Client Alerts
The California state legislature and courts as well as local governments are continuously changing the legal landscape. Staying abreast of new laws, regulations and other legal developments, and analyzing their impact on local governments is what makes our attorneys some of the best in the state. In addition, we write timely alerts to keep our clients informed of developing legal news and analysis.
Client e-Alerts are emailed to our clients, and they can also be viewed on our website. If you are interested in receiving our Client Alerts via email, please complete the subscription information in the left column.
Some of our most recent alerts are presented below grouped by their practice area. Older alerts are available in the Archives, which can be accessed via the links in the left column.
New Laws Regarding Charter City Elections, Public Agency Management Contracts and Obligations and Posting of Public Agency Meeting Notices
AB 1344, which became effective on January 1, 2012, changes the law regarding employment and compensation for public agency managers. It also requires public agencies to post meeting agendas on their websites and imposes new restrictions on changes to city charters. Here is a summary of significant changes:
Labor and Employment
California Court of Appeal Holds that an Employee May Be Disciplined for Fabricating Sexual Harassment Allegations
Richard Joaquin v. City of Los Angeles(2012) 202 Cal.App.4th 1207
In Joaquin v. City of Los Angeles, the California Court of Appeal recently held that an employer may lawfully terminate an employee based on a good faith belief that the employee has filed a false sexual harassment complaint.
Court of Appeal Holds that Personnel Investigation Report is Subject to Disclosure
Marken v. Santa Monica-Malibu Unified School District
On January 24, 2012, the Court of Appeal ruled that a report of a personnel investigation was subject to public disclosure. In Marken, the Court ruled that, under the California Public Records Act (CPRA), public interest in disclosure of a report of a personnel investigation finding a teacher had violated his employer's sexual harassment policy outweighed the teacher's privacy interests.
In 2008, Ari Marken (Marken), a mathematics teacher at Santa Monica High School, was the subject of a sexual harassment complaint. The complaint was received by the mother of a ninth grade student, who submitted a document outlining alleged improper conduct towards her daughter, a student of Marken's. The District hired an independent attorney investigator to investigate the complaint and issue a report. The report contained a summary of the evidence gathered and made "partial findings" regarding certain conduct that she concluded "more likely than not did occur." Because no students were interviewed, however, the report stated that the investigation was not considered complete. Based on the report, the District issued a written reprimand, finding Marken had violated the District's policy on sexual harassment.
California Supreme Court Holds Counties May be Bound by Implied Contracts to Provide Health Benefits to Retired Employees
In Retired Employees Association of Orange County, Inc. v. County of Orange (“REAOC”), the California Supreme Court addressed a question posed to it by the Ninth Circuit: “Whether, as a matter of California law, a California county and its employees can form an implied contract that confers vested rights to health benefits on retired county employees.” REAOC, No. S184059, at *1 (Cal., filed Nov. 21, 2011).
In Orange County, retirees and active employees of the County had traditionally been pooled together for the purposes of calculating a single set of health insurance premiums—generally resulting in lower premiums for retirees (which are paid largely by the retirees themselves) and higher premiums for actives (which are paid largely by the County). In REAOC, retired employees challenged the County’s 2007 decision to split active employees and retirees into separate pools.
Land Use
Court Holds That CEQA Does Not Require Analysis Of The Environment’s Impacts On A Proposed Project
Ballona Wetlands Land Trust v. City of Los Angeles is the second in a series of challenges to CEQA review of a mixed-use residential development, the Playa Vista Phase Two Project. In a prior case concerning the same Project, the Court issued a writ of mandate invalidating a 2004 EIR for failing to consider “in-place” preservation of archeological artifacts, and for presenting a misleading project description and an inadequate analysis of wastewater impacts. The writ further instructed the City to vacate certification of the 2004 EIR and project approvals, and to revise the EIR to address the deficiencies pointed out by the court. In response to the Court’s writ, the City in 2010 certified a Revised EIR for the Project and sought to discharge the writ. Petitioners objected and filed a new petition for a writ of mandate. The Court consolidated the new petition with the pending case.
The most significant portion of the new ruling was only reached because, in addition to the revised analysis required by the writ, the City also included a new climate change impacts analysis in the Revised EIR. Petitioners attacked the climate change analysis for inadequately analyzing the impacts of sea-level rise caused by climate change on the project. Petitioners relied on CEQA Guidelines section 15126.2, which states that “[t]he EIR shall also analyze any significant environmental effects the project might cause by bringing development and people into the area affected” by environmental impacts or hazards. The Court disagreed that the Revised EIR was required to analyze the impacts of climate change on the Project, holding that “the purpose of an EIR is to identify the significant effects of a project on the environment, not the significant effect of the environment on the project.” The Court held that CEQA Guidelines section 15126.2 is only consistent with the CEQA statute to the extent it requires analysis of the project’s impacts on the environment, and not vice-versa. The Court went on to criticize Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines, which is used to guide an agency’s initial study, for including questions that address the impacts of the environment on the project.
Anti-NIMBY Findings Apply to All Residential Development Projects, Not Just Affordable Housing
In a decision interpreting a long-standing statutory provision, the Fifth District Court of Appeal ruled that Stanislaus County erred when it denied a residential development but did not make findings under Government Code section 65589.5(j).
Litigation
High Court Rules that GPS Tracker Violated Privacy Rights
Introduction
In what is being hailed as a “signal event in Fourth Amendment history,”[1]the U.S. Supreme Court ruled unanimously on January 23, 2012 that peace officers who placed a Global Positioning Tracker (GPS) device on a suspect’s car for 28 days violated the car owner’s right to privacy. The Supreme Court opinion, authored by Justice Antonin Scalia for the majority in U.S. v. Jones,[2]held that placement of the GPS unit on the defendant’s car constituted a physical intrusion upon a person’s “effects” by a governmental entity, for which the Fourth Amendment’s prohibition on unreasonable searches and seizures requires that the government first obtain a warrant supported by probable cause. While the minority also agreed that the GPS placement was a violation of the Fourth Amendment, it found that the violation was based upon Jones’ reasonable expectation of privacy, rather than his right to be free from unreasonable searches of his private property. Regardless, what this landmark case makes clear is that prior to placing a GPS tracker on a suspect or person of interest’s vehicle, law enforcement must first obtain a valid search warrant.
Supreme Court Rules That Police Officers Are Justified In Entering A Home Without A Warrant When A Woman Flees Inside After Being Asked Whether She Owns A Gun
Plaintiffs brought an action against police officers under 42 U.S.C. §1983 alleging that the officers violated their Fourth Amendment rights by entering their home without a search warrant. The Supreme Court reversed the Ninth Circuit Court's decision and held that the Fourth Amendment allows officers to enter a residence without a warrant when they have an objectively reasonable belief that an occupant is imminently threatened with serious injury.
Redevelopment, Real Estate and Affordable Housing
Court Upholds Redevelopment Dissolution Bill, Strikes Voluntary Payment Bill
The California Supreme Court today issued an opinion in the California Redevelopment Association v. Matosantos case, upholding Assembly Bill x1 26 (the "Redevelopment Dissolution" bill) and invalidating Assembly Bill x1 27 (the "Voluntary Payment" bill). The Court provided a four month extension for all deadlines contained in AB x1 26 that arise prior to May 1, 2012. As a result, effective February 1, 2012, all redevelopment agencies in California will be dissolved.
Prior to their dissolution, agency activities are limited to carrying out "enforceable obligations" as defined in AB x1 26. Following dissolution, the successor entity (the city or county that formed the agency, unless such jurisdiction elects not to fill this role) is charged with winding up the affairs of the dissolved agency, subject to review by an oversight board composed of representatives appointed by the city, the county, the local school district, the local community college district, and the largest local special district. By March 1, 2012, the successor entity is required to prepare a draft recognized obligation payment schedule describing enforceable obligations payable during the period from January through June 2012. The successor entity is directed to dispose of the assets of the former redevelopment agency with the proceeds to be transferred to the county auditor-controller for distribution to local taxing entities. The successor entity may elect to retain the housing assets and functions previously performed by the redevelopment agency; however, funds on deposit in the Low and Moderate Income Housing Fund are not retained by the successor entity.
The Court held that AB x1 27 (the measure that would have permitted cities and counties to continue the operation of their local redevelopment agency by agreeing to make specified payments for the benefit of schools and special districts) violates Proposition 22, the ballot measure adopted in 2010 that limits the legislature’s ability to require local government payments.
Six justices signed the majority opinion. The Chief Justice issued a dissenting and concurring opinion in which she opined that AB x1 27 does not on its face compel the violation of Proposition 22.
Please contact any member of the Meyers Nave Redevelopment Practice Group for further information.
