Allison E. Burns is a partner in Stradling's Public Law practice group.

Allison has particular experience in local agency governance matters, civil rights litigation, eminent domain, general real estate litigation, contract disputes, and construction disputes.

Her experience also includes economic development; affordable housing litigation; land use and planning litigation and representation; relocation and acquisition disputes; conflicts of interest; Public Records Act and Brown Act challenges, compliance and litigation; environmental contamination and remediation cost-recovery actions; water rights; and the dissolution of redevelopment.

Allison serves as city attorney to the city of Lancaster and general counsel to the:

  • Chino Basin Desalter Authority
  • Emerald Bay Service District
  • San Juan Basin Authority
  • Santiago Aqueduct Commission

Her litigation experience includes:

  • Constitutional and civil rights challenges to governmental programs and actions
  • Development agreement disputes
  • Eminent domain representing both condemnees and condemnors
  • Breaches of covenants, conditions and restrictions
  • Foreclosure of taxes, special assessments, and liens
  • Construction disputes
  • Contamination and remediation cost-recovery actions
  • Evictions
  • Challenges to bond issuances
  • Affordable housing disputes, including challenges to expenditures from low-and-moderate-income housing funds

During law school, Allison served as a judicial extern to Justice Fred K. Morrison, Third District Court of Appeal, State of California (1996) and the Honorable Garland E. Burrell, U.S. District Court of the Eastern District of California (1997).

 

Experience

Stradling prevailed at the California Supreme Court, successfully validating the City of San José’s legal authority to issue up to $3.5 billion in proposed pension obligation bonds to address the unfunded liabilities in its Retirement Systems.  The Court issued a unanimous opinion holding that the City’s unfunded liability represents an obligation imposed by law and that the California Constitutional Debt Limit does not constrain the City’s discretion in deciding whether or not to issue pension obligation bonds to address its obligation to fund the Retirement System. The Court held that because the City’s obligation to fund its pensions in an actuarially sound manner was imposed by state law, the City Council’s efforts to grapple with that obligation do not qualify as voluntary for purpose of the local debt limit. The Court further concluded that whether or not to refinance that obligation by issuing pension obligation bonds at what the City hopes will be a lower interest rate,  in an effort to reduce its total payments, is a matter generally entrusted to the City Council’s discretion. The Court’s decision is a significant victory for the City, after four years of litigation, and for all public agencies in the State as it provides an important precedent that public agencies and  bond counsels can rely on in determining whether or not to issue pension obligation bonds to address budgetary pressures caused by burgeoning pension costs. A copy of the opinion can be found at https://www4.courts.ca.gov/opinions/documents/S285426.PDF