HomeMy WebLinkAbout32-City Attorney CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO -REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
From: JAMES F. PENMAN Subject: Authorization to join amicus curiae brief in the case
of Harvest Church v. City of Concord
Dept: CITY ATTORNEY ~ "
Date: Mazch 6, 2002
Synopsis of Previous Council action:
None.
Recommended motion:
That the Mayor and Common Council authorize the City Attorney to join in the amicus curiae brief
in the case of Harvest Church v. City of Concord
Signature
Contact person: Robert L. Simmons Phone: 5355
Supporting data attached: Staff Re~rt Wazd: All
FUNDING REQUIREMENTS: Amount: None
Source:
Finance:
Council Notes:
Agenda Item No.
~
311~~ Da'
STAFF REPORT
Council Meeting Date: March 18.2002
TO: Mayor and Common Council
FROM: James F. Penman, City Attorney
DATE: March 11, 2002
AGENDA ITEM: Authorization to join amicus brief in the case of Harvest Church v. City
of Concord
The City has been asked by the City of Concord and the legal advocacy committee of the
League of California Cities to provide amicus support to a brief being filed on behalf of the City of
Concord. Harvest Church acquired property on the second floor of a shopping center intending to
use it for church facilities. The fast floor of the shopping center contained several retail businesses.
After purchase of the property, Harvest Church applied for two permits: business operations
and church service and other church uses. Both applications were denied. The denial was based on
opposition from existing businesses, church use was inconsistent with the retail center and parking
was inadequate. The project was therefore inconsistent with the General Plan and the
Redevelopment Plan favoring regional commercial uses at the site.
The trial court found in favor of the church saying the City abused its discretion and denied
the church due process due to lack of standazds for the Planning Commission to follow.
These issues will be raised in the amicus brief:
(a) The trial court found fault with the City for not making its general plan consistent
with its zoning . The brief will emphasize that a city's general plan acts as a city's
guiding planning document, and zoning must be consistent with the general plan, not
the other way around.
(b) Courts in cases like this one should use the "no reasonable person" or "deferential"
standard. This means that normally the court defers to the local legislative body
unless no reasonable person would agree with the legislative body's findings.
(c) The court treated comments made by individual councilmembers during the council
meeting as evidence of legislative intent. Specifically, the court relied on comments
by three councilmembers to the effect that pazking was not a problem, even though
the adopted council resolution concluded that pazking was inadequate. Relying on
comments individuals make during open discussion and deliberation of an issue
ignores the reality that legislators often gather more information and change their
minds.
The City Attorney recommends the City of San Bernazdino join in the amicus curiae brief.
There is no charge to the City of San Bemazdino for joinder in this brief.