The California Court of Appeal has held in favor of the owner of a potential strip club in his lawsuit against the City of Stanton’s City Council regarding the denial of his permit application. The court found that the City, during an adjudicatory hearing, failed to consider whether an employee prevented the timely filing of the permit application. The case, Madain v. City of Stanton,[1] provides helpful guidelines for those public bodies that engage in fact-finding proceedings and enforce sensitive-use zoning laws.
At issue in the case was a decision by the City of Stanton to deny a permit to a business owner, Madain, to operate a strip club. The City denied the permit on the grounds that the proposed use was within 300 feet of a planned church. Madain, however, contended that he had attempted to file his permit application prior to the church but had been deterred by a City employee from properly filing. Madain alleged that on December 2, 2008, he attempted to file both a business license application and tenant improvement plans. At the time, however, the City employee would only accept the tenant improvement plans. Two weeks later, the plans were denied on the grounds that the application lacked the license application. During the same two week period, a church applied for a permit in a building adjacent to the potential strip club. Before Madain could file a new application, the City approved the plans for the church. When Madain submitted a new application, it was denied on the grounds that the City’s zoning code prohibited adult-oriented businesses within 300 feet of a religious institution.[2]
Madain appealed the City’s decision to the City Council. After conducting an adjudicatory hearing, the City Council upheld the staff’s decision, finding that Madain’s permit application was properly denied.
Next, Madain sought relief in Superior Court, alleging that the City Council had erroneously failed to consider the fact that he had been deterred by a City employee when he first attempted to file his application. In fact, Madain presented evidence that the City employee had contacted the church on December 3, 2008, the day after Madain attempted to submit his applications, to encourage the church to file its own application. The trial court, however, ruled in favor of the City.
On appeal, the California Court of Appeal reversed, finding that the City improperly ignored the important issue of whether a City employee prevented Madain from properly filing his application before the church’s application. The Court of Appeal found that it was an abuse of discretion for the City Council to not consider Madain’s evidence that he had attempted to properly file his application on December 2, 2008, but that a City employee attempted to prevent him from doing so.
The Court of Appeal’s decision in this case provides the following helpful guidelines for how cities approve permits and hear appeals:
Alvarez-Glasman & Colvin serves as legal counsel to municipal agencies throughout California and is at the forefront of a wide variety of legal issues facing cities and local governments. Please contact Associate Anthony Marinaccio at anthony@agclawfirm.com or (562) 699-5500 for more information regarding this case or other municipal law issues.
[1] No. G042218 (Cal. Ct. App. June 23, 2010).
[2] Stanton Municipal Code § 20.38.024 (2010).
