HomeMy WebLinkAboutAGENDA REPORT 1995 0517 CC REG ITEM 08FGIU!!NN R. WAT80N
ROSERTGI. l!IEVERLY
HARRY L GERSHON
COUCilLAS W, ARGUE
MARK L LAMKEN
ARNOLD SIMON
ERWIN I!!. ADLER
CAROLD C. PIEPl!!R
ALU!N I!. Rl!!NNl!"IT
en!Vl!!N L C>ORSl!Y
WILLIAM L ..,._usz
ROeERT M. OOLCP'RleD
ANTI-IONY l!I. DREWRY
MITCHELL I!!. <!ll!ll!IOTT
TIMOTHY L N!ruFl!!LO
ROeERT fl'. OE METER
GIREQORY W. STEPANICICH
ROCHELL.I!!!! BROWNI!!
OONALC STERN
MICHAl!!L JENIQNe
WILLIAM l!I. R\Jcm.L
DAVID L COHEN
0UINNM.l!IARAOW
CAROLW. LYNCH
COLl!!MAN J. WALl!IH, JR.
JEl'FREY A. RAl!IIN
GREGORY M. KUNERT_
THOMAS M. JIMl90
MICHELI!!: BEAL IIAQNERIS
AMANDA ... suesKJND
"ROl!ll!!RT C. Cl!!CCON
BAYRI! WEAVER
en!Vl!!N H. KAUl"MANN
GIARYl!.caANe
JOHN J. HARRIS
KEVIN ca. l!NNIS
ROl!IIN C. HARRIS
MICHAl!!L ~
LAURl!!NCI!! l!I. Wll!!NER
ST!!V!!NR.Of'IR
Cl!!l!IORAH R. HAl<MAN
SCOTT t<. l!IHINTANI
MICHAl!!L GI. COLANTUONO
TERRY P. KAUFMANN MACIAS
l!I. TILDEN IQM
RU!!IIN D. WEINER
SASKIA T; ABAMURA
DAVJC M. Pl'L.EISHMAN
KAYSl!R O. DUME
CRAIG A. STl!!l!!LE
T. Pl!TER PflERCI!!
AUl!ION I!!. MAKER
l!ll!!NJAMIN l!IARNOUW
TERENCE R. 1!10GA
COlKlll.Al!I A. CARLEN
DANIELL PINY
U8A M. l!IONC
WINNIE TSIEN
JTEM ,. F.
RICHARDS, WATSON & GERSHON
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION
May 2, 1995
''~JORPARK, CAUFORNIA
c::y Cou~I . ee!ing
Gf .'.__~(LZ_ 199_.>
,:,cT!ON: '(byt,-UJ •
Spt/fe1_,5-
California City<A.ttorney
7/:,i., 3[3) ·
-.... RECE\\JEO --
M"'f 3 1995
City of \\I\OOrt)ark
RICHARD R1CHAAOS
(1918-1988)
THIRTY-EIQHTH FLOOR
333 SOUTH HOPE STREET
LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA II0071•1489
(213)1128-84&4
FACSIMILE (213) "26-0078
01" COUNSEL
Wll.UAM K KRAMER
1912788
OUR FILE NUMBER
99904-00191
WRITcR'S OIRECT DIAL NUMBER
(213) 253-0207
Re: Harris v. County of Madera, Fifth District court
of Appeal, Case No. F020495 --Request for Amicus
Support
Fellow.City Attorney:
·.With the· support of the Legal Advocacy Committee of the
League of California Cities, I write to urge you to lend your
City's name to a letter ·brief I am preparing on behalf of
interested cities in support of the County of Madera in this
housing element case. The appeal is to be argued June 13. 1995.
so please fax or mail the enclosed form as soon as possible.
Affordable housing advocates represented by the Housing
Element Enforcement Project of the Legal Aid Society of Alameda
County sued Madera county to compel it to update the housing
element of its general plan. The County contended that it had no
duty to update its housing element because the Legislature had
suspended the mandate by failing to budget the sum necessary to
reimburse local government for the cost of complying with this
mandated state program. The trial court rejected this argument,
thus concluding that, despite Article XIII B, § 6 of the
California Constitution, the Legislature can impose a new program
on local governments without reimbursing the costs of
implementing that program.
This case raises important questions regarding housing
element law, the power afforded to the Department of Housing and
Community Development (HCD), the existence of any duty to update
housing elements despite the mandate suspension, and the broader
issue of the Legislature's power to impose new programs on local
government without adequately funding the implementation of those
programs.
0,, ~ (jf,4 1)
oooso
RICHARDS, WATSON & GERSHON
California City Attorney
May 2, 1995
Page 2
The County of Santa Cruz has filed an amicus brief onbehalfof9countiesandtheCountySupervisorsAssociationofCalifornia. I will prepare a very short letter brief joining intheSantaCruzbriefonbehalfofalltheCaliforniacitiesandtownswhichauthorizemetodoso. The Santa Cruz brief makesthefollowingpoints:
Cities and counties have no present duty to revisetheirhousingelementsbecausetheLegislaturehas
expressly declined to fund compliance with that mandateandGoveri)menit Code S 17581(x) "suspends" any mandatewhichtheLegislaturedeclinestofund.
Any waiver of reimbursement by the County as a
condition for receiving state monies for indigenthealthcaredidnotreinstatethesuspendedhousingelementmandate.
The trial court's ruling that the County's "waiver"
effectively re- instated the mandate violated ArticleXIIIB, § 6.
A blanket waiver of all rights under Article XIII B, S 6 would violate public policy.
The trial court erred in ruling that the City's updatedhousingelementwouldnotbedeemedsufficientunlesscertifiedbytheStateDepartmentofHousingandCommunityDevelopmentdespitetheprovisionsoftheHousingElementStatutewhichprovidethatHCD's roleispurelyadvisory,
Further information regarding the significance of theHarriscaseappearsinapaperIpresentedonthestatusofhousingelementlawattheOctobermeetingoftheCityAttorney'sDepartment. If you have other questions, please feel free tocallmeatthenumberabove.
I urge you to lend your city's name to this case. Ofcourse, it will incur no expense in doing so.
MGC:mgc
1912788
cc: JoAnne Speers, Esq.
Very truly yours,
Mit ael G. o antuono
y Attorney
ty of Cudahy
00051
To: Michael G. Colantuono, Esq.
Richards, Watson & Gershon
38th Floor
333 South Hope Street
Los Angeles, California 9007'1 - 1469
Telecopier: (213) 626 -0078
Re: Harris v. Coun y of MadQra, Fifth District CourtofAppeal, Case No. F020495 -- Request for AmicusSupport
Dear Mr. Colantuono:
Please name the City /Town of intheletterbriefjoiningtheamicusbriefoftheCountyofSantaCruzinthiscase.
Signature) (Date)
Name)
Title)
City /Town)
Address)
City /State /Zip)
Telephone Number)
0052