|
Communities want to avoid borrowing
<br />landscape ordinance provisions carte
<br />b[anche from otherpiaces. Rather, planners
<br />shou(d first determine what works tocady.
<br />Only then should provisions from elsewhere
<br />be used.
<br /> The landscaping ordinances featured in
<br />this article are available to Zoning Practice
<br />subscribers by contacting Michael Oavidson,
<br />Editor, Zoning Practice, American Planning
<br />Association, Yz2 South Michigan Avenue,
<br />Suite [6po, Chicago. IL 60603. or send an e-
<br />marl to mdavidsonOplanning,or§. ;;
<br />
<br /> NEWS BRIEFS
<br />COURT FAVORS CITY IN RI. LIIPA D£CI$10N
<br />By Lorn Lucero, AICP
<br />
<br />Do religious institutions need to submit com-
<br />plate applications to the city when requesting
<br />approval ora rezoning? When ail ,,vas said
<br />and. done, that was the issue the Ninth Circuit
<br />Court of Appeals was addressing in San ipso
<br />Christian College v. City of Morgan Hill, (36o
<br />F,3d tozq (9th Cir, 2004).
<br />
<br /> On March 8th, the court ruled in the
<br />city's favor, concluding that the city's denial of
<br />the rezoning application did not deprive the
<br />applicant of its First Amendment right to the
<br />free exercise of re(iD[on; and the city did not
<br />violate RLUIPA (Religious Land Use and
<br />Institutionalized Persons Act (~.z U.S.C.
<br />§§ 2ooocc- ~.ooocc.5)). Furthermore, the city
<br />correctly applied the California Environmental
<br />Quality Act (CEQ~,) to the proiect.
<br />
<br /> San lose Christian College found prop-
<br />erW in Morgan Hill, California, previously
<br />zoned for a hospital but seemed ideally suited
<br />for a campus. Since the original PUD develop-
<br />men[ plan was directed solely at the hospital
<br />use, the college fi[ed an application [o change
<br />the allowable uses within the PUD to accom-
<br />modate anticipated "new uses such as out-
<br />door sports fields, a §ymnasium, a
<br />theater/chapel, and student resident hall(s)."
<br />The college indicated it expected to grow to
<br />around t,~oo students within the next 20
<br />years, but the current enroilmen£ ,Nou[d be
<br />limited to 400.
<br />I-i~e city informed the col[e§e that its
<br />application was incomplete because it did
<br />
<br />not provide sufficient information on the site
<br />plan. The city also wanted information
<br />about the use of the property, including:
<br />"the number and hours for its proposed
<br />evening sporting events as well as any large
<br />events, and whether these events would
<br />overlap with peak classroom use; whether
<br />the 3oo-~+oo people anticipated for Sunday
<br />service in the gym would include the stu-
<br />dents residing on.site, or reflected people
<br />coming in from off-site; proposed expan-
<br />sions; the location and detail of the lighting
<br />proposed for the future outdoor sports field
<br />and the number of bleachers; and how many
<br />seats would the proposed theater/chapel
<br />contain--5oo or [,Soo."
<br /> The college blanched at More'an Hill's
<br />request and decided to scale back [ts version
<br />of an initial application, eliminating any men-
<br />tion of the ~/mnasium, outdoor sports [Told,
<br />field house, and chapet/theater uses. It also
<br />revised [ts environmental initial study, indicat-
<br />ing it only intended to enroll a maximum of
<br />4oo students, rather than the ~,2oo students
<br />it initially mentioned. Meanwhile, the promo-
<br />tional materials the cotIege circulated indi-
<br />cated that there was "adequate space for
<br />playing fields and future expansions" and the
<br />property "would allow the colle§e to at least
<br />quadruple its current size of about 4.0o stu-
<br />dents.'' The city denied the rezoning applica-
<br />tion because the co[le§e failed to compt, y with
<br />application requirements.
<br />
<br /> The college filed a complaint including
<br />constitutional and RLUIPA claims, but the
<br />district court granted summary judg'ment in
<br />favor of Morgan Hill. On appeal, the college
<br />argued that the district courtmade a mis-
<br />take--actually several mistakes--but the
<br />Court of Appeals disagreed. First, the
<br />
<br />Morgan Hill PUD
<br />cate free speech
<br />tra[ "time, place,
<br />
<br />ordinance does not impli-
<br />because it is a content-neu-
<br />and manner" restriction.
<br />
<br />[City of Renton v. Playtime Theatres, Inc., 475
<br />U.S. 4z (z986)]. And the city's denial does
<br />not equate to a denial of the right to assem-
<br />ble even ~hough the church's congre§ants
<br />cannot assemble at that precise location.
<br />Second, the city did not violate RLUIPA,
<br />because RLUIPA requires that the land-use
<br />re§u ation impose a "substantial burden" on
<br />the right of free exercise--meaning the regu-
<br />lation must be "oppressive" to a "signifi-
<br />
<br />cant[y great" extent. The Court concluded
<br />that the PUD ordinance imposed no restric-
<br />tion whatsoever on the college's free exer-
<br />cise; it mere(y required the collage to.submit
<br />a complete application. Finally, the city
<br />acted in accordance with CEQA requirements
<br />when it concluded that the coile§e failed to
<br />.consider the potential impacts of the fore-
<br />seeable future development.
<br />
<br /> ]'he Amicus Curiae Committee of the
<br />American Planning Association flied an ami-
<br />cus brief in support of Morgan Hill's position,
<br />which can be found at ,~-,¥w.pianning'.org/
<br />am, icusbriefsj. The decision of the Court of
<br />Appeals can be reviewed at
<br />http:/ / case!aw.[p.fiodlaw.;~am/ data:/
<br />drcs/pth/o~S693p.pdf
<br />Lorn A. Lucero, AICP, iS an ~torney w~th a
<br />private land-use consulting practice in
<br />Albuquerque, New Mexico. She is the project
<br />director for the Albuquerque Alliance
<br />Active Living.
<br />
<br />Zonmg Practice/formerly Zoning ~Vews) is a monthly
<br />publicatio, of the American Plannin~ Association.
<br />Subscriptions are available for S65 (U.5.) and Spo (for-
<br />~i~n). ,~L 9auI Farmer. AiC?, ~zecuLive Director; William
<br />,de[il, AIC~, Director g~ ]~esea~ch,
<br />
<br />Zvmng a~,t~c'~ (ISSN :C~-o])sJ is produced .~[ APA. ~im
<br />~CIIWaD, .AICP..~lld Micna~[ Davidson, Editors; 8arrv Bain,
<br />~iC9. Fay gnimo, k,sli [~waros, Samay J~ef, AICP.
<br />
<br />_~Wl~. AiCP, Matra Moms. AICR Re,ecoa Re[zlaff. AICP, Lynn
<br />M. ~obs. ;~eD,Jf[e[c: Kan~iee~ OklnSFelci, Assistant ~di[ol; Lisa
<br />
<br />'~OUyd~n( '020o4 by AinerJcall Planning Association,
<br />
<br />Mi(hi,an .~ve.. ~lJJ[e :6UO. Chi,:ago, iL b-po3. Fhe
<br />
<br />ZONING ;-:';: -,:T:::Z o4.o~
<br />AMERICAN PLANNING ASSOCIATION I pag¥,.~
<br />
<br />
<br />
|