SU0014565 (2) - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

JOHN F. CHEADLE COUNTY COUNSEL TERRENCE R. DERMODY ASSISTANT COUNTY COUNSEL PATRICK H. CURRAN CHIEF LITIGATION DEPUTY MICHAEL M<GREW CHIEF DERRY September 28, 1987 HONORABLE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS County of San Joaquin 222 East Weber Avenue Stockton, California 95202 COUNSEL, ANNE MOLGAARD SHEAFFER ROBERTA C. LAGOMARSINI LITIGATION RESEARCH ANALYSE: CAROL a STILES, Em. ®r SEF 3 01987 SAN JOAQUIN LOCAL HEALTH DISTRICT Re: Appeal of William D. Edwards Regarding Planning Commission's Approval of Subdivision SU -86-12 (Apricot Acres) Dear Board Members: Although the appeal of Tentative Map Approval SU -86-12 pri- marily addresses conditions that were imposed to promote health and safety, there are a few issues raised which are of a legal nature. First, the appellant objects to the requirement for indem- nification. This condition is statutorily authorized under the provisions of the Subdivision Map Act, specifically Government Code Section 66474.9. This hold harmless requirement is not wide open as appellant suggests, but is limited to actions filed against the County "to attack, set aside, void, or annul, an approval of the local agency, advisory agency, appeal board or legislative body concerning a subdivision ..." In other words, since any land use decision made by the County is subject to legal attack, the State Legislature has recognized that local jurisdictions may be reluctant to issue land use approvals when faced with the potential of mounting legal and defense costs incurred when defending its approval for development. Therefore, the indemnification provision removes this chilling effect and places the risk of bearing this expense upon the developer who seeks the approval. Thus, the applicant is charged with the knowledge of local regulations and bears the responsibility to assure that the approval of his project complies with the legal requirements. The second legal issue raised by the appeal concerns the ade- quacy of the EIR when considering the deletion of a public water 0 AEPUTY COUNTY COUNSEL• PATRICIA M. FREDERICK VV.,R-- OFFICE OF THE V. BRUNO. JR. �•-� COUNTY COUNSEL ��pp✓/ p J�FRANK JJ 1 SRA CF �ANONEO STDAVID EVEN B. BASSOFF COUNTY OF SAN JOAQUIN (�� COURTHOUSE, `% LITIGATION DEPUTY: ROOM 711 222 EAST WEBER AVENUE cILBERio cOtffRRFZ DAVID T. HAYDEN STOCKTON, CALIFORNIA 95202 RONALD J. D`ARrro TELEPHONE 944-3551 (AREA CODE 209) CHILD PROTECTIVE SERVICES September 28, 1987 HONORABLE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS County of San Joaquin 222 East Weber Avenue Stockton, California 95202 COUNSEL, ANNE MOLGAARD SHEAFFER ROBERTA C. LAGOMARSINI LITIGATION RESEARCH ANALYSE: CAROL a STILES, Em. ®r SEF 3 01987 SAN JOAQUIN LOCAL HEALTH DISTRICT Re: Appeal of William D. Edwards Regarding Planning Commission's Approval of Subdivision SU -86-12 (Apricot Acres) Dear Board Members: Although the appeal of Tentative Map Approval SU -86-12 pri- marily addresses conditions that were imposed to promote health and safety, there are a few issues raised which are of a legal nature. First, the appellant objects to the requirement for indem- nification. This condition is statutorily authorized under the provisions of the Subdivision Map Act, specifically Government Code Section 66474.9. This hold harmless requirement is not wide open as appellant suggests, but is limited to actions filed against the County "to attack, set aside, void, or annul, an approval of the local agency, advisory agency, appeal board or legislative body concerning a subdivision ..." In other words, since any land use decision made by the County is subject to legal attack, the State Legislature has recognized that local jurisdictions may be reluctant to issue land use approvals when faced with the potential of mounting legal and defense costs incurred when defending its approval for development. Therefore, the indemnification provision removes this chilling effect and places the risk of bearing this expense upon the developer who seeks the approval. Thus, the applicant is charged with the knowledge of local regulations and bears the responsibility to assure that the approval of his project complies with the legal requirements. The second legal issue raised by the appeal concerns the ade- quacy of the EIR when considering the deletion of a public water 0