DeVita v. County_ of Napa. INFORMATION ITEMS LETiERS SENT NOTE ON CASE UPDATES FOR INFORMATION ON REQUESTING AMICUS ASSISTANCE I. CASES IN V~'HICH CITIES ARE URGED TO JOIN AN AMICUS BRIEF The League of California Cities' Legal Advocacy Committee and Board of Directors have determined the following cases are of statewide importance and merit cities' participation as amicus curiae. For those briefs which have not already been filed, city attorneys are encouraged to take the steps necessary to have their cities join in these briefs. The League is extremely grateful to both the city attorneys and the attorneys in law firms who have volunteered to write the pro bono bdefs in these cases. Because of the stature of tltese bdef wdters and the scope of their practices, there may be conflict issues which need to be resolved in order for certain public agencies to join a given brief. However, since the impact of these bdefs depends in large measure on the number of agencies which join, the League encourages cities to explore any conflicts issues with the bdef wdters in question. A. Trcvino v, Gates· F.3d 28, 1994).- · 94 Daily Journal D.A~R. 2536 (9th Cir. February 1. Case Description At issue in'this case is the potential personal liability of city council members for decisions they make in 'police excessive-use-of-force cases. · The case began with· claims of excessive use of force by the Los Angeles Police Department. According xo the court's account of the incident, the .. police observed a robbery at a restaurant. When ithe robbers'Started to flee, the police bibcked their eXit and shot.the.robbers. Thr. ee _wer6-la]led;' one survived. The families sued the city for violating the robbers' civil righ/s by using excessive force. The jury awarded punitive damages against the officers. As a general matter, punitive damages are awarded in civil rights actions when the conduct involves reckless or callous indifference to federally- protected rights. State law authorizes city council members to vote to pay punitive damages if they make certain findings. See Cal. Gov't Code § 825(b). In this case, the .city council made the required findings and voted to pay police officers' punitive damages. Plaintiffs' attorney then sued the individual city council members. His theory is council members who "routinelY" decide to pay officers' punitive damages undermine the deterrent effect of punitive damages. According to the attorney, this encourages violations, of civil rights and is in itself a violation of civil fights. At this stage, the controversy centers around whether the city council members have an absolute legislative immunity from suit for their actions2 The ninth circuit said this particular kind of action was not a "legislative" action and therefore the absolute immunity does not apply. Be . . Case Status The city is seeking United States Supreme Court review. Please contact the pro bono brief writer by May 20, 1994 about adding your city's support to this effort. Brief Writer Timothy Coates Greines, Martin, Stein and Richland 9601 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 544 Beverly Hills, CA 90210 310/859-7811 Sabelko v. City_ of Phoenix. No; (D. Az. February 11, 1994). ... Case' De$cripti°n :' .: ., This case is a challenge to. an Arizona city's 'bubble ordinance." A~number of cities, including California dries, have adopted such ordinances to ii. :pr°tect access to health care faci~fies within their cities. The ordinances generally, require those demonstrating within 100 feet of a h6alth 'care clinic to withdraw to a distance of at least eight feet away from a person which dearly commtmicates their request the demonstrator withdraw. Demonstrators Challenged the Phoenix ordinance as violating their first amendment rights of expression. They charged and:'the court ruled the ordinance was not content-neutral bemuse it v,~as enacted to response to 'anti-abortion speech' outside of medical clinics and singles out protest speech for regulation. The court also determined the ordinance flunked the first amendment tests for permissible content-based regulation. ~ As a point of information, thc council members may still be able to show they. arc entitled to qualified (as opposed to absolute) immunity. The test for quaIi~d immunity is whether the council members committed acts in the course of their duties which did not violate dearly established statutory fights of which a reasonable person would have known. See ~Harlow v, Fitz~eralck 457 U.S. 8{10, 102 S. Ct. 2727 (1992). The decision also does not address the merits of the claim that the council members' decision to pay punitive damages is itself a violation of civil rights. 3 2. Case Status The case is before the ninth circuit. Please contact the brief writer by May 20, 1994 about adding your city's name to the city amicus brief. 3. Brief Writer Rene Gurza City Attorney's Office, San Jose 151 West Mission Street San Jose, CA 95110 408/277-2413 Berger v, Ci_ty of Morgan Hill, No. 687887 (Santa Clara Superior Ct.). 1. Case Description In this case, a jury found a city liable for over $5 million as the result of a 1976 promise by a city planner to waive development fees and conditions in exchange for a temporary, construction easement. The landowner claims that,.in exchange for his permission to lay sewer lines across a 300-foot · portion of his property, the planner promised the landowner would be allowed to develop the property without having to pay any city fees. . , . ~.The landowner also saYS. the planner promised to have the city provide ' "~ sewer service to the-property when~develope..d.- F :.urthermor¢, the landowner believed he would not have t° :'dedicate any rights-of-way for streets along the property's boundaries when he developed. 2. Status of Brief The briefs are due in mid-May. Please contact the volunteer brief writer by May 10 about adding your city's name to the amicus brief being prepared on behalf of public agencies. 3. Brief Writer David J. Larsen City Attorney, Milpitas 455 East Calaveras Blvd. Milpitas, CA 95035 408/942-2323 4 D· Santa Clara Count,,' Local Transportation Authority_ v. Guardino. No. S036269, 19 Cal. App. 4th 1792, 24 Cal. Rptr. 2d 854, 93 Dally Journal D.A.R. 14301, (6th Dist. November 12, 1993),' lmodified 93 Daily Journal D.A.R. 15389 (December 3, 1993), rev. granted (January 27, 1994). 1. Case Description In this case, a split court of appeal nixed the Santa Clara transportation authority's half-cent sales tax. The tax was approved by a majority vote of the people to fund transportation-related projects,- In Ri0¢r v, Coun _ty of ~ I Cal. 4th 1, 2 Cal, Rptr. 2d 490 (1991), the California Supreme Court said such a tax is subject to Proposition 13's two-thirds vote requirements if the agency receiving the tax is 'essentially controlled' by one or more'cities and counties. The court then described the factors which would indicate such 'essential controL' The court of appeal did not Seem~terribly .wedded to the Ri0er 'essential control' catechism. Instead, the court, said it was "obvious" the agency was created to avoid Proposition 13's requirements. The court also noted the public transportation funded by the sales tax co,_gal have been funded by property taxes. Getting to the .essential control issue, the court was _ · e e .n_~.J, . . .~mimpressed by the heavy involvement ~of. cmze groups and private .: .sector entities, finding such involvement does not demonstrate the lack of · eSSential control and, in a~ y.event, it was sufficient cities and the county were involved in the agency to some extent. As a.result, the court · .. concluded the sal~ tax was a. special tax by a SPecial_'district Within the_ "meaning of Proposition 13 and required, a two-thirds voter approval. 2. Case Status · The case is now before the California Supreme Court. Please contact the pro, bono. brief writer by May 5 in writing about addi.n.g_:y0ur city's name to the city iamicus brief. A prompt response is neCessary to have your city's name on the brief when it is filed; for cities not able to make this deadline, the i~micus author plans to file a supplemental document With a request to the court to add the cities to the brief· Robin Johansen Remcho, Johansen and Purcell 220 Montgomery Street, Suite 800 San Francisco, CA 94104 415/398-6230 a. ' -2. . Water Ouali~ Association and Coastal Cities Water Treatment, Inc. v, City of ~F.,,5.g.0..R.0.i.0~, No. N53243 (San Diego County. Superior Ct. FebrUary' 25, 199,/). 1. Case Description This case affects cities' ability to offer reclaimed water to their residents. The city of Escondido enacted an ordinance prohibiting water ~ofteners which flush salts into the city's sewer system. The salts in the sewer system make it difficult for the city to have its reclaimed water meet standards for total dissolved solids. The level of total dissolved solids affects whether the water is harmful to plants, which is the primary use of reclaimed water. The industry association for sellers of the offending water softener systems sued the city on a variety of grounds, including the ground the city's ordinance is preempted by a state law purporting to guarantee Californians the right to soft water. See Cal. Health & Safety Code § 4045 et seo. The city of Escondido argues its ordinance does not conflict with this gu~antee, since the ordinance still allows, alternative kinds of water softening systems (chiefly the portable exchange or "Culligan Man" kind). This case is of interest to cities for a number of reasons..The case is of interest' t° citieS'whose water sources ,have higher levels of total dissolved solids,. :,~However 'the case is .also of interest. to cities in general since the ability of'public agencies..to offer' reclaimed water. reduces the demand on California's Water suppl3; in gefieral.~".. " .. Case status The case will be before the state court of appeal shortly. Please write the pro bono brief writer by June 15, 1994 about adding your city's name to the amicu, brief in support of the city. Brief Writer Martha H. Lennihan Ellison, Schneider & Lennihan 2311 Capitol Avenue Sacramento, CA 95816-5812 916/447-2166 · F. DeVita v, Coun _ty of Napa, 20 Cal. App. 4th 1716, 26 Cal. Rptr. 2d 274 (lst Dist. December 16, 1993), r_ev, granted (March 17, 1993). lo Case Description This is a challenge to an initiative to preserve agricultural land in Napa County. The measure confirmed existing portions of the general plan relating to agricultural land, the net effect of which was to ensure 'these provisions of the plan cannot be changed without a vote of the people. In a lengthy opinion, the court of appeal found nothing wrong with either adopting or amending a general plan by initiative. The court also rejected arguments the approach impermissibly interfered with the county board of supervisors' authofity, oveg. land use planning. The California' Supreme Court has granted review. Under the present approach for analyzing the issues in this CaSe, the issue of whether a given matter is subject to the power .of initiative and referendum tums on a preemption analysis invOlving an analysis of whether the subject area is one of statewide concern. Thus a conclusion the general planning process is not subject to local initiative would involve a finding the matter is of statewide Concern. This conclusion can have implications beyond the power of the. electorate to amend the general plan by initiative. 1. ACcordingly, the executive committee of the Legal Advocacy Committee has authorized a brief.in Which the." committee urges dries to join. The brief is to be a cautionary One, which focuses on the issue of planning "being a matter of intrinsic local-not statewide-concern. The commiuee does not want the brief on behalf of dries to weigh lin on: the-issue-of the propriety of land use planning by initiative. 5tatus of Brief The county's brief is due June 6. Please contact the brief writer by June 1, 1994 about adding on to the brief addressing this issue. 3. Brief Writer 'Katherine E. Stone 549_.5 Everglades Street, Suite 100 Ventura, CA 93003 805/644-7~88 * Reviewed by the Legal Advocacy Committee Executive Committee only. 7 II. Ge Dewberry v. Ci_ty of Be. kersfi¢l~l, No. 93-7~ (9th Cir.).. 1. Case Description This case is one of many cases before the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals relating to the use of police dogs. The cases are civil rights ca/es and involve the issue of whether the use of the dogs in particular situations constitute excessive use of force. In the Bakersfield case, the alleged victim of the dog's use/alleged excessive use of force is claiming that the use of police canines is the ocr se use of deadly force and, as such, police canines should only be used when it is appropriate to use deadly force. .. In this case, the police dog was used to apprehend a person fleeing the scene of a drug raid. At the time the dog was used, the suspect was at most a misdemeanant. Under Tennessee v. Garner, 471 U.S. 1, 105 S. Ct. 1694 (1985), in order to use deadly force the suspect must have committed serious felony. police canine units, Case Statu~ - Because of the-procedural posture of this case, the appeal may be resolved on the issue of whether certain issues should have been decided by the court or the jury. One of the issues the committee Wanted the amicus brief to.explore is whether the.appeal could' be resolved on a~Xiarrower ground which would not result in a ruling which woUld'seVerely limit the use of The case is before-the ninth circuit; the deadline for the amicus brief is April 26, 1994. Because of the tightness, of the briefing s"chedule and a number of unsuccessful attempts to recruit an amicus writer, it proved impractical to produce the brief and obtain city joinder on the schedule required. INFORMATION ITEMS W~-tern $ecuri _ty Bank. N,A, v. Suoerior Court (Beverly Hills Business Bank), 21 CM. App. 4th 156, 25 Cal. Rptr. 2ti 908 (2d Dist. December 22, 1993). 1. Case Description This case concerns the propriety of using something called "standby letters of credit" as enhancements in real property secured transactions. The case does not involve cities directly; the issue was whether cities would be affected by the ruling in the case. B. A standby letter of credit serves as a back-up mechanism in the event the bank customer defaults on a loan or other obligation to another person or entity. This case involves the scenario of when an obligation is secured by both real property and a letter of credit; the borrower defaults on the loan and the property which secures the loan is foreclosed. The proceeds of the foreclosure axe not enough to cover the amount owed. The controversy concerns whether the lender looks to the letter of the credit to make up the difference? Applying what is known as the 'one form of action' rule, the court said 'no' when there has been a non-judicial foreclosure. 2. Point of Information The city attorney's office of the city of Glendale has prepared a memorandum on this case and what it means for cities. To check-out a copy of the memorandum, use the order form from either The C/ty Attorneys Index or the city attorneys newsletter and ask for Ide, Western Securi~ memo, 3/10/94. North County Parents Organization for Children with Special Needs v. California Department of Education. Cal. App. 4th __, ~ Cal. Rptr.. 2d ,94 Daily Journal D.A~R.,322. 4.(4th Dist. March 10, 1994).. 1.- ,C,,ase Description .. .. In this case, a court of:appeal has provided an answer to the question _ -- "what kind of fee can-public entities for Public Records Act request?." The state:had 'apparently attempted tore .cover~,the--c0sts.of retrieving,--- inspecting, and handling the file from which the copy is extracted. The court found such costs axe not included within the statutory authorization to charge for the 'direct costs of duplication.' See Cal. Gov't Code §6257. The court said the fee may reflect the cost of running the copy machine and ~conceivably also the expense of the person operating it.~ The court also indicated public agencies have .discretion to reduce or waive the fee. *.2. Point 'of Information City attorneys may wish to check their cities, records fees for conformity with the principles articulated in this decision. C. Resolulion Tr'ast Co .rpor~tion v. Diamond, F.3d~ (2d Cir. March 2, 1994). De 1. Case De~gription This case involves issues relating to the Resolution Trust Corporation's (RTC) powers when it acts as a receiver or conservator for federally- insured thrift institutions in financial distress. The federal Financial Institutions Reform, Recovery, and Enforcement Act of 1989 (FIRREA), directs RTC to realize a maximum recovery on thrift assets which come into its possession. To help the RTC do so, FIRREA confers upon RTC a number of extraordinary powers, including the power to disaffirm or repudiate contracts or leases it finds to be burdensome. At issue in this case is whether this power includes the power to override state and local rent control regulation. The court of appeals found the tenancies were indeed subject to the disaffirmation and repudiation power of RTC. The facts of this case involved a condominium conversion, in which existing tenants were given a lifetime tenancy with controlled rents.. The RTC determined the building was operating at a net loss and informed remaining tenants RTC was repudiating their tenancy. RTC gave them the option of 1) treating the tenancy as terminated, 2) remaining in the building for_the original lease term, or 3) purchasing the unit as a condominium. :. .Point of Information. · . : . The State of Ne~v .York is petitioning for. certiorari' in this ~.as.e.on-an expedited basis. Because of the expedited .schedule, amicus assistance was impracticable. City attorneys(particularly those in cities in which the .RTC has been active) may wish to study this opinion for implications for their cities' rent control and poss~ly other police power regulatiofis of economic relationships. Legal Advocacy Committee members would welcome the any thoughts city attorneys might have after having 'examined the implications of this case; the case may be back before the committee in the event the United States Supreme Court grants certiorari. Mission Development. Ltd, v. Ci_ty of VallejQ, No. 111679 (Solano County Superior Ct. October 13, 1993). 1. Case Desqription This is a trial court case in which a developer challenged a city's authority to require installation of automatic fire sprinkler systems in all residential homes when the Uniform Building Code and the Uniform Fire Code do not. The court said the city did not have the authority. The city is electing not t° appeal the case. 10 III. 2. Poin! of Information Fire chiefs are reportedly mounting a letter-writing campaign to persuade the state Fire Marshall to amend Uniform Building Code to cover automatic fire-sprinkling systems. LETTERS SENT Tob¢ v. City_ of Santa Ann, 22 Cal. App. 4th 228, 27 Cal. Rptr. 2d 386, 94 Daily Journal D.A.R. 1449 (4th Dist. February 2, 1994). 1. Case Description As appears to be its habit, the fourth district has come down hard on another Orange County city. This time the issue igniting the court's ire was an anti-camping ordinance. The court found the ordinance runs afoul of the constitutional right to travel and the constitutional proscription against cruel and unusual punishment. The court also said the ordinance was unconstitutionally over broad and vague. - With respect to the right to travel, the chief problem seemed to be the court's perception the city's purpose in adopting the ordinance waS to run homeless people out of town. The cru.el and unusual punishment issue stems from the court's conclusion the ordinance punishes people for their status of being homeless or poor, as opposed to punishing some aspect of their conduct, lrmally the. court said the definitions in the ordinance were 'so broad 'so as to be an invitati°n to arbitrary and selective enforcement- hence the vagueness and overbreadth problem. The-court ac_knowledged the city's-interest in preserving the community's appearance and USefulness of public faeiliti~ but characterized the ordinance as being a '~butcher knife where a scalpel is required." - · 2.' ....... Action Taken . . . The League is asking the decision be decertified from publication, so the decision cannot be used against other cities which may have anti-camping ordinances. Even though the court said cities should be able to adopt more "scalpel-like" anti-camping ordinances, . the court's analysis of the cruel and unusual punishment issue suggests no ordinance could pass muster. The Los Angeles law firm of Richards, Watson and Gershon volunteered to write the letter brief. 11 Be Thomas v, City of Richmond, 22 Cal..app. 4th 765, 27 Cal. Rptr. 2d 536, 94 Daily Journal D.A.R. 2018 (lst Dist. February 16, 1994). 1. Case Description_ A police officer who injured a fleeing suspect by running into him with his squad car has landed himself and his employer in court. An appellate court ruled cities are not immune from liability for injuries caused to persons attempting to avoid arrest. In addition, although the officer is immune from liability for injuries caused by the use of emergency vehicles, public entities are not. The court specifically rejected the city's arguments based on Government Code section 845.8 (immunity for injuries to persons resisting arrest), and Vehicle Code section 17004 (immunity for operation of emergency vehicles). 2. Action Taken The League is asldng for decertificafion from publication. If the case is decertified, a more favorable decision (in terms of city liability) involving the city of Chula Vista will stand. The letter brief is being written by the law firm of Eric 'kson, Beasley, Hewitt and Wilson on a volunteer basis. ... Healing v. California Coastal Commission ,22 C_.aL App. 4th 1158, 27 Cal. Rptr. 2d -,758; 94.Daily Journal. D.A.R. 2265 (2d Dist. February 22, 1994). .... . Case De,~eril>tion, o . . - ?". , This is a case ' involving the interplay betWeen;the coastal Comssion's land .use authority and local governments' land use authority.- The specific question addressed by the court is whether takings issues in an'inverse condemnation action alleging regulatory ta~ngs claims associated with the Coastal Commission's denial of a permit must be decided in the context of the administrative mandate proceeding or a full court trial. 2. Action Token The state plans to seek California Supreme Court review. Even though the Attorney General says the facts are not as bad as represented by the court, the committee was concerned about inviting the court to re-write the law on these kinds the facts. The Lea_mae is therefore asking for decertification from publication. The firm of Fre~ilich, Kaufman, Fox and Sohagi volunteered to write the letter brief. 12 D. E. Troost Monument Company v. Ci_ty of Santa Monica. 22 Cal. App. 4th 246, 27 Cak Rptr. 2d 240, 94 Daily Journal D.A.R. 1534 (2d Dist. January 4, 1994), rev. denied and al,certified (March 24, 1994). 1. Case Description This is a disappointing deeision from the court of appeal for charter dties. The decision nominally relates to dries' authority to sell grave, crypt and niche markers in dry-owned cemeteries. See Cal. Health & Safety Code § 8137. However, the larger issue relates to the kind of analysis in which a court must engage to detenn_ine whether the legislature intended, a state law to apply to charter dries, as well as whether the law may constitutionally apply to charter dries. With respect to whether . the legislature-intended a statute to apply to charter as well as general law dries, the court said, in the absence of any evidence to the .contrary, a statutory refer,nee to "dty, county, dry and county' is suffident to include charter dries. With respect to whether the state could preempt charter dty authority, the court's analysis was, shall we say, cursory. It characterized the issue as being whether the "disposition of human remaim' is a matter of stat,wide concern. The court then looked to what the court considered to be an extensive body of state law regulating'that subject. Although the court's .analysis was very sketchy, it seemed to suggest the comprehensiveneSS of the statutory scheme works to establish statewide concern. - ~' 2. The Legal Advocacy Co_m_ mitre, asked for-deCer~cafion. The committee believes the case is inconsistent with the Calffo~a Supreme Court's instructions concerning the kind of analysis courts of appeal must engage in to find state law overrides.charter dty prerogatives. Accordingly, the committee believes the case should be decertified. The letter brief was prepared by League staff;, the case has been decertified. Knott v. State of California. Cal. App. 4th __, Daily Journal D.A.R. 3406 (4--~--Dist. March 15, 1994). Cal. Rptr. 2d ,94 1. Case Descrivtion A court of appeal has ruled the State of California may be liable to the family of a woman murdered by an on-duty highway patrol officer. The decision relies on an earlier California Supreme Court case involving a police officer rape. Reviewed by the Legal Advocacy Committee Executive Committee only. 13 The interesting part of this decision is the concurring opinion in which one of the justices implored the California Supreme Court to reconsider its position in these cases (a position based on the theory of superior" or employer responsibility). Action Taken - The state is petitioning for California Supreme Court review and the executive committee of the Legal Advocacy Committee is urging the state high court to take the case, which, of course, would be the first step to getting the court to reexamine its position. The letter is being written on a volunteer basis by Girard Fisher of Pollak, Vida and Fisher; Girard is also wxiting the amicus brief in the _Thorn v. Ci_ty of Glendale (firefighter- turned-arsonist) case for cities, which, of course, involves similar issues. NOTE ON CASE UPDATES For information on the resolution of cases which have been the subject of amicus assistance by the League, please see the monthly 'Legal Notes~ column in Western City magazine. Because of the publication schedule, there is. approximately a two-month delay between a case being reported in the advance sheets and a description being published in the .'Legal Notes" column. . : ~i. · .- :~-' FOR INFORMATION ON REQUESTING AMICUS ASSISTANCE · , The membership of the Legal AdVOcacy Committeeis'.liSted on the last p~ge of this report, along with instructions' for bringing other cas. es to .the committee,s attention. The committee's next meeting is on ,lune 17, 1994' '.: '" The Legal Advocacy Committee has prepared a'memorandum for'the League to distribute to those seeldng the League's help in 'obtaining amicus assistance. To obtain a copy, please call JoAnne Speers at the League of California Cities, 916/444-5790. If you get voice mail, be sure to leave your facsimile number so the memorandum can be se~nt to you as quickly as possible. The process of obtaining .amicus assistance from the League tends to take some time. j:\legal\hm\lac\reprts\April.94 14 LEGAL ADvOCACT COMMf'I CENTR~.L VAI,LET DWISlON' ~ W. McNatt City Attorney, Lodi 211 W. Pine/P.O. Box 3006 (95241-1910) FAX ~09/aaa-6'/95 CHANNEL COUN'I"IE.q Pctcr N. Brown (E~'c~ Commerce) City ^ttorncy, Carpintcria 21 E. Carrillo Strcct Santa Barbara, CA 93101 FAX S05/~333 DESERT MOUNTAIN DIV[SION° Henry P.. Kraft (Exec~ City Attorney, Bat,'tow and Vic~o~l~ 14350 Civic Drive, Suite 270 Victotville, CA 92392 619~245-4127 FAX 619/245-6437 EA~F BAY DMSION° (c~r ~ F..~ C~~,) City Attorney, Alameda 2263 Santa Clam Avenue, P.~om 314 Alameda, CA 94501 5~0/v4s-4.~ FAX S~0/V ~_4S:~9~ - IMPERIAL COUNTY DMSION° Diane B. Altamirano City AttOmcy, Calipatria and Wcstmorland P.O. Box 237 '. -. . . Braw~cy,'CA ~2~27 '. '.- 619/3~_.~, ~.334 FAX 619/344-7731 IN~t, AN~ EMPIRE DI~ISION'; John F. Wilson City Attorney, Banning ]~nning, CA 92220 FAX ~09/922-04a3 LOS ANGELES COUNTY DMSION" Scott H. Howard City Attomcy, Oicndalc 613 East Broadway, Suite 220 Glendale, CA 91206-4394 818/548-2080 FAX 8zs/547-:Mo2 MO..','ntRt3' B,0' ~ Anorncy. Wauonvinc NO~ ~Y D~SION* ~T~ ~ ~, ~lito ~ ~ ~.o. ~x ~2~ (~) o~ ~~ u~S~o~- ~D.~ 611 ~ ~ ~te 1~ · ~4~1-51~ ~~ D~ON- ~ ~, ~ ~to 4u~=~ Oty Anomcy, South Lake Tahoe and Truckee 1052 Tara L~ne · Appo/nted in July of even- '* Appointed in July of odd- numbered yearn S.~tN DII~C,O COUN'TY DI%'i.qION** David ~ ~n O~ Att~y, ~1 ~h B~y/~ ~ntcr P~ 619~41~ F~ 619~41-~1 ~. ~N JOAQ~N VALL~ D~SION' Stun ~ ~ O~ Attom~, ~ctcr, Fa~c~llc, Tula~ and 1~ W~ M~n ~ OF ~S ANO~ ~a~cnt) Pcdm B. Sr. ~ant ~ Atto~, [For Ja~ ~ ~hn, ~ Attom~] ~ ~ Main'St/l~ ~ Hall ~t F~ 213~7~ C~ OF SAN DI~ ~mancnt) ~ P. Go~ or C ~an Sumption ~icf ~u~ ~ Attomcy ~or ~n ~ G~ Attom~] 1~ 3~ A~nu~ ~ite ~ Di~, ~ ~101 619/~~ F~ 619/~3~7 . ~ OF ~N ~N~0 ~ma~cnt) Bu~ ~n~ (~ ~~) -: ~icf ~u~ ~ A~om~ H . ~ Van N~ ~n F~n~: ~- ~1~ 4~/$~ ~ 4~/5~318-or ~16 c~ oF s.&N Jose ~mancnt) J~n GaHo ~ Attom~, ~1 W~t M~ St~ct ~n J~, ~ ~ll0 F~ ~/2~-3~9 I.,F~GUE STAFF: JoAnnc Spcc~ General Couns~ league of California Cities, 1400 K Street, 4th Floor, Sacramento, CA 95814 (916/444-S7~); ('FAX 916/444..8671) Ex Officio: (City At_torncys' Department Officers) PRESIDENT Michacl Jcn -kins City Attorney, Malibu, Polling Hills and We~t Hollywood 333 S. Hopc Street, 38th Floor Lo~ Angclcs, CA 90071 213/626-~s4 FAX 213/6260078 1ST ;'ICE PRESIDENT Manu~la A~buqu~rcp~ 2180 Mi~ ~ 510/~ F~ 510/~ ~1 2ND %'ICE PRESIDENT Danicl S. Hcntschkc City Attomcy, Occansidc and Solana Beach 12770 High Bluff Drive, Suite 240 San Diego, CA 92130 619/456-1915 FAX 619~.59.4Y292 DIRECTOR Lynn McDougal City Attorney, El Cajon and lmpcrial Be. ach 460 N. Magoolia Avcnuc P.O. Box 1466 El Cajon. CA 92O20 6Z9/44~ FAX 619/440-~907 i:\ler, al\hm\lar\clne\ rc,~t~-r ¢t A...;, ~, ,aa