Agenda - Planning Commission - 10/04/2007

Home

September 15, 2007 I Volume 1 I No. 18 in court, arguing that the city had violated state and federal constiru- tional rights. "While the case was still pending, Congress passed the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (Act). The congregation amended its petition to add a claim under the Act; the lower court dismissed all of the congregation's claims except for this newly added claim. The city, concerned about the force of the new law and further litigation, settled with the congregation. Under the terms of the settlement, the congregation was allowed to . operate the synagogue "IN-ii:hout a conditional use permit, but it was sub- ject to several conditions. A neighborhood coalition sued the city over the settlement, arguing that it violated their right to due process by es- sentially granting a permit without holdii1.g the required public hearing. The trial court found in favor of the city, finding that: the settlement agreement had not created a conditional use permit, the privileges grant- ed to the congregation did not run with the land, and the privileges were created by contract against a threat of federal litigation-which made the city exempt from having to follow the standard procedures outlined in the zoning ordinances. The neighbors appealed, and the case was eventually heard by the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. Decision: Reversed. The 9th Circuit found that a federal settlement agreement could not "bea means for state officials to evade state law." In California, a duly enacted local ordinance had the same binding force as a state statute. Municipalities could not waive or consent to a violation of their zoning laws, which were enacted for the benefit of the public. fuJ.y such agreement that circumvented applicable zoning laws was in- valid and unenforceable. The lower court had determined that the settlement agreement was not a conditional use permit. Therefore, it reasoned, the procedures and st2-Tldards mandated by the city's ordinances never triggered. However, the 9th Circuit disagreed, finding that the lower court's analysis ignored the plain language of the city's code, which stated that all uses not ap- proved in the residential zone could not be permitted with om following the relevant procedures outlined in the code. The procedure for reviewitJ.g conditional use permit applications re- quired: an initial decision by the zoning administrator, public notice, and a public hearing. Furthermore, the decisionmaker had to i5sue a se- ries of factual findings before approving a conditional use. The question here was not whether the congregation had been granted the equivalent 3 49