DocketNumber： 100,997
Citation Numbers： 222 P.3d 535, 43 Kan. App. 2d 182, 2010 Kan. App. LEXIS 8
Judges： Rulon, Greene, McAnany
Filed Date： 1/22/2010
Status： Precedential
Modified Date： 10/19/2024
This appeal centers on a contentious plan by Grace Episcopal Cathedral (Cathedral) in Topeka and The Episcopal Diocese of Kansas, Inc. (collectively the Church), to construct a parking lot on a portion of Bethany Place, a tract of ground on which the Cathedral and two other buildings are located. These two other buildings and the surrounding grounds of Bethany Place (but not the Cathedral itself) are listed on the Register of Historic Kansas Places. The State Historical Preservation Officer (SHPO) opposed the project.
The matter came before the Topeka City Council (Council) on the Church’s application for a permit for the project. On the day before the hearing on the Church’s application, a group of individuals formed Friends of Bethany Place, Inc. (FOB), in order to oppose the project. Following testimony from numerous proponents and opponents, the Council voted 9-0 in favor of the Church’s appHcation.
FOB appealed to the district court. The district court set aside the Council’s approval of the project, finding the Council’s decision was arbitrary, capricious, and unreasonable. The City of Topeka (City) and the Church have now appealed the district court’s de
1. Does FOB have standing in these proceedings?
Yes. Applying statutory and traditional standards for standing, FOB is entitled to seek judicial review of the Council’s approval of the Church’s permit application.
2. Did the district court erroneously reweigh the evidence before the Council, evidence which (according to the Church and the City) provided substantial support for the Council’s decision to grant the permit?
Yes. The district court went beyond the record and reweighed the evidence before the Council in finding what it considered to be feasible and prudent alternatives to the Church’s proposed project. The proper scope of review limits a reviewing court to determining (1) whether the Council acted fraudulently, arbitrarily, or capriciously, (2) whether the Council’s action is supported by substantial evidence, and (3) whether the Council acted within the scope of its authority. Here, the issue in dispute is whether substantial evidence supports the Council’s action. Applying the requisite legal constraints on the scope of our review, we conclude that there is substantial evidence to support the decision to grant the Church’s requested permit.
3. Does the district court’s decision violate the Church’s rights under the First Amendment to the United States Constitution or under the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000, 42 U.S.C. § 2000cc (2006)?
Because of our decision on Issue 2, it is unnecessary to consider this issue.
4. Did the district court err in refusing to require FOB to post a supersedeas bond for this appeal?
No. FOB prevailed before the district court and did not seek to*186 stay enforcement of the district court’s ruling. As the appellee, the provisions for a supersedeas bond do not apply to FOB.
Facts
In 1861, the Topeka city founders conveyed to the Church 20 acres of land, now known as Bethany Place, in order to establish the Sisters of Bethany Episcopal School for Girls. The property is bordered by 8th Street, Polk Street, 10th Avenue, and Western Avenue in downtown Topeka. The two historic buildings on the property were built in 1874 and 1875. One is the Diocesan offices building (formerly the school laundry), and the other is a building for meetings and lodging (formerly die school’s bam).
The school was in operation at Bethany Place from 1872 until 1928. In 1917, Grace Cathedral was constmcted on the property. In 1929, the Topeka School District acquired 14 acres of the original Bethany campus for the construction of Topeka High School. In 1978, the Church registered Bethany Place on the Kansas Historical Registry in order to prevent Topeka High School from acquiring any of the remaining 6 acres by eminent domain.
In 2007, the Church applied for a permit to install a parking lot on part of the Bethany Place property. The plan was to add 40 parking spaces, with 10 reserved for handicapped or elderly Church members. The proposed lot would consist of opposing rows of parking stalls located inside the sidewalk along Polk Street. The lot would occupy 4.5% of Bethany Place’s grounds. It would reduce the current green space from 187,800 to 175,800 square feet, or 6.5%.
On May 8, 2007, the SHPO assigned to review the Church’s permit application determined that the parking lot would encroach upon, damage, or destroy the historic environs of Bethany Place because the project would require the removal of mature trees and because the project would “drastically [change] the relationship between the two historic buildings on the site with the public street of Polk.” The SHPO proposed the alternative of constructing angled parking on Polk and 8th Streets.
The following day, upon receipt of the SHPO’s report, the City’s Planning Department denied the Church’s permit request and sug
On August 27, 2007, 1 day before the Council met to consider the Church’s application, FOB was incorporated for the purpose of opposing the Church’s parking lot application. That same day the SHPO issued a supplemental letter opinion on the project. The letter further explained but did not change die SHPO’s recommendation of May 8,2007. It did not address further the alternative of on-street angled parking. Because of the lateness of its submission, the letter was not provided to the Council for consideration at the hearing.
Proceedings before the Council
The Council considered the Church’s application on August 28, 2007. The Church’s position was that the angled street parking recommended by the City’s Planning Department and the SHPO and other suggested alternatives from those speaking in opposition were not feasible and prudent.
The Council heard testimony from many members of the public who either supported or opposed the project, including representatives of the Church, FOB, and various Topeka neighborhood improvement associations. Testimony was received through oral comments during the meeting. In addition, Council members were provided with a packet of documents assembled for them in advance of the meeting. Because, as we shall see, the central issue is the sufficiency of the evidence to support the Council’s decision, we will recount the oral testimony and written documents presented to the Council in making its decision.
Testimony at the Council Meeting
• Pedro Irigonegaray
Pedro Irigonegaray, counsel for FOB, reminded the Council of the requirements of K.S.A. 2008 Supp. 75-2724. He testified that to approve the permit, the Council must find that there is no feasible and prudent alternative to the proposed parking lot and that all possible planning to minimize the harm to Bethany Place had
• Alex Kovalchuck
Alex Kovalchuck testified in opposition to the Church’s proposal. He presented a map to the Council showing suggested alternatives to the Church’s plan: (1) angled on-street parking, (2) using lots on the north side of 8th Street owned by the Church, and (3) building a parking garage over the Church’s existing parking lot. He presented the Council with a CD video which he said would help the Council “visualize and see what I’m attempting to discuss.” However, he apparently failed to bring equipment to the hearing with which to display his video. Kovalchuck presented no cost estimates for his proposals, though he did acknowledge that they “may be . . . more expensive [than the Church’s proposal].” He also did not address any of the safety concerns raised by the Church, nor did he address the Church’s concerns about its inability to restrict the use of street parking to its members.
• Bishop Dean Wolfe
Bishop Dean Wolfe testified on behalf of the Church. He reminded the Council that the Church was seeking 40 additional parking spots to supplement its parking lot and the current public parking available on 8th and Polk Streets because the Cathedral needs one parking space for every 1.8 persons in attendance. The Bishop testified that the Cathedral currently has a Sunday attendance of about 350 people and a current parking lot capacity of 89 spaces. The proposed additional 40 spaces would help address this need and provide handicap parking next to the Cathedral with no steps to climb. He testified that as part of the project, the Church planned to plant “more than twice as many trees as we take out, all to enhance our green space.”
• Dean Steve Lipscomb
Steve Lipscomb, Dean of Grace Cathedral, testified about the alternatives the Church had considered and rejected:
“The first would have extended our existing parking lot to the south. We rejected that because it would come too close to the historic buildings and would take away from the gardens and picnic area that are the most visited section of*189 the property. It also wouldn’t give us the closer end [sic] handicap accessible parking we need near our worship space entrance.
“We also considered parking off the alley south of the Cathedral. This isn’t an option because there are utility poles and an air conditioning unit there the size of a freight car. Plus, we already use that space for parallel parking so the gain would be minimal.
“We own a small, narrow lot across 8th Street from the Cathedral, but that is not a reasonable option for us because that entrance requires climbing 14 steps and we didn’t want to endanger children and older members by making them cross a busy four-lane street.
“We decided against angled parking on either 8th Avenue or Polk Street for several reasons. Safety was a major factor with the possibility of children darting into the street from between cars and members, especially elderly members backing out into traffic.
“These on-street spots would also require the use of concrete, which costs twice as much as asphalt. And since there already is parallel parking permitted along both streets, . . . diagonal parking on the street would not gain us that many additional spaces. In fact, if you took away the parallel parking it would only gain us a net of about half as many spaces as this alternative suggests.
“But a main concern is that this would require the Cathedral to build something it could never own. The city would own these parking spaces and it would be public parking. With Topeka High and several apartments nearby, the spaces would be filled almost all the time. And we’ve been told that we could reserve these if we gave advance notice and by placing barricades to block them. That is not a feasible alternative for us. There is no guarantee we would have access to these spaces when we needed them. Frankly, I would have a hard time explaining to my congregation why we were using church funds to build public parking. ... It’s not just illogical, it’s bad stewardship of what has been entrusted to us and it limits our ability to do ministry.”
Dean Lipscomb stated that if the parking lot were built, 4 acres of green space would remain on Bethany Place grounds. He stated that the Church’s proposal was the only plan that “will put this many parking spaces this close to our worship space entrance unobstructed by steps.”
The Council members had copies of the records before the City Planning Department, which included Dean Lipscomb’s expanded concerns about angled on-street parking. Lipscomb explained to the City staff that this on-street parking
“would not meet our needs for a couple of reasons. First, we could not reserve on street parking for church use. During the week, Topeka High would take all available spaces and those living in the apartments on the east side of Polk would*190 use them all the time. Weekday funerals, diocesan-wide meetings and those of community organizations that use our space are often some of our most attended events, requiring much more parking than we currently have. Evening events such as concerts, plays, graduation ceremonies, holy day services and other community events often overfill our current lot and require people to park, not only along 8th and Polk streets but also on Taylor, Western and Tyler. There are clearly safety issues for nighttime pedestrians in these areas, particularly north of 8th Avenue. We need reserved parking on weekdays as much as on Sundays.... Even with the 40 additional spaces proposed, we will still require the on street parking to meet our needs.”
Councilman Richard Harmon asked Dean Lipscomb whether the Church would have the same problem with neighbors using the Church’s parking lot if the parking lot were constructed. Lipscomb replied that because the lot will be on Church property, the Church could restrict access to it, obviating the problem of the parking being used by the Church’s neighbors. Finally, Dean Lipscomb testified that “Sundays are not our only issue. I mean, we have evening events [and] funerals during the week.”
• Melodie Worman
Melodie Worman, the Church’s director of communications, described the history of Bethany Place. She pointed out that due to conversions of the two historic buildings to other uses, neither was on the National Registry of Historic Sites. Further, the Cathedral is not on the State’s historic registry.
• Cynthia Sheppeard Langston
Cynthia Sheppeard Langston, a member of the Church, spoke to the need for accessible spaces for handicapped persons. There are currently only six such spaces. The alternative of curb parking is neither feasible nor prudent because of the grade that would be difficult to negotiate from the curb to the Cathedral. The Church’s proposal would provide parking on the same level as the Cathedral.
• Barbara Quaney
Barbara Quaney, the president of FOB, testified in opposition to the project. She spoke of the historic significance of Bethany Place and the importance of preserving it. She listed three alternative sites that FOB believed would be feasible and prudent. She advocated the use of angled parking on 8th and Polk Streets. She did not address the Church’s cost or safety concerns, nor did she
• Tom Bartlett
Tom Bartlett, of the Holiday Park Neighborhood Improvement Association, testified to his association’s desire to preserve Bethany Place and their opposition to the project. He did not address the feasibility or prudence of any alternatives.
• Douglas Jones
Douglas Jones, Barbara Quaney’s husband, described the family business of buying and restoring old homes in the central core. He expressed opposition to the project. He is the immediate past president of the Shawnee County Historical Society. He noted that Old Town is the only Topeka neighborhood improvement association “without a park, and has very little greenspace compared to other neighborhoods.” He argued that the project is contrary to recent comments by City consultants regarding “greenspace and aesthetic issues,” and would establish a bad precedent. He did not address the feasibility or prudence of any suggested alternatives.
• Robert Banks
Robert Banks, chairman of Topeka Turnaround Team, Inc., spoke in opposition to the plan. He offered the good offices of the Turnaround Team to help mediate the dispute.
• Maura Dingman
Maura Dingman spoke in opposition to the plan. Dingman owns and restored six properties in Holiday Park. She expressed her heartfelt desire and the desire of others in the area who have invested in restoring older properties to preserve historic sites and deny this permit application.
• Greg Fox
Greg Fox, who operates his business in a historic building, acknowledged that the Church needs more parking but expressed concern about “changing our minds on something we’ve already decided.”
Peter Hancock, president of the Old Town Neighborhood Improvement Association, testified to his organization’s opposition to the plan. He testified to the lack of greenspace in the area and the lack of a neighborhood park. He observed that St. Patrick’s Cathedral in New York City functions without a lot of parking. He did not address any alternatives to the Church’s plan.
• Hiram Stockwell
Hiram Stockwell, a resident of the Old Town neighborhood, spoke of the history of the neighborhood. He testified that the Church’s safety concerns were an insult to its neighbors. He stated that the Church’s lot on the north side of 8th Street at 816 S.W. 8th contains “over 10,000 square feet and is approximately equal to the proposed parking space.” Another Church lot at 804 S.W. 8th contains “over 6,000 square feet.” He also observed: “There is additional space near the circular and south drives at the east side of the church that could accommodate” accessible parking for the handicapped and elderly. He did not offer any cost estimates for his proposals.
• Kathryn Hosfelt
Kathryn Hosfelt, a neighbor in the central core, expressed her desire to preserve Bethany Place.
• Anne Spiess
Anne Spiess, president of the Shawnee County Historical Society, is a Church member and a member of FOB. She spoke of the historic significance of Bethany Place. She testified that the Church’s plan would eliminate trees and greenspace. She mentioned the suggested alternative sites, though she did not address the issues of feasibility or prudence.
• Ed Spiess
Church member Ed Spiess testified in opposition to the parking lot. He suggested restriping a portion of the existing parking lot to create more handicap-accessible spaces. He did not address the Church’s overall need for more parking and made no suggestions as to where the Church would recoup the space it would lose through his proposal.
Alvin Greeson, a Church member and neighbor, suggested alternative parking on the “half semicircular entrance on the east side of the Cathedral.” He had measured the area and estimated there could be approximately 32 additional parking places in that area. He offered no design proposals or cost estimates to support his idea.
• Janet Loehel
Janet Loebel, a retired teacher, spoke of her family’s history in the area. She spoke to the value of history and heritage. She urged the Council to reject the Church’s application.
• Joanne Harrison
Joanne Harrison, a Church member, spoke of the importance of Bethany Place. She suggested “turning the alley off of Polk Street the other direction, which would then quickly enable cars to move down to the present parking lot.” She said she had no problem finding a parking place on Polk Street on Sunday mornings. She also urged the Mayor to write a letter to Dean Lipscomb telling him to stop “urging people to park on the grass at Bethany Place.”
• Peter Muraski
Peter Muraski, a science teacher, spoke of the age and condition of the trees on the site, though he professed no expertise on the subject other than having cut down many trees in years past for firewood. He opposed the project. “If we alter this place it may set a precedent we don’t want.”
• Michael Bradley
Michael Bradley opined that this project will harm the Church and its mission. He expressed the desire to preserve open spaces in urban areas. He urged the Council to deny a permit.
Documents at the Council Meeting
In advance of the meeting, each Council member had been provided a packet of information regarding the application. The packets contained the Council Action Form which informed the Council members that approval of the Church’s appeal would overturn the decision of the SHPO and that
*194 “State law allows the local governing body to overturn the findings of the State of Kansas Historic Preservation Officer when they have determined that based on all relevant factors, there is no feasible and prudent alternative to the proposed parking lot and drat all possible planning to minimize harm to the historic property and its environs has been included.
“The SHPO has proposed using the city’s right-of-way for the necessary parking as a feasible and prudent alternative to the constructing tire parking lot on historic property which includes the removal of many historic trees.
“The Old Town Neighborhood Improvement Association has officially stated their opposition to the proposed parking lot within the grounds of the Bethany Place campus.”
The packets also included: (1) copies of the statutes relating to historic preservation; (2) the City Planning Department’s recommendation; (3) the SHPO’s recommendation; (4) photos, maps, and diagrams of the area; (5) descriptions of the historic buildings and the history of Bethany Place; (6) the Historic Old Town Neighborhood Plan; (7) documents relating to the placement of Bethany Place on the Register of Historic Kansas Places in 1979; (8) documents regarding a conference center proposed for construction on Bethany Place in 1983, which was approved by the SHPO but never built; (9) letters and e-mails in support and opposition from various members of the community, many of which were essentially verbatim the oral testimony provided at the Council meeting; (10) a petition signed by a number of persons opposing the project; (11) engineering reports on the size of the project relative to Bethany Place overall and the added cost of the angled parking alternative; and (12) a horticultural assessment of the project.
With respect to item (2), it is important to note that the City Planning Department’s recommendation that the Church’s application be denied was based on “alternative and feasible alternatives that will not encroach upon or damage the listed property.” While the planning staff recommendation speaks of “alternatives,” it maíces reference to only one: a determination by the City traffic engineers that “angled ‘cut-back’ parking along Southwest Polk Street, adjacent to die Bethany Place property would be a feasible alternative to the proposed parking lot.” There is no report or study by the City’s traffic engineers in the record. There is no analysis by either die planning staff or the traffic engineers to explain how
The SHPO’s recommendation, item (3), is for the Church to redesign “the project to take advantage of the City’s right-of-way by designing parldng stalls directly adjacent to the street at Polk and possibly 8th Street if needed.” This suggestion is not accompanied by any supporting analysis whatsoever.
Item (6), die Historic Old Town Neighborhood Plan, addresses the need to maintain the historic character of the neighborhood, particularly the housing stock in the “core” area. It is worth noting that the criticism of the Church’s plan is not to whether additional parking spaces should be created in the neighborhood, but rather where those parking spaces should be located.
Item (11) is an engineering report prepared for the Church which shows the size of the proposed parking lot relative to the overall size of Bethany Place. It also calculates the cost of concrete for 40 parking places ($36,000) compared to the cost of asphalt for 40 parking places ($16,800). This is the only engineering report in the record.
Council Action
At the close of the public comments, Councilman Jeff Preisner moved to approve the Church’s permit application based on “the City Council’s consideration of all relevant factors, that there are no feasible and prudent alternatives to the proposal, and that all possible planning has been undertaken to minimize harm to the historic property.” The motion was seconded, and Councilman John Alcala asked the City Attorney Brenden Long: “[D]o we infringe on the First and Fourteenth Amendment of free exercise of religion if we don’t grant the permit? The city attorney responded:
“[T]o override the recommendation of the State Historic Preservation Officer, [the Council] must find, based on a consideration of the factors, as Mr. Preisner pointed out, that there’s no feasible and prudent alternatives to the proposal. That consideration is really going to be based on all that was presented to you tonight, as well as the packets of information that you received with your agenda analyzing the needs of the applicant, the needs of the community, the attempt to maintain those - - the historic character of the site and part of it’s an economic determination, part of it is a technical determination.”
Councilman Brett Blackburn observed that “there’s probably not a feasible alternative.” He concluded that “it comes down to our opinion if we think there is or is not a reasonable alternative.”
Councilman Harmon asked the city attorney: “[A]re there any findings of fact we need to make in order to - - separate and apart from Councilman Preisner’s motion with respect to the First Amendment issue if that’s the basis upon which we wish to overrule the [SHPO] finding?” The city attorney responded: “ No. I think your first task here is really to make your determination based on [K.S.A. 2008 Supp. 75-2724] with the understanding that ... a denial of the parking permit could create some legal issues.”
The Council voted 9-0 in favor of the Church’s permit application.
Proceedings in the District Court
FOB appealed to the district court pursuant to K.S.A. 2008 Supp. 75-2724(b) and K.S.A. 60-2101(d). The City challenged FOB’s standing to bring this action, arguing that FOB was not an “aggrieved party” under K.S.A. 60-2101(d) because FOB had no right or pecuniary interest in Bethany Place. FOB responded with affidavits from its members detailing their interests in Bethany Place.
The district court denied the City’s motion, finding that K.S.A. 2008 Supp. 75-2724, which specifically applies to “ ’historic preservation activities’ ” affected by projects gives standing to FOB. The court reasoned that the public notice and the civil penalty features of K.S.A. 2008 Supp. 75-2724 inferred an actionable “periphery interest” which extends beyond a potential plaintiff s pecuniary interests and includes “community pride in historic preservation[,] . . . quality of fife and esthetics.”
The Church informed FOB that because construction costs were expected to increase by $41,000 during the pendency of this action, the Church intended to proceed with construction of the parking
At the hearing on FOB’s motion, the Church pointed out that FOB had no assets or income with which to compensate the Church for the delay if FOB’s appeal failed. The court granted a restraining order against the Church and denied the Church’s request that FOB post a bond, concluding that there was no statutory provision for a bond.
In its detailed memorandum opinion on the merits of FOB’s appeal, the district court set aside die Church’s permit, concluding that the Council’s action in approving the permit application was arbitrary, capricious, and unreasonable. The City and the Church appeal.
1. Does FOB Have Standing in These ProceedingsP
The standing issue raised by the City and the Church is predicated upon FOB’s lack of any legal right or pecuniaiy interest in the matter. They rely primarily on Linsea v. Board of Chase County Comm’rs, 12 Kan. App. 2d 657, 753 P.2d 1292, rev. denied 243 Kan. 779 (1988), for this argument.
The Church also argues that (1) the statutory scheme of K.S.A. 2008 Supp. 75-2724 and K.S.A. 75-2725 empowers only the Kansas Attorney General to proceed against landowners to enforce the provisions of the Kansas Historical Preservation Act, see K.S.A. 75-2714 et seq., and (2) because FOB’s mission is historical preservation for aesthetic reasons, not the preservation of property values near Bethany Place, and because historical preservation is a public interest instead of a private one, FOB lacks standing under NEACoffeyville v. U.S.D. No. 445, 268 Kan. 384, 996 P.2d 821 (2000).
FOB argues that in order to fulfill the purpose of the Historic Preservation Act, standing under K.S.A. 2008 Supp. 75-2724 should be broadly construed to allow groups of concerned citizens to form organizations like FOB to protect historic properties. FOB also argues that it has standing under Cojfeyville because the project would lower the property values of FOB members who own property near Bethany Place.
Standing is an issue of law which appellate courts review de novo. Mid-Continent Specialists, Inc. v. Capital Homes, 279 Kan. 178, 185, 106 P.3d 483 (2005). “ ‘ “Regardless of the merits of [a claim], without [a party having] standing, the court cannot entertain the action.” ’ [Citations omitted.]” 279 Kan. at 185.
Discussion
The Kansas Historical Preservation Act provides that “[a]ny person aggrieved by the determination of a governing body pursuant to this section may seek review of such determination in accordance with K.S.A. 60-2101 and amendments thereto.” K.S.A. 2008 Supp. 75-2724(b). K.S.A. 60-2101(d) provides for appeals to the district court from decisions of political subdivisions, such as the City, and allows “an aggrieved party” to pursue an appeal.
The district court liberally construed “aggrieved party” in favor of allowing an organization such as FOB to seek judicial review of the Council’s action. The Church argues that the district court’s construction ignores the effect of K.S.A. 75-2725, which provides:
“The state of Kansas or any county, municipality or other political subdivision having capacity to sue and be sued, the Kansas state historical society and any city or county historical society which, for more than two (2) years prior to filing such action, has been organized, has elected officers and has received compensation, funds or reimbursements from a city or county pursuant to K.S.A. 12-1660 or 19-2649, and amendments thereto, may maintain an action in the district court having jurisdiction where an alleged violation occurred or is threatened for such equitable and declaratory relief as may be necessary to enforce the provisions of this act and to protect historic property from unauthorized or improper demolition, alteration or transfer.”
K.S.A. 75-2725 authorizes the identified officials and entities to pursue equitable and declaratory relief to enforce the provisions of the Act. A fair reading of the statute suggests that it applies to instances in which persons or entities subject to the Act attempt an “end run” around the process. The statute refers to equitable and declaratory relief, such as enjoining such an end run around the Kansas Historical Preservation Act. That is not the nature of these proceedings. There was no end run here. The State Historical Society was notified of the proposed project, it conducted its study,
In Board of Sumner County Comm’rs v. Bremby, 286 Kan. 745, 189 P.3d 494 (2008), a nonprofit association challenged the issuance of a landfill permit. Analyzing the association’s standing to challenge the landfill permit, our Supreme Court noted:
“In particular, a person must demonstrate that he or she suffered a cognizable injury and that there is a causal connection between the injury and the challenged conduct. [Citations omitted.] An association has standing to sue on behalf of its members when ‘(1) the members have standing to sue individually; (2) the interests the association seeks to protect are germane to the organization’s purpose; and (3) neither the claim asserted nor the relief requested require participation of individual members. [Citation omitted.]’ NEACoffeyville v. U.S.D. No. 445, 268 Kan. 384, 387, 996 P.2d 821 (2000).” Bremby, 286 Kan. at 761.
The Bremby court held that the association met those criteria. First, the members of the association would be harmed if the potential landfill leaked and contaminated the water supply on which its members relied. Second, the association was “ ‘organized for the purpose [of] preserving and enhancing the quality of life in Harper, Kingman and Sumner counties,’ ” and “ensuring that any landfill that is located in Harper County meet environmental standards to protect the groundwater supply and river water . . . germane to this purpose.” 286 Kan. at 763. Finally, the association challenged the permit as arbitraiy and capricious because it was issued on faulty environmental studies and that claim did not require the participation of the association’s individual members.
1. Individual Members’ Standing
In her affidavit filed with the district court, Barbara Quaney, president of FOB and a homeowner in the Bethany Place neighborhood, claimed the project if approved would “impinge upon my personal and economic interests.” She asserted that the project “could also result in economic loss or the diminution of property value” of the century-old home she and her husband had restored
The Church argues that injuries to historical and aesthetic beauty are not sufficient to confer standing on an individual plaintiff, citing Linsea, 12 Kan. App. 2d at 660-61. Aesthetic concerns are a proper basis for land use controls. See Gump Rev. Trust v. City of Wichita, 35 Kan. App. 2d 501, Syl. ¶ 3, 131 P.3d 1268 (2006). Further, the lack of standing in Linsea was not because historic and aesthetic considerations were at issue. In Linsea, the County sought to make modifications to the grounds of the Chase County Courthouse in Cottonwood Falls. Linsea sued to stop the project, claiming that as a taxpayer he had an interest in the historical beauty of the property. The court concluded that Linsea’s status as a taxpayer was insufficient to create standing because he failed to allege an injury unique to him that was not shared by every other taxpayer in Chase County. 12 Kan. App. 2d at 660-61.
Unlike in Linsea, at least two members of FOB alleged an injury to their properties as a result of the claimed lost historic and aesthetic value of Bethany Place. The injuries claimed by Quaney and Jones are particular to them and not shared by all other citizens of Topeka. See Society Hill Towers Owners’ Ass’n v. Rendell, 210 F.3d 168, 176-77 (3d Cir. 2000); cf. Linsea, 12 Kan. App. 2d at 661. Accordingly, at least two member of FOB have individual standing. See Rendell, 210 F.3d at 175-78.
2. FOR’s Purpose Vis-a-Vis the Interests Sought to be Protected in This Suit
The Church argues that FOB is organized for the sole purpose of preserving Bethany Place’s historical integrity, not for protecting the economic interests of its members. However, FOB members Quaney and Jones assert that their economic interest in their properties in the neighborhood are tied, at least in part, to maintaining Bethany Place in its present form. Maintaining Bethany Place in
The Church argues that the FOB members who testified before the Council did not establish a nexus between FOB and the economic interests some of its members now assert. But standing relates to a party’s qualification to proceed in court, not to participate in proceedings of their city government. The opponents who spoke at the Council meeting were residents of Topeka. They did not have to have standing to bring a court action in order to express their opinions to the Council on the merits of the Church’s plan.
3. Whether Participation of FOB’S Individual Members is Required in the Suit
FOB alleges its members’ property value diminution not as a claim for relief but as a basis for standing. It does not allege that the Church or the City have violated any of the personal rights of its members, only that granting the permit violates the Kansas Historical Preservation Act. Further, FOB seeks only injunctive relief, not damages for its members. Therefore, the participation of FOB’s individual members is not necessaiy. See Bremby, 286 Kan. at 762-63.
We conclude that FOB has standing to proceed in this matter.
II. Did The District Court Erroneously Reweigh The Evidence Before The Council, Evidence Which (According To The Church And The City) Provided Substantial Support For The Council’s Decision To Grant The Permit?
Standard of Review
The parties agree that the task of the district court was to review the Council’s action to determine “whether, as a matter of law, (1) the tribunal acted fraudulently, arbitrarily, or capriciously, (2) the administrative order is substantially supported by evidence, and (3) the tribunal’s action was within the scope of its authority.” Reiter v. City of Beloit, 263 Kan. 74, Syl. ¶ 3, 947 P.2d 425 (1997). In doing so, the district court was not permitted to substitute its judgment for that of the Council.
The district court, in its extensive 57-page memorandum decision, concluded:
“[T]he record evidences a lack of substantial evidence to support the statutory finding necessary that no feasible and prudent alternative existed. The record further lacks substantial evidence to support a conclusion that all possible planning was done to minimize the damage that would occur to the Bethany Place. These considerations, as noted, operate to make the Topeka City Council’s decision stand as arbitrary, capricious, and unreasonable.”
Thus, the central issue is whether substantial evidence supports the Council’s decision. In resolving this issue, we apply the traditional rule that when examining the record for substantial evidence, we view the evidence and the reasonable inferences that can be drawn from the evidence in the light more favoring the prevailing party, here the Church. Reiter, 263 Kan. at 86; see Jones v. Kansas State University, 279 Kan. 128, 140, 106 P.3d 10 (2005). In doing so we do not substitute our own view on the merits of the Church’s proposal. See Blue Cross & Blue Shield of Kansas, Inc. v. Praeger, 276 Kan. 232, 263, 75 P.3d 226 (2003). That was a matter for the duly elected officials of the City’s governing body to determine. If substantial evidence supports the Council’s decision, the decision must be upheld even if we would have decided the matter differently. Praeger, 276 Kan. at 263. Because there is a presumption that the governing body acted reasonably, the burden is upon FOB to prove otherwise. See Jones, 279 Kan. at 140; Reiter, 263 Kan. at 86. Finally, a reviewing court must accept as true the evidence and inferences supporting the Council’s findings and disregard conflicting evidence and inferences. See Jones, 279 Kan. at 140.
Because our task is to examine anew the Council’s action using the same standards applicable to the district court, we need not address all aspects of the district court’s decision. However, FOB cites two matters discussed by the district court which, according to FOB, demonstrate deficiencies in the Council’s action: (1) The lack of findings of fact to support the Council’s decision; and (2) the Council’s failure to consider the eight Golden criteria. See Golden v. City of Overland Park, 224 Kan. 591, 598, 584 P.2d 130
Findings of Fact
The Council was not required to make detailed findings of fact in order to properly act on the Church’s application. See Manly v. City of Shawnee, 287 Kan. 63, 76, 194 P.3d 1 (2008); Board of Johnson County Comm’rs v. City of Olathe, 263 Kan. 667, 678, 952 P.2d 1302 (1998). Nevertheless, the better practice for governmental bodies in deciding these matters is to provide specific and detailed findings, and we encourage governmental bodies to do so. This is because findings of fact assist in providing us with a meaningful record for appellate review. As noted in Golden, 224 Kan. at 597: “A mere yes or no vote upon a motion to grant or deny leaves a reviewing court, be it trial or appellate, in a quandary as to why or on what basis the board took its action.”
However, there are cases in which the reasoning behind the governmental body’s action is otherwise apparent from the record. This is one of those cases. Here, contrary to FOB’S assertion in its appellate brief, the motion before the Council was not simply to approve or deny the Church’s permit. Councilman Preisner moved:
“At this time I’d like to make a motion to approve the communication to override the recommendation of the State Historical Preservation Officer and issue the parking lot permit.
“I base this on the City Council's consideration of all relevant factors, that there are no feasible and prudent alternatives to the proposal, and that all possible planning has been undertaken to minimize harm to the historic property.”
The motion contained the essential findings for which there either is or is not substantial evidence in the record: (1) There are no feasible and prudent alternatives, and (2) all possible planning has been undertaken to minimize harm to the historic property.
If the lack of findings were to malee it impossible for meaningful judicial review, the district court’s recourse would have been to remand the case to the governmental body for it to make specific findings, as the trial court did in Zimmerman v. Board of Wabaunsee County Comm’rs, 289 Kan. 926, 935-36, 218 P.3d 400 (2009).
The conflict aired before the Council was not whether more Church parking should be allowed, but where it should be located. The issue turned on whether the suggested alternatives to the Church’s plan were relevant factors to be considered in acting on the Church’s permit application. If they were, the Church had the burden to prove that they were not feasible and prudent alternatives to the Church’s plan. We conclude that the record before us is adequate to resolve this issue.
The Golden Criteria
The Council did not consider the Golden factors, see 224 Kan. at 598, in deciding to grant the Church’s permit application. Golden arose from the City of Overland Park’s refusal to rezone a tract from C-O (office building) to CP-1 (planned retail). Our Supreme Court enumerated eight factors that “it would be well for a zoning body to bear in mind when hearing requests for change.” 224 Kan. at 598.
Unlike in Golden, the present controversy involves no request to rezone the Church’s property. Nevertheless, a variety of land use permit issues fall within the zoning rubric. See, e.g., Robert L. Rieke Bldg. Co. v. City of Overland Park, 232 Kan. 634, 657 P.2d 1121 (1983) (which involved denial of a special use permit for the use of a searchlight to advertise a commercial enterprise) Gump Rev. Trust, 35 Kan. App. 2d 501 (which involved the denial of a conditional use permit for the erection of a telecommunications tower). However, Gump demonstrates the advisory nature of the Golden criteria. In Gump, the reasonableness of the denial of the permit application was based solely on aesthetic considerations, factors not even mentioned in Golden. As stated in Board of Johnson County Comm’rs, 263 Kan. at 677, the Golden criteria “are suggested factors only[— they are advisory in nature]. Other factors may be important in an individual case.” See Syl. ¶ 6.
Here, the Church applied for a permit to construct a parking lot on its property. Because the project was to be constructed on property designated as historic on the State’s Historic Registry, the
The Church’s Burden
The SHPO opposed the project based on the determination that the proposed parking lot “will encroach upon, damage, or destroy the Bethany Place site.” As noted above, in order to overcome this determination, the Church’s first obligation was to demonstrate that there were no feasible and prudent alternatives to its proposed parking lot. Then, it was obliged to show that all possible planning has been undertaken to minimize harm to the historic property.
The Church was not obliged to refute eveiy potential alternative unless the alternative constitutes a relevant factor. See Lawrence Preservation Alliance, Inc. v. Allen Realty, Inc., 16 Kan. App. 2d 93, 95, 819 P.2d 138, rev. denied 250 Kan. 805 (1992). In order to qualify as a relevant factor, a potential alternative must be “something more than a mere suggestion as to possible alternatives.” Allen Realty, Inc. v. City of Lawrence, 14 Kan. App. 2d 361, 373, 790 P.2d 948 (1990) (Allen I).
“ ‘A proposed alternative would be a relevant factor if it included sufficient factual information to support a conclusion that such alternative was feasible and prudent. A proposed alternative unsupported by such factual information could not form the premise of such a conclusion and would not be relevant.’ [Citation omitted.]” Reiter, 263 Kan. at 89-90.
K.S.A. 75-2721(b) directs the SHPO to adopt rules and regulations to implement the State’s historic preservation policy. Pursuant to K.S.A. 75-2721(b), the SHPO adopted K.A.R. 118-3-l(e), which defines “feasible and prudent alternative” as
*206 “an alternative solution that can be reasonably accomplished and that is sensible or realistic. Factors that shall he considered when determining whether or not a feasible and prudent alternative exists include the following:
“(1) Technical issues;
“(2) design issues;
“(3) the project’s relationship to the community-wide plan, if any; and
“(4) economic issues.” (Emphasis added.)
Discussion
The documents in the record as well as the testimony from the opponents of the plan are replete with heartfelt expressions of concern for preservation of the historic nature of the City’s central core. The penultimate task of the Council, however, was to determine if there existed any feasible and prudent alternatives to the Church’s proposal.
Feasible And Prudent Alternatives P
As noted earlier, the record discloses several suggestions of alternative locations for the Church’s parking lot.
Alex Kovalchuck proposed (1) angled parking on 8th and Polk, (2) parking lot(s) on Church property on the north side of 8th Street, and (3) a parking garage over the Church’s current parking lot.
Barbara Quaney proposed building the parking lot at 716 S.W. 8th Street, 704 S.W. 8th Street, 701 S.W. 8th Street, or “cutback parking in the 800 block of Polk Street or along 8th Street in front of Grace Cathedral.”
Hiram Stockwell also proposed the use of the Church’s lots on the north side of 8th Street. He testified that the lot at 816 S.W. 8th Avenue contains “over 10,000 square feet and is approximately equal to the proposed parking space” and the lot at 804 S.W. 8tb Avenue contains “over 6,000 square feet.” He also suggested that the Church develop “additional space near the circular and south drives at the east side of the church” for parking for the handicapped and elderly.
Ed Spiess suggested restriping a portion of the existing parking lot to create more handicap-accessible spaces.
Joanne Harrison suggested “turning the alley off of Polk Street the other direction, which would then quickly enable cars to move down to the present parking lot.”
The City Planning Department’s recommendation refers to the conclusion of die City traffic engineers that “angled ‘cut-back’ parking along SW Polk Street, adjacent to the Bethany Place property would be a feasible alternative to the proposed parking lot.” The SHPO suggested “parking stalls directly adjacent to the street at Polk and possibly 8th Street if needed.”
None of these suggestions includes sufficient factual information to support a conclusion that it constitutes a feasible and prudent alternative to the Church’s proposal. In determining whether a suggestion rises to the level of a feasible and prudent alternative that constitutes a relevant factor for the Council to consider, the suggestion must address technical, design, and economic issues, as well as the project’s relationship to any community-wide plan. See K.A.R.. 118-3-l(e), (j). Further, if an individual suggestion does not constitute a relevant factor for the Council to consider, the aggregation of two or more such suggestions does not convert them into relevant factors which the Council must consider.
Kovalchuck presented no cost estimates for his proposals, though he did acknowledge that they “may be more expensive [than the Church’s proposal].” He also did not address any of the safety concerns raised by the Church that would arise from creating a parking lot that is separated from the Cathedral by Southwest 8th Avenue, a four-lane street, and would require attendees to climb 14 steps to reach the Cathedral. He did not address the Church’s concerns about its inability to restrict the use of this proposed on-street parking to Church members.
Quaney expressed the opinion that angled parking could be' constructed in a manner to satisfy handicap-accessibility standards. However, she did not address the Church’s concerns about cost, safety, the use of Church funds to develop public property, or the inability to guarantee access to this street parking to Church mem
Stockwell did not offer any cost estimates for his proposals. Greeson supported Stockwell’s proposal for the circle drive. He testified that he measured the area and estimated there could be 32 additional parking places in that area. He did not provide any basis, other than his own lay opinion, to establish the feasibility of his proposal. Neither addressed Dean Lipscomb’s observations about tire impracticability of this site. Neither Stockwell nor Greeson provided any facts to suggest that relocating utility lines and the Cathedral’s air conditioning system would be a prudent alternative to the Church’s plan or how their suggestion would satisfy the Church’s need for additional parking.
The proposal by Spiess to restripe the existing parking lot does not address the Church’s need for additional parking spaces.
It is unclear how Harrison’s suggestion would yield additional needed parking for the Church.
In suggesting the alternative of angled on-street parking, neither the SHPO nor the City’s professional staff (who announced its position the day after the SHPO’s decision) provided any analysis whatsoever in support.
There is no litmus test to definitively distinguish “mere suggestions as to possible alternatives,” Allen I, 14 Kan. App. 2d at 373, from a suggestion that rises to the level of a relevant factor. Here, the continuum of suggestions extended from the proposed multistory parking garage at one extreme to the angled on-street parking at the other. We are convinced that none constitutes a relevant factor, even if espoused by a number of the project’s opponents. However, if we assume for the sake of discussion that suggestions toward the latter end of the continuum are sufficient to constitute relevant factors, it is clear from the record (viewed in the light more favoring the prevailing party) that there is substantial evidence to establish that none is a feasible and prudent alternative.
No one challenged Bishop Wolfe’s testimony regarding the Church’s need for 40 parking spots and the need to accommodate its elderly and handicapped members.
Dean Lipscomb addressed the suggestion from Kovalchuck, Quaney, and Stockwell for a parking lot across the street from the Cathedral, noting the elevation differential that would require climbing 14 steps and crossing a busy street to reach the Cathedral.
With respect to the angled on-street parking suggestion, the Church provided the record’s only engineering report, which indicates that if this suggestion were implemented the cost of surfacing material would increase from $16,800 to $36,000. Dean Lipscomb raised issues regarding safety if this suggestion were implemented, as well as the issue of expending Church funds to create parking spaces that could be preempted by nearby apartment dwellers, high school students, and the public at large to the exclusion of Church members. Further, converting parallel parking spaces to angled parking would create only a marginal net increase in available parking.
No one challenged any of Dean Lipscomb’s concerns about the feasibility and prudence of the suggested alternatives with any evidence satisfying the standards expressed in Reiter, in Mien I, and in the administrative regulations of the State Historical Society.
The Council voted unanimously to override the recommendation of the SHPO and to grant the Church a permit based in part, as Councilman Preisner asserted in his motion, on the fact that “there [are] no feasible and prudent alternatives to the proposal.” Under the standards expressed in Reiter, in Allen I, and in the administrative regulations of the State Historical Society, and confining our examination to the record now before us, none of the suggested alternatives constitutes a relevant factor which the Council was required to consider in acting on the Church’s application.
On the other hand, if any suggestion can be found to have risen to the level of a relevant factor, then upon examining the facts in the record in the light more favoring the prevailing party, we find
All Possible Planning To Minimize HarmP
The Council’s final basis for overriding the recommendation of the SHPO was that all possible planning had been undertaken to minimize harm to the historic property. There is substantial evidence of efforts by the Church to mitigate the effects of its proposed parking lot on the remainder of Bethany Place. FOB does not argue that there were other mitigation activities the Church could have employed but chose to ignore.
An engineering report documents that the project would involve 12,000 square feet of land, or 4.5% of Bethany Place. Bishop Wolfe testified .that the Church would be planting “twice as many trees” as would be lost in the project, in addition to a line of bushes, to hide the parking lot from street view. Dean Lipscomb informed the City’s Planning Department:
“Between Polk and the proposed parking lot, a three-foot tall hedge is already in place. When there are no cars in the parking lot (which will be only 60 feet wide), it will be invisible from the street. The far side of the lot (the west side) will be lined with mature trees. (Over 17 trees would remain between the lot and the buildings.)”
The Church’s landscape plan shows that new, more desirable trees would be planted to replace the trees removed during construction. We find nothing in the record (and no arguments in the parties’ briefs) to suggest that there were other mitigation activities the Church could have undertaken but chose to ignore. There is substantial evidence to support the Council’s determination that all possible planning has been undertaken to minimize harm the project might cause to Bethany Place. See Reiter v. City of Beloit, 263 Kan. 74, 95-96, 947 P.2d 425 (1997).
We conclude that there is substantial evidence to support the Council’s approval of the Church’s permit application. In arriving
III. Does The District Court’s Decision Violate The Church’s Rights Under The First Amendment To The United States Constitution Or Under The Religious Land Use And Institutionalized Persons Act, 42 U.S.A. § 2000cc (2006) P
Because we conclude that there was substantial evidence to support the Council’s action, we reverse the contrary judgment of the district court. Thus, it is unnecessary to consider whether the district court’s decision violated the Church’s rights under the First Amendment to the United States Constitution or under 42 U.S.C. § 2000cc(a)(l)-(2) (2006) of the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000.
IV. Did The District Court Err In Refusing To Require FOB To Post A Supersedeas Bond For This AppealP
When the Church expressed its intention to proceed with construction of the parking lot, FOB moved the district court for a restraining order to halt the project. The court granted the motion but refused to condition it upon FOB posting a bond. The Church appeals that ruling, claiming that K.S.A. 60-2101(d), when read together with K.S.A. 60-2103(d), required the district court to order FOB to post a supersedeas bond as a condition for the restraining order. FOB contends that the supersedeas bond provision in K.S.A. 60-2103(d) relates only to appeals/rom the district court, not appeals to the district court. The matter is now before the appellate court. The passage of time has rendered this issue moot.
The Church also complains that FOB was not required to post a supersedeas bond during the pendency of this appeal. But the
Because we are reversing the judgment of the district court, the Church is entitled to its permit as approved by the Council and to proceed with construction of the project. If FOB petitions for review of our ruling by the Kansas Supreme Court pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 8.03 (2009 Kan. Ct. R. Annot. 66), the provisions of Rule 8.03(i) will take effect.
Reversed and remanded with directions.
# # #