ORANGE, CALIF. - A Buddhist congregation will be able to move forward with plans to build a long-awaited temple under the terms of a settlement announced today with the city of Garden Grove.

The agreement between the city and the Vietnamese Buddhism Study Temple in America -- represented by the American Civil Liberties Union of Southern California, Manatt, Phelps & Phillips, LLP, and Lee & Tran, LLP -- puts to rest a two-year-old dispute over the Buddhist group's development plans for a 1.8-acre parcel that it owns.

'This is a victory both for local control and for freedom of worship,' said Belinda Escobosa Helzer, an ACLU/SC attorney who litigated the case. 'It's a workable compromise that lets the city successfully regulate land use and also allows the temple members to worship as they see fit.'

At the heart of the dispute was a request for a zoning change that would allow the Buddhist group, also known as Quan Am Temple, to tear down an existing office complex and build an expanded temple where some of its monks could live and worship along with community members.

The city initially denied the application, citing complaints from neighbors about increased noise and traffic. But the denial raised freedom-of-religion concerns among the group's members.

As part of the settlement, the group will submit a revised zoning-change application to the Garden Grove Planning Commission for permission to tear down the former medical building and build a smaller, one-story temple that includes a residence for the monks.

The commission will expedite the zoning-change application and set a public hearing on it within 75 days of the application date. City staff will then recommend approval, provided the application conforms to zoning requirements. The matter then will go to the City Council for a vote.

'We cannot pre-judge this zoning-change application or guarantee its approval ahead of review,' said Matthew Fertal, Garden Grove City Manager. 'But we can assure the Buddhists that the previous lawsuit will have no effect on the city's decision and the application will receive fair consideration.'

The City of Garden Grove further will waive processing fees and will recognize Quan Am Temple's status as a tax-exempt religious group.

'I am very happy that we could reach an understanding,' said Thich Dao Quang, the temple's abbot. 'This disagreement was very painful for our community. We are glad it is behind us.'

Members of a religious group threatened with ticketing and arrest for serving meals to the homeless at Doheny State Park can resume their ministry under a settlement with state parks officials announced today. The agreement stemmed from a lawsuit filed by the ACLU of Southern California, alleging the state had infringed on the group's freedom of expression and religion.
'It is a good day when we can express our faith by helping our fellow human beings,' said James Seiler, the former president of Welcome INN (Interfaith Needs Network), the plaintiffs in the case. 'It's comforting to see that state government officials have come to understand the importance of religious liberty, no matter how it is expressed.'
In February, state park rangers threatened to cite and arrest members of Welcome INN for violating Section 4321 of the California State Administrative Code when the religious group hosted meals for about 40 homeless people in the picnic area of Doheny.
Patti Church, the current president of Welcome INN, sought help from the American Civil Liberties Union of Southern California (ACLU/SC), explaining that counseling and sharing food with homeless men, women, and children on a person-to-person basis is key to the group's ministry.
'It's important for each member to hand each homeless individual a meal and to pray and give thanks with that person,' Church said. 'That is what Welcome INN's charter says and that is what we're about.'
On May 8, the ACLU/SC filed suit against the California Department of Parks and Recreation (DPR), claiming Section 4321 - which spells out rules governing unlawful assembly -- is unconstitutionally broad and should be struck down because it interferes with the group's First
Amendment rights to freedom of expression and religion.
Under the settlement announced today, the DPR agrees not to enforce the regulation against anyone for three years. If they choose, officials can then work on a new, more specific regulation that will allow them to successfully manage gatherings at state parks, without impinging on constitutional rights, said Hector Villagra, director of the Orange County office of the ACLU/SC, who litigated the case.
'Park rangers ought to be able to reasonably manage gatherings at state parks,' Villagra said. 'But this rule was so broad that it threatened to significantly interfere with protected speech. Now, officials will have a chance to draft a new rule that respects the First Amendment while regulating park use in a measured way.'

ORANGE, Calif. - A state appeals court has affirmed the dismissal of misdemeanor charges of disrupting a meeting against Coyotl Tezcatlipoca, a former Orange Coast College student involved in a free-speech lawsuit against the city of Costa Mesa.

The court agreed with Belinda Escobosa-Helzer, an attorney for the Orange County office of the American Civil Liberties Union of Southern California, who argued that a local attorney appointed by the city to prosecute the case against Tezcatlipoca did not have authority because he had not been duly sworn in or appointed under California law.

'The law is pretty black and white on this,' Escobosa-Helzer said. 'I think the court's opinion recognizes that. We're holding the city and its representatives to the requirements of the law.'

At a meeting of the Costa Mesa City Council in January of 2006, Tezcatlipoca, also known as Benito Acosta, was speaking out against a proposal to deputize local police officers to enforce immigration law when then-Mayor Allan Mansoor cut him off. Several officers then surrounded Tezcatlipoca, dragged him out of chambers and arrested him.

Representing Tezcatlipoca, the ACLU/SC filed a federal lawsuit against the city in March, charging that his First Amendment, due process and equal protection rights had been violated. Three months later, Danny Peelman, a local attorney who worked with the firm that represented the city in the civil case, filed misdemeanor charges against Tezcatlipoca, even though the Orange County District Attorney's Office had declined to prosecute.

In October 2007, Orange County Superior Court Judge Kelly McEachern dismissed the case against Tezcatlipoca, finding that Peelman had not been duly sworn in or appointed. The city appealed. But on Wednesday, acting presiding Judge Greg L. Prickett of the state court of appeals, along with judges Mary Fingal Schulte and Robert J. Moss, issued an order affirming the lower court ruling.

'Private criminal prosecutions are illegal in California,' Escobosa-Helzer said. 'The court's opinion confirms the allegations that we made from the beginning that this prosecution was vindictive and in retaliation for Mr. Tezcatlipoca's assertion of his constitutional rights.'