Item 6 Staff Report Authorize Amicus Participation in Harvest Church v. City of Concord, First District Court of Appeal, Action No. A-096604, at No cost to the TownMEETING DATE: 3/18/02
ITEM NO.
COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
DATE: March 14, 2002
TO: MAYOR AND TOWN COUNCIL
FROM: ORRY P. KORB, TOWN ATTORNEYCY'
SUBJECT: AUTHORIZE AMICUS PARTICIPATION IN HARVEST CHURCH v. CITY OF
CONCORD, FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL, ACTION NO. A-096604, AT NO
COST TO THE TOWN
RECOMMENDATION:
Authorize the Town Attorney to include the Town of Los Gatos as an amicus curiae in the case of
Harvest Church v. City of Concord, First District Court ofAppeal, action numberA-096604, at no cost
to the Town.
BACKGROUND:
The League of California Cities is urging cities to join an amicus curiae brief in the Harvest Church
case, which raises questions concerning the appropriate standard of review in the land use approval
process and cities' discretion to regulate the use of land in accordance with the general plan. The facts
of this case also mirror the manner in which the Town exercises its land use discretion, particularly
with regard to the rules and policies intended to protect the vitality of the Downtown area.
Harvest Church acquired property on the second floor of a shopping center in the City of Concord
intending to use it as a church facility. The first floor of the shopping center contains a number of
retail businesses. After purchasing the property, Harvest Church filed two unsuccessful applications
to use the space for its business operations, church services and other church uses. Another
application was filed, and denied, to use the space as a church events and conference center with
ancillary religious uses. In the Church's challenge to the City's decision, the trial court found that the
City abused its discretion in denying the application. The court further found that the administrative
record did not contain substantial evidence to support the City's findings, and also that the Church was
PREPARED BY: ORRY P. KORB, TOWN ATTORNEY OPK:LMB/wp N:1ATY\Harvest.AMI.TCR.wpd
Reviewed by: anager
Clerk
Finance Community Development
Rev: 3/14/02 1 :04 pm
Reformatted: 7/ 19/99
File# 301-05
PAGE 2
MAYOR AND TOWN COUNCIL
SUBJECT: AUTHORIZE AMICUS PARTICIPATION IN HARVEST CHURCH v. CITY OF
CONCORD, FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL, ACTION NO. A-096604,
AT NO COST TO THE TOWN
March 6, 2002
denied due process.
This case involves fundamental planning issues that effect all cities. The import of the decision is that
it will be more difficult for cities to make discretionary land use decisions under their own guiding
planning documents. In an effort to overturn the decision, the amicus brief will focus on three issues:
(1) that a city's general plan acts as a city's guiding planning document and land use decisions must
be consistent with the plan, (2) that the courts should use a more deferential standard in reviewing
administrative land use decisions, and (3) that it is inappropriate for the courts to rely on the comments
of individuals made during open discussion and in deliberation as evidence of legislative intent,
particularly where they conflict with the findings officially adopted in resolution of the decision
making body.
Attachments:
Distribution:
Tom Douvan, Esq. and Kara Ueda, Esq. letter dated February 24, 2002
Kara Ueda, Esq., McDonough, Holland & Allen, 555 Capitol Mall, 9`h Floor,
Sacramento, CA 95814-4692
McDonough, Holland & Allen
A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION
MEMORANDUM
RECEJV`L
TO: California City Attomeys L OS GA; uS rr
FROM: Tom Douvan and Kara Ueda
RE: Request to Cities to Join as Amicus in Harvest Church v. City of
Concord, No. A096604 (1st Dist.).
DATE: February 25, 2002
The Board of Directors of the League of California Cities is urging cities to
join an amicus curiae brief in Harvest Church v. City of Concord. This memorandum
details the background of the case and why the issues raised are of major
significance to cities.
Summary of the Facts and Issues Presented
This case involves the standard of review for a city's land use approval
process. Specifically, the case is about a city's discretion to regulate the use of a
major retail establishment in accordance with the city's general plan goals of
promoting and retaining retail businesses within the retail establishment.
Harvest Church acquired property on the second floor of a shopping center in
the City of Concord and intended to use it for church facilities. The first floor of
the shopping center contains a number of retail businesses.
After purchasing the property, Harvest Church filed two applications for
Zoning Administrator's Permits. Harvest desired to use the space for business
operations, church services and other church uses. Both of the applications were
denied. Then, Harvest submitted an application to use the space for an
events/conference center with ancillary religious use. The Planning Commission
rejected the project, and Harvest appealed to the City Council. The Council
denied the application and made eight findings. In addition to receiving
opposition from existing businesses at the shopping center, the City believed that
the Church's use would not be consistent with the retail center, would not
promote business uses and that parking would be inadequate. Therefore, the
project was found to be inconsistent with the General Plan and Redevelopment
Plan Policies favoring regional commercial uses at this location.
The trial court found that the City abused its discretion in denying the
application. The court found that the record did not contain substantial evidence
to support the City's findings. The court also found that the City denied the
church due process for not having standards in its code for the Planning
Public Law: —Non Client Folder: ATTORNEYS:UEDA:AMICUSBRIEF/HARVEST CHURCH
:ACHMENT 1
McDonough, Holland & Allen MEMORANDUM Page 2
Commission to follow while the code did contain standards for the Zoning
Administrator.
The amicus brief will focus on three issues:
(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.
(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 parking was not a problem, even though the adopted
council resolution concluded that parking 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.
Why This Case Merits City Attention
This case involves fundamental planning issues that affect all cities. This
decision, if allowed to stand, will make it more difficult for cities to make
discretionary land use decisions under their own guiding planning documents.
This case has the potential to result in a published appellate court ruling that
affects the degree of deference courts pay to cities in their land use decisions. By
focusing on the three issues stated above, we hope to highlight to the court the
importance of a city's general plan and its discretion in following its own
guiding planning document. Additionally, the decision has the potential to
undermine public debate if the appellate court accepts the use of legislators'
comments made as legislative intent, even if the ultimate vote or resolution is
different from the sentiments expressed during deliberations.
Form and Deadline for Joinder
The brief will be filed in Mid -April, 2002. Accordingly, if your city is
willing to join as an amicus party, please complete and return the enclosed
consent form by facsimile or first class mail as soon as possible. We would
appreciate receiving the authorization form by March 18, 2002.
Conclusion
If you need any further information, please do not hesitate to call or e-mail
either of us. Kara may be reached at (916) 444 3900 or Kueda@mhalaw.com.
Tom may be reached at (510) 273-8764 or Tdouvan@mhalaw.com. We look
forward to receiving your support.
2
Town Council Minutes March 18, 2002
Redevelopment Agency Los Gatos, California
ACCOUNTS PAYABLE/RATIFICATION/MARCH 2002 (04.V)
Motion by Mr. Glickman, seconded by Mrs. Decker, that Council ratify the accompanying check
registers for accounts payable invoices paid on March 1, 2002, and March 6, 2002 in the amount of
$2,407,442.97. Carried unanimously.
MINUTES OF MARCH 4, 2002 (05.V)
Motion by Mr. Glickman, seconded by Mrs. Decker, that Council approve the Minutes of March
4, 2002 Town Council/Redevelopment Agency Meeting as submitted. Carried unanimously.
AMICUS BRIEF/HARVEST CHURCH VS. CITY OF CONCORD (06.28)
Motion by Mr. Glickman, seconded by Mrs. Decker, that Council authorize the Town Attorney to
include the Town of Los Gatos as an amicus curiae in the case of Harvest Church vs. City of
Concord, First District Court of Appeal, action number A-096604, at no cost to the Town. Carried
unanimously.
MAIN STREET BRIDGE MURAL/CAROL HUBOI-WERRY/RESOLUTION 2002-26 (07.39)
Motion by Mr. Glickman, seconded by Mrs. Decker, that Council adopt Resolution 2002-26
entitled, RESOLUTION OF THE TOWN OF LOS GATOS AUTHORIZING THE TOWN
MANAGER TO EXECUTE AGREEMENT WITH CAROL HUBOI-WERRY FOR THE
MAIN STREET BRIDGE MURAL PROJECT. Carried unanimously.
COMMUNITY GARAGE SALE/SALVATION ARMY/RESOLUTION 2002-27 (08.39)
Motion by Mr. Glickman, seconded by Mrs. Decker, that Council adopt Resolution 2002-27
entitled, RESOLUTION OF THE TOWN OF LOS GATOS AUTHORIZING THE TOWN
MANAGER TO EXECUTE AN AGREEMENT FOR COLLECTION SERVICES WITH THE
SALAVATION ARMY. Carried unanimously.
NEIGHBORHOOD TRAFFIC CALMING POLICY (09.41)
Motion by Mr. Glickman, seconded by Mrs. Decker, that Council adopt Neighborhood Traffic
Calming Policy. Carried unanimously.
BLOSSOM HILL PARK/PARKING LOT/PROJECT 0212/RESOLUTION 2002-28 (10.24)
Motion by Mr. Glickman, seconded by Mrs. Decker, that Council adopt Resolution 2002-28
entitled, RESOLUTION OF THE TOWN OF LOS GATOS AWARDING A CONSTRUCTION
CONTRACT FOR PROJECT 0212 BLOSSOM HILL PARK PARKING LOT
RECONSTRUCTION. Carried unanimously.
TOWN SERVICE CENTER IMPROVEMENTS/PROJECT 0206/RESOLUTION 2002-29 (12.24)
Motion by Mr. Glickman, seconded by Mrs. Decker, that Council adopt Resolution 2002-29
entitled, RESOLUTION OF THE TOWN OF LOS GATOS AWARDING A CONSTRUCTION
CONTRACT FOR PROJECT 0206 TOWN SERVICE CENTER IMPROVEMENTS. Carried
unanimously.
TC D13:MM03I802 2