HomeMy WebLinkAboutH- 4 Request for Amicus Curiae Support in Friends of Mammoth V. Town of Mammoth Lakes 1114*°*°.°411.
10111116
City of Azusa
City Attorney's Office
TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS
FROM: SONIA CARVALHO, CITY ATTORNEY
VIA: RICK COLE, CITY MANAGER
DATE: JANUARY 26, 1999
RE: REQUEST FOR AMICUS CURIAE SUPPORT IN FRIENDS OF MAMMOTH V.
TOWN OF MAMMOTH LAKES
Recommendation
Approve the City Attorney's authorization to add the City of Azusa as a supporter of the
amicus curiae ("friend of the court") brief in the matter of Friends of Mammoth v. Town of
Mammoth Lakes.
Background
The Town of Mammoth Lakes is seeking support in the case of Friends of Mammoth v.
Town of Mammoth Lakes, which involves a challenge to the Town's decision to approve a
redevelopment plan and to certify an accompanying program Environmental Impact Report(EIR).
This item has been placed on the consent calendar to obtain the City Council's approval to authorize
the City Attorney to add the City of Azusa to the amicus curiae brief that is currently being prepared
in this matter. A copy of the authorization form is attached and the deadline for joining the amicus
brief is February 12, 1999. The City's participation would be consistent with City policy.
Analysis:
In 1997, the Town of Mammoth Lakes approved a redevelopment plan created to alleviate
conditions of blight within the redevelopment area of the Town. Along with approving the plan,the
Town certified a program EIR which analyzed the environmental effects of the plan. The program
EIR was prepared pursuant to CEQA Guideline 15180 and Public Resources Code Section 21090.
In the process of creating the plan,the Town considered 72 possible proposals for removing blight
within the redevelopment area. These proposals were discussed in general in both the program EIR
and the redevelopment project report, in accordance with the CEQA Guidelines.
In response to the Town's actions, an organization called "Friends of Mammoth" filed a
lawsuit challenging the adequacy of the program EIR. "Friends of Mammoth"argued that the Town
RVPUB\NGS\56964 aaie)
//`�
February 1, 1999
On February 2, 1997,the Azusa City Council awarded a contract to the Hazama
Corporation to provide general contractor services for the expansion of Azusa's police facility.
In early September of 1997, Councilmember Hardison visited the construction site. He spoke
with a subcontractor doing masonry work on the project. Councilmember Hardison, who works
for the Sepulveda Building Materials company, informed the subcontractor that Sepulveda could
provide masonry materials for the project. The subcontractor, Alliance Building, subsequently
ordered $3,792.68 worth of materials from Sepulveda. Because of later concerns about whether
this transaction may have been inconsistent with Section 1090 of the California Government
Code, the City Attorney, City Manager and Police Chief referred the matter to the Los Angeles
County District Attorney's office for analysis. After a thorough investigation,that office
concluded:
• At no time during Councilmember Hardison's visit to the construction site did he
represent himself as a councilmember.
• Councilmember Hardison acted as a vendor in the sale of masonry block and did not exert
any official power over the purchaser of the block.
• In fact, the subcontractor declined to purchase more block from Sepulveda after the
subcontractor expressed concern about whether the block was delivered timely.
• As a result, the Los Angeles District Attorney has closed its investigation of this matter,
concluding that there is no evidence that any violation of the law was committed.
/ ?//
—11_270-
c-----)AA) a dY4-77Y1
P:\PPECCOIRJC ILSEPULVDA WPD