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