The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutAGENDA REPORT 1994 0803 CC REG ITEM 08LGLENN R WATSON ROSERY'TL0. BEVERLY MKYIELE SEAL SAGNE -0 AMANDA H g= F. SWSKIIVD ROBERT C. CECCON MARK L LAMKSN ARNOI.D SIMON SAYRE WEAVER rMANN C AIXiq GARY a awhNS JOHN J. NAI°IIIIO DAROLD FRED A. D. FAR KEVSJ 4 ENNIS ALLEN E. RENNETT Room 0. MARRO MICHAEL WILLIAM L STTMUSZ E8TRADA 'E S. WIENER ROSSRT M. GOLOFRIED DAVID P. WAITE STEVEN R ORE ANTHONY a. DREWRY MITCHELL E. ASSOrr OESOMH R MAKMAN TI L SOOTT K SHW^hfl MK*WMEL -a ROBERT F. OE METER M6MSA A. CWyT1 ONO GRSGORY W. STEFANK:ICM TEARY P. E DONALD KAUFMANN JACK S. SHOLKOFF STERN MIOP A JENKMVS S. TLOEN KIM TI T. TESHIMA WILLIAM DAVID L C� RUSI N O. WEINER QUINN M. BARROW SASKIA T. ASAMURA DAVID M, FLEISHMAN CAROL W. LYNCH EMAN J. WAISH. JR. KA\^SER O. SLIME JEFFRE Y A. IW1N 7REGORY M. KUNERT CRAq A E STLE KURTIM L GROSSMAN MICHELLE A !COMA 8 M. JI THOMAS M. JIMSO CURTIS T. PETER FIERCE MARL D. KIRSHBAUM RICHARDS, WATSON & GERSHON ATTORNEYS AT LAW A PRO "GlONAL CORPORATION July 15, 1994 ITEM • RICHARD RICHARDS (1914 -1988) THIRTY - EIGHTH FLOOR 3337 SOUTH HOPE STREET LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90071 -1469 (213) 026 -4484 FACSIMILE (213) 624 -0078 OF COUNSEL ^n.1n ^� - C'.�. WILLIAM K KRAMER Cf ACTION: 0501481 OUR FILE NUMBER C1380 -00999 Re: Wong v City of Carson, California Supreme Court Case No. S038593 To All California City Attorneys: The Legal Advocacy Committee of the League of California Cities has adopted a resolution urging Cities to join in an amicus brief in support of the City of Carson in this case. Donald Lincoln of Endeman, Turek, Lincoln and Heater will be drafting the amicus brief. I am writing to request that your City join in that brief. This case involves the test for determining 4WW�, -91� d4, h—the g 1, 51 granting of a land use permit �constitu e a i:ng. The Wongs claim that the conditions required by the City of Carson before they can close their mobilehome park so that it can be developed for commercial uses constitute a physical and a regulatory taking and violates substantive due process. Government Code §65863.7 mandates hearings when a park closes or changes its use and authorizes conditioning closure and conversion permits on relocation assistance, provided the conditions do not exceed the "reasonable costs of relocation". The trial court and court of appeal applied traditional tests applicable to regulatory taking claims which do not involve the dedication of land. They upheld the conditions required by Carson because they mitigated adverse impacts caused by the closure of the park, were reasonable and were based on substantial evidence concerning those impacts. Those courts also considered the benefit derived by the Wongs from the permit in considering the reasonableness of the conditions. Use of a different approach by the California Supreme Court would obviously have a state wide impact on cities. The Wongs argue RECEIVED asp JUL 2 0 04 City of Moorpark RICHARDS, WATSON & GERSHON July 15, 1994 Page 2 that the benefit they derive from the permit, the ability to develop a more profitable use, is irrelevant. Further, while the Wongs have not directly challenged the validity of Government Code §65863.7, they have argued that requiring relocation assistance violates substantive due process. They rely on a Washington State Supreme Court decision, Guimont v Clarke, which invalidated that State's statute requiring payments of $4000 to assist displaced mobilehome homeowners in relocating as a violation of substantive due process. The rationale stated for that ruling is that the need to relocate was caused by poverty ai•a lack of aff or?abl ho usir .r ra_hc_r than th^ closure of a mobilehome park. Under this reasoning, conditions for mitigating the traffic impacts of a development could easily be held unconstitutional on the ground that the traffic problem is caused by lack of infrastructure and lack of municipal funds. The amicus brief will focus on the constitutional issues and the judicial standard for determining the validity of regulatory conditions on land use permits. If you have questions concerning the case, please feel free to call me at the above - referenced phone number. If you have questions concerning the positions to be taken in the amicus brief, please call Mr. Lincoln at (619) 544 -0123. The Wongs filed their opening brief on July 11, 1994 and the City's brief is due August 10, 1994. No date has yet been set by the Court for the filing of the amicus brief, but that date will probably be shortly after the date the Carson's brief is due. I believe the taking and substantive due process issues involved in this case are important to all cities and I hope your City will decide to join in the amicus brief. There will be no cost to your City in doing so. You can indicate your City's authorization to join the amicus brief being prepared by Mr. Lincoln, by signing a copy of this letter in the place indicated below and returning it to me in the enclosed self - addressed envelope. RB:r 0501481 Very truly yours, Rochelle Browne