2000 AGN MAY 16 I05 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

Page 2 including that the ordinance constituted a taking, it violated due process, it constituted a development fee in violation of the Mitigation Fee Act, and it violated Propositions 13, 62 and 218. The City demurred, arguing that the Plaintiff's arguments were either at odds with settled law, premature, or both. The Superior Court agreed with the City's arguments and sustained its demurrer on all causes of action without leave to amend. The Plaintiff then appealed the case to the First District Court of Appeal. DISCUSSION/ANALYSIS: This case involves issues of critical importance to cities statewide. There are 75 cities and counties in California that have inclusionary requirements similar to the City of Napa's ordinance. The outcome of this case will directly impact the validity of such ordinances. Even cities without inclusionary ordinances will be affected by the outcome of this case. The Plaintiff's argument that Napa's ordinance constituted a taking under a "heightened scrutiny" analysis could jeopardize not only inclusionary ordinances, but land use and other police power ordinances as well. If the Plaintiff is successful in the appeal, the ability of cities to exercise basic police power regulatory authority will be severely diminished. The Plaintiffs other arguments are of similar concern to cities. For instance, the assertion that the ordinance's optional in -lieu fee, which is not mandatory, may be challenged as a tax under Propositions 13, 62 and 218, threatens to undermine cities' ability to impose mitigation fees to offset impacts created by new development. ALTERNATIVES: 1. Direct the City Attorney to advise the City of Napa to list the City of Colton as a supporter of the amicus curiae brief. 2. Take no action. FINANCIAL IMPACT: Z ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT: None. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the City Council join in the amicus curiae brief. Report Prepared By: Sonia R. Carvalho, City Attorney RVPUMNGS1560935