Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1993-02-02; City Council; 12056; Amicus BriefA CITY-”)F CARLSBAD - AGENDAa.lLL SAN DIEGO V. FRITZ NEUMANN, AND BILLESTER V. CITY OF CORONA ITQ. 2/2/93 RECOMMENDED ACTION: That the Council authorize the City Attorney to join as amicus in the cases of City of San Dieao v. U.S. GYDSU~, Black ProDertv Owners Association of. citv of Berkeley, Citv of San Dieso v. Fritz Neumann and Billester v. City of Corona. The City has received requests to participate as amicus in these cases because they represent important issues common to cities in California. They have been reviewed by the League of California Cities and this office which recommends joining. A brief discussion of the issue in each case is summarized as follows: City of San Dieao v. U. S. Gypsum The City of San Diego is urging on appeal that the contractor, or its insurance company, is responsible for removing asbestos from its public buildings where contamination is present. The city’s cost of removing asbestos from eight of its public buildings will be approximately $20 million. The contractor is arguing that because the asbestos was installed in the buildings in the 1960’s or 1970’s it is too late to hold them responsible for its removal. This is an important issue to all cities which may not be aware of the presence of asbestos contamination in public buildings until well after they have been constructed. Black Pr oDertv Owners Association v. City of Berkeley State law requires a city to amend its housing element every five years. In this case, the trial court ordered the city to prepare an entirely new housing element every five years instead of the revision required by the Government Code and to prepare an environmental impact report on every existing law and program in the city that affects the housing market. This would impose a tremendous and unnecessary financial burden on cities attempting to comply with relevant housing laws. City of San Dieao v. Fritz Neumann This case is pending before the California Supreme Court where the issue is the proper amount of compensation in condemnation proceedings. The court of appeal reached the rather extraordinary conclusion that a land owner who owns two or more parcels, which are not used in a unified fashion, can be compensated for more than the value of the parcel taken. This would change the traditionally accepted rules under which cities operate in calculating the amount of fair compensation to be paid for exercising their powers of eminent domain. Unless changed by the supreme court, the court of appeal’s interpretation would create much uncertainty in calculating the amount of just compensation and complicate pending eminent domain cases. Agenda Bill M,OS6 Date: d, -a-%3 Page 2 of 2 Billester v. City of Corona The City has adopted a vehicle pursuit policy as required under the Vehicle Code in order to confer absolute immunity upon it when pursuing vehicles consistent with that policy. This means that if a third party is injured by a fleeing vehicle (not the City's police car) that the City will not be held responsible. This case attacks that immunity and would expose cities to unanticipated liabilities. FISCAL IMPACT Other than minor expenditures of staff time, there will be no fiscal impact associated with joining as amicus in these cases. EXHIBITS None