Laserfiche WebLink
III California Constitutions. Murcia v.. municipal Court for <br /> 2 Bakersfield Judicial Dist. (1975) 15 Cal. 3d 286; Serrano v. <br /> 3 Priest (1976) 18 Cal. 3d 728; Hinman v. Dept. of Personnel Admin. <br /> 4 (1985) 167 Cal. App. 3d 516. Moreover, if the agency's conduct <br /> 511 deprives a person of a fundamental property right, the agency's <br /> 6 conduct will be subjected to strict constitutional scrutiny, any <br /> 7 presumption on behalf of the agency is abandoned and the agency <br /> 8 bears the burden of proving that the unequal treatment serves a <br /> 9 compelling state interest and that there are no other reasonable, <br /> 10 less intrusive means to serve the state's interest. Trimble v. <br /> 11 Gordon (1977) 430 U.S. 762, 766-767; Choudhry v. Free (1976) 17 <br /> 12 Cal. 3d 660, 664. <br /> 13 In this case, the Health Department's order seeks to <br /> 14 deprive the Petitioner of a fundamental interest - the free use <br /> 15 and enjoyment of its property by requiring installation of three <br /> 16 monitoring wells at substantial cost to Petitioner. Henry <br /> 17 Handler v. United States (1991) 952 F.2d 1364. In addition, the <br /> 18 Health Department's refusal to grant Petitioner's request for <br /> 19 case closure deprives Petitioner of other valuable property <br /> 20 rights -- financability and alienability of its property. <br /> 21 Since the Health Department is implementing a state <br /> 22 program, rather than local ordinance, its acts must be contrasted <br /> 23 not only with similar agency determinations in the San Joaquin <br /> 24 County, but also against similar local agency determinations with <br /> 25 respect to UST clean-ups across the state. In this light, there <br /> 26 is no question that the Health Department's action unfairly and <br /> 27 intentionally discriminates against Petitioner. <br /> 28 <br /> -12- H\VMC\COLORSPT\APPEAL.PL4(5P2) <br />