HomeMy WebLinkAbout1990-03-06; City Council; 10518; Amicus BriefCIT .-OF CARLSBAD - AGENDT”31LL
AB# /c 51s
MTO. 3/6/90 m*AMICUS PARTICIPATION IN SUPPORT OF CITY OF SACRAMENTO - LOW INCOME
DEPT. CA I HOUSING DEVELOPER FEE LITIGATION
DEPT. HD.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
If the City Council concurs, by motion authorize the City Attorney to join the City of Carlsbad as an amicus curiae in the case of - Commercial Builders of Northern California v. City of Sacramento.
JTEM EXPLANAT ION The Executive Committee of the League of California Cities Legal Advocacy Committee has recommended that cities join as amicus in
support of the City of Sacramento in the above referenced litigation. The Ninth Circuit is about to determine the extent to which the United States Supreme Court’s Nollan decision limits the
ability of cities to impose impact fees on development. The
Facific Legal Foundation and the Commercial Builders challenged Sacramento‘s housing trust fund ordinance which imposes a fee on six categories of new non-residential development to help fund low income housing. The City of San Francisco is writing an amicus brief in support of Sacramento. If the couxt adopts the
developer’s position the case will have severe conseqcenzes for all
local governments seeking to impose developer fees. The Legal
Advocacy Committee believes a strong showing of support from all local governments is important. If the Council concurs, you should take the above recommended action which will be at no cost to the City.
EXHIBIT
Letter from City kttorney of Sacramento
OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY
IAMES P. IACKSON
CITY OF SACRAMENTO
CALIFORNIA
February 23, 1990 CITY Al-fOLVEY
THEODORE H. KOBEY. JR.
ASSISTANT CITY ATTORSEY
Sl?. DEPL'TY CITY ATTORNEYS. SAM1t;EL L. JACKSUN U'ILLIAM P. CARNAZZO
GARLAND E Rl'XRELL. JR.
TO ALL CITY ATTORNEYS
DER- CllY ATTORXY'S.
1AW'RC;CE M LUSARDlSI
DIASE R. BALTER RICHARD F ANTOISE
TMW >mlJGASSCUt\IOS
KICHARD E. ARCHIRALT? KATllLEES L. MLCORWCK TIAIOTI1Y N. V('ASI1HI'RS
SABRISA M. TtiOMPSON 1
RE: Request for Amicus Support: Commercial Builders of Northern California v. City of Sacramento (9th Cir. No. 89-16398)
Dear Colleague: Cw OF CARISSAD CITY AlTORNEY
The Ninth Circuit is, for the first time, about to determine the extent to which the United States Supreme Court decision in Pollan v. California Costa 1 Corn missioa 107
S.Ct. 3141 (1987) constrains the ability of government agencies to impose "impact fees" in connection with new development. An adverse decision in this case could make it all but impossible for governments to impose such fees or dedication requirements.
This appeal is a facial attack upon the validity of Sacramento's Housing Trust Fund Ordinance, which imposes a fee upon six categories of new non-residential development in the City to help fund low-income housing. the Ordinan,s.was adopted after nearly two on a detailed factual record that included the findings of a joint City-County Huusisb,, T k Force as well as a report by years of study and consideration. The Ordinance was
a consulting firm detailing the nexus between the new dewloprnent and the low-income housing demand. The fee amounts set in the Ordinance are far below the amounts justified by the nexus study. The fee is expected to produce approximately 9% of the 642 million
recommendcd by the Task Force to be spent annually for construction of low-income
housing.
The Commercial Builders, represented by the Pacific Legal Foundation, argue that
Nollan eliminates the courts' traditional deference to legislative fact-finding, and that Nollan
allows governments to impose fees or dedication requirements in connection with permits only if the permit could legally be entirely denied. ??le City of San Francisco is b-riting an
All City Attorneys
Re: Commercial Builders v. City of Sacramento February 23,1990 Page 2
amicus brief which will explain the errors in the Commercial Builders’ theories and will
emphasize the severe consequences to locaS governnicnts if the Commercial Builders’ broad interpretation of Nollan is accepted by the Court.
The Executive Committee of the League of California Cities Legal Advocacy Committee has recommended that cities join this amicus brief. It is critical that we have a strong showing of support from all local governments.
Please let Ron Baxter, secretary, San Francisco City Attorney’s office (415-554-
4236) know as soon as possible if your city will joiz the brief. As the brief is due March
14, 1990, please let him know no later than March 6th. If yo3 have questions, please contact Phyllis Walker, Deputy City Attorney, San Francisco (415-554-3927; 1390 Market Street, Fox Plaza, San Francisco, CA 94102), or Mzrc Mihaly or Bob Ward at Shute, Mihaly and Weinberger (415-552-7272).
Thank you.
CITY AITORNEY
JPJ/jms
cc: Phyllis Walker, Deputy City Attorney, San Francisco Marc Mihaly, Shute, Mihaly and Weinberger JoAnn Speers, League of California Cities
(c .-.-