Laserfiche WebLink
G. The City's land use restrictions are applied uniformly to all general assembly <br />uses. <br />H. As outlined herein and the Request for City Council Action (RFCA), it is evident <br />that the Applicant's proposed assembly use does not adhere to the principles <br />and objectives laid out in the City's General Plan. <br />On January 23, 2023, the Applicant submitted a development project <br />application to the City for the change of use from office to an assembly use. <br />Following a thorough analyses during the Development Project Review (DP) <br />process, the Development Review Committee (DRC) identified that the <br />proposed use was not consistent, conflicts with, and negatively impacts the <br />enjoyment and uses of the property within the Industrial/Flex-Medium (Flex-3) <br />General Plan land use designation. <br />J. Based on the project's General Plan inconsistency, staff is unable to <br />recommend approval of the Applicant's request due to the inability to satisfy all <br />five findings of fact required by SAMC Section 41-638(a)(1), among which <br />includes the subject property's General Plan land use designation of <br />Industrial/Flex-Medium (Flex-3) that does not allow community assembly uses <br />such as the subject church. <br />K. Requiring consistency of a CUP with a local jurisdiction's general plan is well <br />established by California case law. The California Supreme Court and Court of <br />Appeal have consistently found that the discretionary approval of a CUP must <br />be consistent with a general plan (Neighborhood Action Group v. County of <br />Calaveras, 156 Cal. App. 3d 1176, 1185 (1984)), and that the general plan is <br />atop the hierarchy of local government land use law, acting as a constitution <br />for all future developments. (De Vita v. Cty. of Napa, 9 Cal. 4th 763, 773 (1995); <br />citing Neighborhood Action Group, 156 Cal.App.3d at 1183.) <br />L. On February 21, 2023, staff and the Applicant met to discuss the project, during <br />which staff informed the Applicant of the identified inconsistencies between the <br />proposed use and the General Plan. As a result, the Applicant was given the <br />option to withdraw the DP application or move forward with the CUP application <br />without the supporting findings necessary in the approval of a CUP and denial <br />recommendation. <br />M. On May 2, 2023, the Applicant indicated, as documented in the RFCA, intent <br />to proceed with the CUP application knowing the proposed use did not have <br />the requisite supporting finding necessary for the CUP approval. <br />N. On July 24, 2023, the Applicant submitted the CUP application proposing to <br />convert an existing office space into a church. <br />O. On September 11, 2023, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public <br />hearing for Conditional Use Permit No. 2023-18. The Commission voted 6:1 <br />(Ayes: Commissioners Benninger, Escamilla, Leo, Oliva, Pham, and Woo; <br />Resolution No. 2023-XX <br />Page 2 of 8 <br />