2002 AGN APR 02 I10 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

McDonough, Holland & Allen REGE' ` V APPOFESSIOWLLOnPO TM MEMORANDUM MAR 0 5 2002 BES I dw I & "r-iuER TO: California City Attorneys 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:AMICUSBRIEFIHARVEST CHURCH