CORRESPONDANCE - 60A - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Honorable Mayor Pulido Santa Ana City Council November 18, 2019 Page 9 Scott, Pennsylvania (2019) 139 S.Ct. 2162; Landgate, Inc. v. California Coastal Cornin'n (1998) 17 CalAth 1006, 1029.) Further, it appears that the Applicant acknowledged these potential losses and has solicited surrounding property owners' support by offering at least $35,000 to certain homeowners in exchange for their support of the Project. The City Council cannot and should not condone this conduct, as it results in a further violation of Chapter 41, which requires that the value of surrounding properties be maintained prior to the approval of any specific development. (SAMC, § 41-593.1.) Failure to properly consider the impacts outlined above, among others, may subject the City to inverse condemnation liability as a result. 4. THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT CONTAINS PROVISIONS THAT MAY IMPERMISSIBLY CONTRACT AWAY THE CITY'S DISCRETION. Land use regulations involve the exercise of the police power and the right to exercise the police power cannot be contracted away. (See Richeson v. Helal (2007) 158 Cal.App.4th 268, 280-281, as modified (Dec. 21, 2007); Avco Community Developers, Inc. v. South Coast Regional Com. (1976) 17 Cal.3d 785, 800; City of Glendale v. Superior Court (1993) 18 Cal.AppAth 1768, 1778-1779; Delucchi v. County of Santa Cruz (1986) 179 Cal.App.3d 814, 823; Carty v. City of Ojai (1978) 77 Cal.App.3d 329, 342-343.) If a contract cannot be read harmoniously with the police power, the contract would be unconstitutional as "contracting away" the City's sovereign police power. (Delucchi v. County of Santa Cruz, supra, at pp. 823-824.) Although a development agreement itself operates as a legislative act and not necessarily a contract, it is subject to the principles expressed above. In Save Tara v. City of West Hollywood (2008) 45 CalAth 116, 130-132, the Court struck down a similar project by finding that the city violated CEQA because it had impermissibly committed itself to the project before completing an adequate CEQA review. When a public agency gives a project "approval" it "commits to a definite course of action in regard to a project." (CEQA Guidelines, 14 Cal. Code Regs., § 1532, subd. (a).) Because the proposed development agreement can be read to unconditionally commit to an approval without first attaining CEQA compliance and without proper preservation of the City's police powers, any related Project approval may be held invalid. 5. IF THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVES THE PROJECT AS IS, IT WILL BE SUBJECT TO CHALLENGE BY REFERENDUM. If the City Council approves the Project in its current state, the support of ten percent or more of the registered voters will be easily attainable for a referendum of the legislative entitlements. The City's own staff report supports this, as it repeatedly references the 4398.10118504501.2