MADAIN

MADAIN v. City of Stanton

Good Law
111 Cal. Rptr. 3d 447·185 Cal. App. 4th 1277·2010 Cal. App. LEXIS 959
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaJune 23, 2010G042218California13,514 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Bedsworth, J.

Musa Madain appeals the denial of his petition for a writ of mandate challenging denial by the City of Stanton (the City) of his application for a permit to operate an adult-oriented cabaret. The City denied *1279 the application on the basis the location selected by Madain was within 300 feet of a planned church. Although Madain challenged the authenticity of the church itself in the proceedings below, he does not do so here. Instead, he argues two things: first, that a church which has merely applied for a permit to operate at a particular location, but whose application has not yet been meaningfully processed, does not qualify for protection as a “planned” church under the City’s “sensitive use” ordinance; and second, that the City failed to consider his contention he attempted to file his own permit application prior to the church’s application—which would have entitled him to priority under the City’s interpretation of its sensitive use ordinance—but was deterred in his effort by city employees.

We conclude the order denying the writ of mandate must be reversed, and the case remanded for further proceedings. City’s sensitive use ordinance is not a model of clarity,…

Concurring Opinion

Sills, J.

I agree with and have signed the majority opinion. I write separately, however, to point out the interesting problem in land use law on which this case ultimately centers:

First, over this past decade churches and congregations have increasingly chosen to hold services in industrial parks. A small body of case law, of *1291 which today’s opinion now becomes a part, has grown out of that trend. 1 A federal statute also looms over such efforts, the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000, often called RLUIPA. (42 U.S.C. § 2000cc et seq.)

Second, however, industrial parks also happen to be among the best places to locate adult businesses. (E.g., Gammoh v. City of Anaheim (1999) 73 Cal.App.4th 186, 189 [ 86 Cal.Rptr.2d 194 ] [“The plaintiff . . . leased property in an industrial section of Anaheim just off the Riverside Freeway .... In his reply brief he describes the area as a ‘God-forsaken industrial wasteland.’ ”]; see generally Renton v. Playtime Theatres, Inc. (1986) 475 U.S. 41, 47 [ 89 L.Ed.2d 29 , 106 S.Ct. 925 ] [emphasizing power of cities to use zoning rules to minimize “secondary effects” of adult businesses].)

Industrial parks are well suited for…

Opinion

Musa Madain appeals the denial of his petition for a writ of mandate challenging denial by the City of Stanton (the City) of his application for a permit to operate an adult-oriented cabaret. The City denied the application on the basis the location selected by Madain was within 300 feet of a planned church. Although Madain challenged the authenticity of the church itself in the proceedings below, he does not do so here. Instead, he argues two things: first, that a church which has merely applied for a permit to operate at a particular location, but whose application has not yet been meaningfully processed, does not qualify for protection as a "planned" church under the City's "sensitive use" ordinance; and second, that the City failed to consider his contention he attempted to file his own permit application prior to the church's application—which would have entitled him to priority under the City's interpretation of its sensitive use ordinance—but was deterred in his effort by city employees.

We conclude the order denying the writ of mandate must be reversed, and the case remanded for further proceedings. City's sensitive use ordinance is not a model of clarity,…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.