In The League of Residential Neighborhood Advocates v. City of Los Angeles, (— F.3d —, 2007 WL 2363720, C.A.9 (Cal.), Aug. 21, 2007)), the United States Court of Appeals considered whether a city could enter into a settlement agreement with a congregation that sought to operate a synagogue in an area zoned solely for residential use without providing notice and a hearing to the affected community. The Court of Appeals held that the settlement agreement was invalid and unenforceable because it circumvented applicable zoning laws.
Facts
An Orthodox Jewish congregation, Congregation Etz Chaim (“Congregation”), submitted an application to the City of Los Angeles (“City”) for a conditional use permit to operate a synagogue in an area designated as an “R1” residential zone. City’s municipal code primarily limits the use of buildings and structures in such a zone to one and two family dwellings. Churches and houses of worship are among the conditional uses for the zone that require approval from the City. City denied the application, an action which the Board of Zoning Appeals and the City Council later upheld. The Congregation filed a lawsuit in federal court alleging that City’s denial violated both its state and federal constitutional rights. Congress passed the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act while the lawsuit was pending. City, concerned about the affect of this new federal law on the lawsuit, decided to enter into a settlement agreement with Congregation to allow the operation of the synagogue subject to certain conditions.
The League of Residential Neighborhood Advocates (“League”) filed a lawsuit against City and the Congregation in federal court alleging that local zoning ordinances denied the Council the authority to enter into the agreement with the Congregation. The federal district court granted judgment in favor of City and the Congregation.
Decision
“A settlement agreement cannot override state law absent a specific determination that federal law has or will be violated.” There was no such determination in this case and, therefore, the Court of Appeals held that the settlement agreement between City and the Congregation is invalid and unenforceable under both federal and state law.
A consent decree or settlement agreement in a federal lawsuit cannot be used as a means for state officials to evade state law. City’s municipal code does not allow for churches and houses of worship to be located in areas zoned for residential use unless a conditional use permit is acquired. Before the approval of a conditional use permit, a zoning administrator must review it and give the public notice of the application and an opportunity to be heard. “Municipalities may not waive or consent to a violation of their zoning laws, which are enacted for the benefit of the public.” The League asserted that the settlement agreement between City and the Congregation is void because it granted the Congregation use permission without going through the statutorily required process. The court agreed with the League finding that, before the City could allow the Congregation to operate the synagogue in the area zoned for residential use, the City was required to comply with the procedural formalities set out in the ordinance.
The settlement agreement is invalid based on two principles of California law. First, land use regulations such as the one at issue here “involve the exercise of the state’s police power, and it is settled that the government may not contract away its right to exercise the police power in the future.” Second, variances from standard zoning require administrative proceedings, including public hearings on proposed variances. The court concluded that the settlement agreement violated both of these principles because City bargained away its right to exercise its police power over the property as long as the Congregation is in existence and City circumvented its municipal code when it entered into the agreement.
City may not have been required to comply with its zoning ordinances if federal law had been violated or if compliance with such ordinances would result in such a violation. The district court authorized City to disregard the zoning ordinances in the name of the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act. However, judicial action such as that taken by the district court “is authorized only when the federal law in question mandates the remedy contained in the settlement.” Here, the district court only found a potential violation of federal law. The court held, “Before approving any settlement agreement that authorizes a state or municipal entity to disregard its own statutes in the name of federal law, a district court must find that there has been or will be an actual violation of federal law.” Because the district court did not find an actual violation, it could not authorize the settlement agreement.