Laserfiche WebLink
Item #10 <br />CITY OF COLTON <br />AGENDA REPORT <br />FOR COUNCIL MEETING OF April 2, 2002 <br />TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council <br />APPROVAL: Daryl Parrish, City Manager <br />FROM: City Attorney <br />SUBJECT: Request for Amicus Curiae Support in Harvest Church v. City of <br />Concord <br />DATE: March 19, 2002 <br />BACKGROUND: <br />From time to time, public agencies seek the City's support as an amicus curiae (a friend <br />of the court). There is no cost to the City to participate as an amicus curiae.The City <br />of Concord is requesting support for their amicus brief regarding this case which involves <br />planning issues that profoundly affect all public agencies in California. <br />DISCUSSION/ANALYSIS: <br />Harvest Church acquired property in a retail shopping center in the City of Concord, <br />intending to use it for church facilities. The church submitted two applications for Zoning <br />Administrator's Permits, which were denied by the City. The church then submitted an <br />application to use the space for an events/conference center with ancillary religious uses. <br />The project was denied by the Planning Commission and the denial was upheld by the City <br />Council on appeal. The City Council also made eight findings that the project would be <br />inconsistent with the General Plan and Redevelopment Plan Policies favoring regional <br />commercial uses at the subject location. The trial court ruled that the City abused its <br />discretion in denying the application. The trial court also found fault with the City for not <br />making its General Plan consistent with its zoning. Also, the court treated comments by <br />individual councilmembers during the City Council meeting as evidence of legislative <br />intent. The City has appealed this case to the California First District Court of Appeal. <br />If the trial court decision is allowed to stand, cities' discretion to make land use decisions <br />using their own guiding planning documents will be severely limited. In addition, the trial <br />court decision, if upheld by the appellate court, could weaken public debate if legislators' <br />RVPUf NGS'629169 <br />