Amicus Curiae Brief — Renton v. Playtime Theatres, Inc.

No. 84-1360 ”

In the Supreme Court Q£the can. vs

United States| *'*'*”

.

|

OCTOBER TERM, 1984 WAR B® 1989

DER L. STEVAS,

THE CITY OF RENTON, et al., ar

ppellants,

Vv

PLAYTIME THEATERS, INC., a Washington

corporation, ef al.,

Appellees.

ON APPEAL FROM THE JUDGMENT OF THE

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEAL FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

BRIEF OF AMICI CURIAE

CITY OF WHITTIER, CALIFORNIA

AND OTHER JOINING CALIFORNIA CITIES

IN SUPPORT OF APPELLANTS’ JURISDICTIONAL STATEMENT

GEORGE AGNOST K. DUANE LYDERS CARL K. NEWTON

City Attorney, City Attorney, City of Oxnard City Attorney, Cities of Downey

BURK E. DELVENTHAL SIDNEY MALECK and Manhattan Beach

Deputy City Attorney, City Attorney, City of El Monte ROBERT K. PARKIN

City of San Francisco FRANK R. MANZANO City Attorney, City of Long Beach

LELAND C. DOLLEY City Attorney, City of Glendale CHARLES R. REVLETT

City Attorney, Cities of Alhambra, DONALD F. MCLEAN City Attorney, City of Oceanside

El Segundo, and Lomita City Attorney, City of Lemon Grove WILLIAM B. RUDELL

RANDALL A. HAYS GLORIA F. MCLEAN City Attorney, City of Burbank

City Attorney, City of Redding City Attorney, City of Santee PETER M. THORSON

COLIN LENNARD GARY R. NETZER City Attorney, City of Azusa

City Attorney, Cities of Acting City Attorney, JOHN W. WITT

Camarillo and West Covina CLAUDE HILKER City Attorney, City of San Diego

Chief Assistant City Attorney,

City of Los Angeles

BEST, BEST & KRIEGER BURKE, WILLIAMS . RONALD M. STEIN

DALLAS HOLMES & SORENSEN City Attorney, City of Lodi

City Attorney, Cities of J. ROBERT FLANDRICK* 221 West Pine Street

Corona and Redlands City Attorney, Cities of Whittier, Lodi, California 95240

4200 Orange Street Baldwin Park, and Bell

Riverside, California 9250! 624 South Grand Avenue

lith Floor

Los Angeles, California 90017

Telephone: (213) 623-1900

Attorneys for Amici Curiae

*Counsel of Record

————_——————————e>=—=={={={xK[@[@eqec€_[{"{["na={[K[Tr—|]_"]_>]=_=—a>>T==x=[—yo—~>—>—>—>o=>>>>[—II—S-=-=l="l=_=_|=_[|=_[{={x{x{[S[==>—=—=

Westside Law Publishers Los Angeles, California (213) 477-0491 a

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

ai intididndessccheccideancccnesssotavanes li

ID i vvicvccccuccsecdscrvncdernewscnsesus l

Ie CN PE incsncciccdnicsscccrcccsgececnencevscsss 2

Introduction And Summary Of Argument.............. 5

Argument

This Honorable Court Should Undertake To

Review The Determination Of The Ninth

Circuit In Playtime Theaters, Inc. v. Renton

Because The Lower Federal Courts Have

Effectively Emasculated This Courts’ Decision

In Young v. American Mini Theatres .............. 6

5 ER RSP ROM gee slr Wt Dirk SRE SAPS Rae SOP ea NOD? 10

I I ei Sion ccla sts daenlghcckarece cea en acin Al

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

Cases Page

Alexander v. City of Minneapolis, 531 F.Supp.

1162 (D.Minn. 1982), aff'd, 698 F.2d 936 (8th

IRS ES SEC On 7

Arnel Development Co. v. City of Costa Mesa, 28

Cal.3d 511, 620 P.2d 565, 169 Cal.Rptr. 904

ee ic gncedvenencces 3

Avalon Cinema Corp. v. Thompson, 667 F.2d 659

TY 6

Basiardanes v. City of Galveston, 682 F.2d 1203

SET SEE I en 6

City of Whittier v. Walnut Properties, 149

Cal.App.3d 633, 197 Cal.Rptr. 127 (1983)......

AE idinesidasibubepruseetensatonicess 2, 4, 7

County of Sacramento v. Superior Court, 137

Cal.App.3d 448, 187 Cal.Rptr. 154 (1982)......

Dowd Box Co. v. Courtney, 368 U.S. 502 (1962)...... 8

E & B Enterprises v. City of University Park, 449

F.Supp. 695 (N.D.Tex. 1977)......................... 7

Ebel v. City of Corona, 698 F.2d 390 (9th Cir.

ee ak ciccadussnescinervececes 4,6

Ebel v. City of Corona, Nos. 84-5688, 85-5785 (9th

Cir. argument scheduled for Apr. 8, 1985) ........ 2

Ebel v. City of Garden Grove, 120 Cal.App.3d 399,

176 Cal.Rptr. 312 (1982)..........................e ee 7

Ensign Bickford Realty Corp. v. City Council, 68

Cal.App.3d 467, 137 Cal.Rptr. 304 (1977)......... 3

Entertainment Concepts, Inc. v. Maciejawski, 631

F.2d 497 (1980), cert. denied, 450 U.S. 919

EE ic hinauinkoestesdétetererssvscsses: 7

Fantasy Book Shop, Inc. v. City of Boston, 652

oo, cv evescpensuscosescncoscss 6

ill

Genusa v. City of Peoria, 619 F.2d 1203 (7th Cir.

RNS TE ee eo 6,8

Hill v. City of Manhattan Beach, 6 Cal.3d 279, 491

P.2d 369, 98 Cal.Rptr. 785 (1971) ................... 3

Keego Harbor v. City of Keego Harbor, 657 F.2d

seid ebiccedccdboakaicsetonene 6

Kuznich v. County of Santa Clara, 689 F.2d 1345

TERS SORES Oe ee ee nD 4, 6

Lydo Enterprises v. City of Las Vegas, 745 F.2d

SIE TSR ae 4

Northend Cinema, Inc. v. City of Seattle, 90

Wash.2d 709, 585 P.2d 1153 (1978), cert.

denied, 441 U.S. 946 (1979) ..................0 ccc eee. 5

Playtime Theaters, Inc. v. The City of Renton, 748

F.2d 527 (9th Cir. 1984)................... 2, 4, 6, 8, 9

Pringle v. The City of Covina, 115 Cal.App.3d 151,

Bee NEE, BPO CODED cc cccccccsccccscccssrcseevesces 7

Purple Onion, Inc. v. Jackson, 511 F.Supp. 1207

iS RA SRO a aN 7

Strand Properties Corp. v. Municipal Court, 148

Cal.App.3d 882, 200 Cal.Rptr. 47 (1983).......

CEN EAT | SOPRA ea 2,4, 7,8

Tovar v. Billmeyer, 721 F.2d 1260 (9th Cir. 1983),

cert. denied, _. U.S. ___, 105 S.Ct. 223, 83

EEE 4

United States v. O’Brien, 391 U.S. 367 (1968).......... 7

Village of Belle Terre v. Boraas, 416 U.S. |

Cee nc cedbienssinndderevccses 3

Walnut Properties v. City Council of the City of

Long Beach, 100 Cal.App.3d 1018, 161

Cal.Rptr. 411, cert. denied, 449 U.S. 836

a le inalalcteecines 2,4,7

Walnut Properties, Inc. v. City of Whittier, Nos.

84-5755, 84-6087 (9th Cir. argued Feb. 8,

es cas icinenpphyeescateesaes 2,4

iV

Walnut Properties v. Long Beach, No. 81-942-TJH

(C.D.Cal. 1981), affd., No. 81-5732 (9th Cir.

Warth v. Seldin, 422 U.S. 490 (1975) ..................... 3

Young v. American Mini Theatres, 427 U.S. 50

SPUD saci dicesinsacodes

ponkpomnaua ... 2, 4,5, 6, 8, 9, 10

Statutes and Rules

California Government Code

§§65300-65403 (Deering 1985)........ enon 4

§65850 (Deering 1985).............cc.cccccccceeeeeeeee. 3

§§65000-66403 (Deering 1985)................cc0006.- 3

Supreme Court Rule 36.4

No. 84-1360

In the Supreme Court of the

United States

OCTOBER TERM, 1984

THE CITY OF RENTON, et ai.,

Appellants,

v.

PLAYTIME THEATERS, INC., a Washington

corporation, ef al.,

Appellees.

BRIEF OF AMICi CURIAE

CITY OF WHITTIER, CALIFORNIA

AND OTHER JOINING CALIFORNIA CITIES

IN SUPPORT OF APPELLANTS’

JURISDICTIONAL STATEMENT

STATEMENT OF THE CASE

Amici curiae the City of Whittier et a/. adopt in full

the Statement of the Case made by Appellants, the City

of Renton, et al. (hereinafter “Renton”).

INTEREST OF THE AMICI

Amici curiae' are all cities located in the State of

California.2 Many of the 409 cities in California have

adopted and are enforcing zoning ordinances which

regulate the location of “adult” businesses as expressly

authorized by this Court in Young v. American Mini

Theatres, 427 U.S. 50 (1976), (hereinafter “Young”).3

Without action by this Court, the judgment of the Ninth

Circuit Court of Appeal in Playtime Theaters, Inc. v.

The City of Renton, 748 F.2d 527 (9th Cir. 1984) will

become a binding precedent emasculating the zoning

powers of these cities as described in Young, not only

as to adult theatres, but to all adult business.* Amici

submit that the judgment of the Ninth Circuit should

be reversed.

‘Appendix “A” hereto sets forth those California cities joining

in this Brief.

?Amici are represented by their respective authorized law officers

and as political subdivisions of the State of California are not

required to obtain consent of all parties for the filing of this Brief.

Sup.Ct.R. 36.4.

3See, e.g., City of Whittier v. Walnut Properties, 149 Cal.App.3d

633, 197 Cal.Rptr. 127 (1983); Strand Properties Corp. v. Municipal

Court, 148 Cal.App.3d 882, 200 Cal.Rptr. 47 (1983); County of

Sacramento v. Superior Court, 137 Cal.App.3d 448, 187 Cal.Rptr.

154 (1982); Walnut Properties v. City Council of the City of Long

Beach, 100 Cal.App.3d 1018, 161 Cal.Rptr. 411 (1980). At least

two Amici, the City of Whittier and City of Corona, are involved

in cases similar to the instant matter which are pending on appeal

in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeal. Oral argument in Walnut

Properties, Inc. v. City of Whittier, Nos. 84-5755 and 84-6087,

took place on February 8, 1985; oral argument is scheduled in

Ebel v. City of Corona, Nos. 84-5688 and 84-5785, for April 8,

1985.

*J. Robert Flandrick, counsel of record for Amici, is an officer

of the City Attorneys’ Division of the League of California Cities.

As such, he has been advised that a number of cases which involve

California cities presenting similar issues to those raised in this

appeal are pending in State and Federal courts in California.

Regulation by zoning is a legitimate and vital power

of municipalities in California. See, Cal. Gov't Code

§§65000-66403 (Deering 1985); Hill v. City of Manhattan

Beach, 6 Cal.3d 279, 285, 491 P.2d 369, 372-73, 98

Cal.Rptr. 785, 788-89 (1971).

As this Honorable Court has noted, the exercise of

reserved police powers by a city,

“is not confined to elimination of filth,

stench, and unhealthy places. It is ample to

lay out zones where family values, youth values,

and the blessings of quiet seclusion and clean

air make the area a sanctuary for people.”

Viliage of Belle Terre v. Boraas, 416 U.S. 1,

9 (1974).

This Honorable Court has long recognized that the

zoning power is essential to effective urban planning.

Although the exercise of such power is subject to judicial

review in a proper case, adoption of zoning regulations

is a legislative function. Dissatisfied citizens have the

availability of the normal democratic process to press

their objections to such legislative acts. Warth v. Seldin,

422 U.S. 490, 508 n.18 (1975).

In California, zoning is statutorily defined as a

legislative function. Cal. Gov’t Code §65850 (Deering

1985); Arnel Development Co. v. City of Costa Mesa,

28 Cal.3d 511, 516-22, 620 P.2d 565, 568-71, 169

Cal.Rptr. 904, 907-10 (1980). As such, when enacting

a zoning ordinance a legislative body is not required

to make findings of fact as would be the case in a quasi-

judicial activity. Ensign Bickford Realty Corp. v. City

Council, 68 Cal.App.3d 467, 473, 137 Cal.Rptr. 304,

307 (1977).

Orderly planning is vital to California cities. Each

such city is required by statute to prepare a complete

General Plan regulating future growth of the city. Cal.

Gov't Code §§65300-65403 (Deering 1985). The Renton

opinion and other Ninth Circuit decisions’ have

frustrated this statutory planning process and have

effectively thwarted orderly urban growth by eliminating

the power of cities to impose reasonable zoning

regulations on First Amendment activities.®

Like Renton, many of the Amici are smaller cities

located in or adjacent to large metropolitan areas. As

5See, e.g., Lydo Enterprises v. City of Las Vegas, 745 F.2d 1211

(9th Cir. 1984); Tovar v. Billmeyer, 721 F.2d 1260 (9th Cir. 1983);

Ebel v. City of Corona, 698 F.2d 390 (9th Cir. 1983); Kuznich

v. County of Santa Clara, 689 F.2d 1345 (9th Cir. 1982). California

courts, however, have upheld similar zoning ordinances regulating

adult businesses. See, City of Whittier v. Walnut Properties, 149

Cal.App.3d 633, 197 Cal.Rptr. 127 (1983); Strand Properties v.

Municipal Court, 148 Cal.App.3d 882, 200 Cal.Rptr. 47 (1983);

County of Sacramento v. Superior Court, 137 Cal.App.3d 448,

187 Cal.Rptr. 154 (1982); Walnut Properties v. City Council of

the City of Long Beach, 100 Cal.App.3d 1018, 161 Cal.Rptr. 411,

cert. denied, 449 U.S. 836 (1980).

While Amici assert that the disregard of lower Federal courts

of this Court’s decision in Young is the most important issue in

this case, a subordinate issue is raised by the Ninth Circuit’s refusal

to abstain or stay proceedings in this case pending resolution of

a pending state action concerning the constitutionality of Renton’s

ordinance. Renton, 748 F.2d at 532-33. Because there is concurrent

jurisdiction in this area, Federal courts are often faced with this

issue. In California, on many occasions Federal courts have declined

to stay subsequently filed Federal cases to allow California courts

to proceed to hear such matters. See, e.g., Walnut Properties v.

City of Whittier, Nos. 84-5755 and 84-6087 (9th Cir. argued Feb.

8, 1985); City of Whittier v. Walnut, 149 Cal.App.3d 633, 197

Cal.Rptr. 127 (1983); Walnut Properties v. City Council of the

City of Long Beach, 100 Cal.App.3d 1018, 161 Cal.Rptr. 411, cert.

denied, 449 U.S. 836 (1980); Walnut Properties v. Long Beach,

No. 81-942-TJH (C.D.Cal. 1981), aff'd., No. 81-5732 (9th Cir. 1982).

Guidance by this Court is appropriate and is required to avoid

the waste of judicial time and the undermining of judicial integrity

occasioned by such multiple lawsuits.

a result of the growth of the adult business industry,

together with the adoption of zoning ordinances

regulating adult businesses in larger cities, many adult

businesses are relocating in these smaller adjacent cities.

This has been the experience in Renton and of cities

in California.

The City of Seattle, located adjacent to Renton,

enacted zoning ordinances regulating adult theatres

which were unanimously upheld by the Washington

Supreme Court. Northend Cinema, Inc. v. City of

Seattle, 90 Wash.2d 709, 585 P.2d 1153 (1978), cert.

denied, 441 U.S. 945 (1979). It was after that Court’s

decision that Renton considered and enacted its

ordinance regulating adult theatres in a manner similar

to that adopted by Seattle.

Cities and towzs across California (as represented by

Amici) believe it necessary that this Court consider the

appeal by Renton in order to reaffirm this Court’s

decision in Young, and to correct the trend in the Ninth

Circuit and other Circuits to limit cities’ zoning power

to control adult businesses.

INFRODUCTION AND

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeal has held that

Renton’s adult business reguiations violate the First

Amendment because Renton failed to independently

establish a substantial governmental interest in such

regulation, and the passage of the ordinance effected

an unlawful suppression of constitutionally protected

speech.

This case is deserving of a fuil review of this Honorable

Court because Renton should be permitted to rely upon

the experience of other cities for the factual foundation

supporting its regulation of adult businesses. Use of a

common pool of knowledge and experience is a

customary and appropriate legislative practice for any

city to engage in.

ARGUMENT

THIS HONORABLE COURT SHOULD

UNDERTAKE TO REVIEW THE DETERMI-

NATION OF THE NINTH CIRCUIT IN PLA Y-

TIME THEATERS, INC. V. RENTON

BECAUSE THE LOWER FEDERAL COURTS

HAVE EFFECTIVELY EMASCULATED THIS

COURTS’ DECISION IN YOUNG V. AMERI-

CAN MINI THEATRES.

In Young, this Court upheld the City of Detroit’s

zoning ordinance which regulated the location of adult

theatres within the City. Justice Stewart, writing in

dissent, declared, “I can only interpret today’s decision

as an aberration.” Young, 427 U.S. at 87 (Stewart, J.,

dissenting). Nine years later, this prediction approaches

reality.

In the last nine years only one United States Court

of Appeal! decision has upheld an adult business zoning

ordinance.’ In most of these Federal cases the ordinances

in question were virtually identical to the ordinance

upheld by this Court in Young. Courts in the First,

Fifth, Sixth, Eighth and Ninth Circuits have

systematically invalidated such zoning enactments,* thus

7Genusa v. City of Peoria, 619 F.2d 1203 (7th Cir. 1980).

8Ebel v. City of Corona, 698 F.2d 390 (9th Cir. 1983); Kuznich

v. County of Santa Clara, 689 F.2d 1345 (9th Cir. 1982); Basiardanes

v. City of Galveston, 682 F.2d 1203 (Sth Cir. 1982); Avalon Cinema

Corp. v. Thompson, 667 F.2d 659 (8th Cir. 1981); Keego Harbor

v. City of Keego Harbor, 657 F.2d 94 (6th Cir. 1981); Fantasy

Book Shop, Inc. v. City of Boston, 652 F.2d 1115 (Ist Cir. 1981);

thwarting the good-faith efforts by cities and towns to

accommodate their zoning interest and the First

Amendment rights at issue. This history demonstrates

that this Court’s decision in Young has been totally

emasculated by lower Federal courts.

Where the “O’Brien” test? is met, California State

courts, on the other hand, have had little difficulty in

upholding Young type ordinances enacted by California

cities. !°

In County of Sacramento v. Superior Court, 137

Cal.App.3d 448, 187 Cal.Rptr. 154 (1982), the California

Court stated:

“(The plaintiff] Goldie asserts that the

identical ordinance must be tested anew each

time it is enacted by a different governmental

entity by establishing the actual existence of

locale conditions which would justify it.

Goldie’s thesis would deny to lawmakers in one

locale the benefit of the wisdom and experience

of lawmakers in another community, no matter

Entertainment Concepts, Inc. v. Maciejawski, 631 F.2d 497 (1980),

cert. denied, 450 U.S. 919 (1981); E&B Enterprises v. City of

University Park, 449 F.Supp. 695 (N.D. Tex. 1977); Alexander

v. City of Minneapolis, 531 F.Supp. 1162 (D.Minn. 1982), affd.,

698 F.2d 936 (8th Cir. 1983); Purple Onion, Inc. v. Jackson, 511

F.Supp. 1207 (N.D. Ga. 1981).

9United States v. O’Brien, 391 U.S. 367, 377 (1968).

City of Whittier v. Walnut Properties, 149 Cal.App.3d 683

(1983) 197 Cal.Rptr. 127; Strand Properties Corp. v. Municipal

Court, 148 Cal.App.3d 882, 200 Cal.Rptr. 47 (1983); County of

Sacramento v. Superior Court, 137 Cal.App.3d 448 (1982), 187

Cal.Rptr. 154; Pringle v. The City of Covina, 115 Cal.App.3d 151,

171 Cal.Rptr. 251 (1982); Ebel v. City of Garden Grove, 120

Cal.App.3d 399, 176 Cal.Rptr. 312 (1982); Walnut Properties, Inc.

v. City Council of the City of Long Beach, 100 Cal.App.3d 1018,

161 Cal.Rptr. 411, cert. denied, 449 U.S. 836 (1980).

how similar the circumstances; it would, as it

were, require the reinvention of the wheel

countless times over when mere access to

common knowledge would render the

considerable effort involved unnecessary. In

dealing with closed booths in picture arcades,

lawmakers need not blink the obvious [sic].

It cannot seriously be maintained that patrons

of Sacramento County adult picture arcades

do not to some degree sufficient to justify

governmental concern share the proclivities of

their counterparts in Los Angeles and Phoenix.

Reasonable anticipation of such problems is

itself sufficient to justify the official reaction

embodied in chapter 9.87 of the Sacramento

County Code.” /d. at 455, 187 Cal.Rptr. at 158-

59 (citation and footnote omitted).!!

One major error which has often occurred in Federal

court opinions purporting to follow the Young decision

was made by the Court of Appeal in the instant case.

Unlike the California and Seventh Circuit cases discussed

above, the Court of Appeal held that Renton could not

rely on the experience of other towns and cities to justify

its zoning regulation.'? The panel in Renton analyzed

the Young opinion as follows:

'\'\Accord, Strand Properties Corp. v. Municipal Court, 148

Cal.App.3d 880, 887, 200 Cal.Rptr. 47, 49 (1984); Genusa v. City

of Peoria, 619 F.2d 1203, 1211 (7th Cir. 1980).

'2It is respectfully submitted that this Honorable Court sh. uld

note probable jurisdiction in this case to resolve the conflict between

the Ninth Circuit’s decision in Renton and the cases cited in footnote

11, supra, and the text accompanying said footnote. As the Court

stated in Dowd Box Co. v. Courtney, 368 U.S. 502, 513 (1962),

“To resolve and accommodate such diversities and conflicts is one

of the traditional functions of this Court.”

“The plurality in Young found that the record

disclosed a factual basis for the council’s

determinations, 427 U.S. at 71, and Justice

Powell cited ‘reports and affidavits from

sociologists and urban planning experts, as well

as some layman.’ /d. at 81 n.4 (Powell, J.,

concurring).” Renton, 748 F.2d at 536.

The quoted language is incomplete; when read in full

it is clear that the record in Young disclosed that

witnesses testified concerning the problems of other

cities, which problems could be expected to occur in

Detroit absent regulation of adult business. !3

The Ninth Circuit’s requirement that each city must

make a full independent and repetitive investigation

denies to these cities the benefit of the experience of

others while imposing a wasteful expenditure of public

funds. Smaller towns and communities should not be

required to spend the enormous amount of time and

funds necessary to merely duplicate the research and

testimony of experts obtained in larger cities. Justice

Powell’s concurring opinion in Young expressly

recognized that the law does not require a city to wait

until its citizens suffer their own personal disaster before

adopting legislation to attempt to avert such disasters.

Moreover, so long as there is no substantial adverse

impact on the dissemination of adult film fare, cities

and towns must have leeway to fashion innovative

solutions to the problems that inevitably accompany the

''The complete sentence is: “That evidence consisted of reports

and affidavits from sociologists and urban planning experts, as

well as some laymen, on the cycle of decay that had been started

in areas of other cities, and that could be expected in D-iroit,

from the influx and concentration of such establishments.” Young,

427 U.S. at 81 n.4 (Powell, J., concurring) (emphasis added).

10

opening of adult theaters. This Court should therefore

accept jurisdiction in this matter to clarify this

misapplication of its decision in Young and to restate

the doctrine of judicial deference to legislative acts.

CONCLUSION

Based upon the foregoing, this Honorable Court

should undertake a full review of all the facts and issues

involved in the matter of the validity of Renton’s adult

business zoning regulations, not only for the purpose

of adjudicating the rights of the parties in that litigation,

but to restate the posture of zoning authorities, in

general, throughout the United States when confronted

with issues relating to First Amendment activities.

DATED: March 27, 1985

Respectfully submitted,

J. ROBERT FLANDRICK

City Attorney

Cities of Whittier, Baldwin Park, Bell; and

Burke, Williams & Sorensen

Attorneys for Amici Curiae

APPENDIX

APPENDIX “A”

All California Cities Joining in This Brief

Alhambra

Leland C. Dolley

Burke, Williams & Sorensen

624 South Grand Avenue, | Ith Floor

Los Angeles, California 90017

Azusa

Peter M. Thorson

Burke, Williams & Sorensen

624 South Grand Avenue, | Ith Floor

Los Angeles, California 90017

Baldwin Park

J. Robert Flandrick

Burke, Williams & Sorensen

624 South Grand Avenue, | 1th Floor

Los Angeles, California 90017

Bell

J. Robert Flandrick

Burke, Williams & Sorensen

624 South Grand Avenue, | 1th Floor

Los Angeles, California 90017

Burbank

William B. Rudell

275 East Olive Avenue

Burbank, California 91502

Camarillo

Colin Lennard

Burke, Williams & Sorensen

624 South Grand Avenue, | Ith Floor

Los Angeles, California 90017

Al

Corona

Dallas Holmes

Best, Best & Krieger

4200 Orange Street

Riverside, California 92501

Downey

Carl K. Newton

Burke, Williams & Sorensen

624 South Grand Avenue, 11th Floor

Los Angeles, California 90017

El Monte

Sidney Maleck

11333 Valley Boulevard

El Monte, California 91734

El Segundo

Leland C. Dolley

Burke, Williams & Sorensen

624 South Grand Avenue, | 1th Floor

Los Angeles, California 90017

Glendale

Frank R. Manzano

613 East Broadway

Glendale, California 91206

Lemon Grove

Donald F. McLean

3232 Main Street

Lemon Grove, California 92045

Lodi

Ronald M. Stein

221 West Pine Street

Lodi, California 95240

A2

Lomita

Leland C. Dolley

Burke, Williams & Sorensen

624 South Grand Avenue, I 1th Floor

Los Angeles, California 90017

Long Beach

Robert W. Parkin

333 Ocean Boulevard, 11th Floor

Long Beach, California 90802

Los Angeles

Gary R. Netzer, Acting City Attorney

Claude Hilker, Chief Assistant City Attorney

200 North Main Street, Room 1700

Los Angeles, California 90012

Manhattan Beach

Carl K. Newton

Burke, Williams & Sorensen

624 South Grand Avenue, | 1th Floor

Los Angeles, California 90017

Oceanside

Charles R. Revlett

321 North Nevada

Oceanside, California 92054

Oxnard

K. Duane Lyders

300 West Third Street

Oxnard, California 93030

Redding

Randall A. Hays

760 Parkview Avenue

Redding, California 96001

A3

Redlands

Dallas Holmes

Best, Best & Krieger

4200 Orange Street

Riverside, California 92501

San Diego

John W. Witt

202 C Street, 3rd Floor

San Diego, California 92101

San Francisco

George Agnost, City Attorney

Burk E. Delventhal, Deputy City Attorney

City Hall, Room 206

San Francisco, California 94102

Santee

Gloria F. McLean

10765 Woodside Avenue

Santee, California 92071

West Covina

Colin Lennard

Burke, Williams & Sorensen

624 South Grand Avenue, | 1th Floor

Los Angeles, California 90017

Whittier

J. Robert Flandrick

Burke, Williams & Sorensen

624 South Grand Avenue, | Ith Floor

Los Angeles, California 90017

A4

PROOF OF SERVICE BY MAIL

State of California

SS.

County of Los Angeles

I, the undersigned, say: I am and was at all times

herein mentioned, a citizen of the United States and

a resident of the County of Los Angeles, over the age

of eighteen (18) years and not a party to the within

action or proceeding; that my business address is 11333

lowa Avenue, Los Angeles, California 90025; that on

March 27, 1985 I served the within Brief of Amici Curiae

in said action or proceeding by depositing true copies

thereof, enclosed in a sealed envelope with postage

thereon fully prepaid, in the United States mail at Los

Angeles, California, addressed as follows:

Clerk, United States Supreme Court Jack R. Burns, Esq.

One First Street, N.W. 10940 N.E. 33rd Place

Washington, D.C. 20543 Suite 107

(Original and 40 copies) Belleview, Washington 98004

Hon. Kenneth O. Eikenberry E. Barrett Prettyman, Jr., Esq.

Attorney General Hogan & Hartson

Temple of Justice 815 Connecticut Avenue, N.W.

Olympia, Washington 98504 Washington, D.C. 20006

Robert Eugene Smith, Esq. Joyce Benjamin, Esq.

16133 Ventura Boulevard Academy for State & Loca!

Penthouse, Suite F Government

Encino, California 91436 444 N. Capitol Street, N.W.

Suite 349

Washington, D.C. 20001

I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing

is true and correct. Executed on March 27, 1985, at

Los Angeles, California.

Joy Rivelli Miller

(Original signed)