2023-084 - Denying Appeal No. 2023-07 and Upholding Planning Commission Determination for 2938 South Daimler Street

Home Browse Search

G. The City's land use restrictions are applied uniformly to all general assembly uses. H. As outlined herein and the Request for City Council Action (RFCA), it is evident that the Applicant's proposed assembly use does not adhere to the principles and objectives laid out in the City's General Plan. On January 23, 2023, the Applicant submitted a development project application to the City for the change of use from office to an assembly use. Following a thorough analyses during the Development Project Review (DP) process, the Development Review Committee (DRC) identified that the proposed use was not consistent, conflicts with, and negatively impacts the enjoyment and uses of the property within the Industrial/Flex-Medium (Flex- 3) General Plan land use designation. J. Based on the project's General Plan inconsistency, staff is unable to recommend approval of the Applicant's request due to the inability to satisfy all five findings of fact required by SAMC Section 41-638(a)(1), among which includes the subject property's General Plan land use designation of IndustriallFlex-Medium (Flex-3) that does not allow community assembly uses such as the subject church. K. Requiring consistency of a CUP with a local jurisdiction's general plan is well established by California case law. The California Supreme Court and Court of Appeal have consistently found that the discretionary approval of a CUP must be consistent with a general plan (Neighborhood Action Group v. County of Calaveras, 156 CaL App. 3d 1176, 1185 (1984)), and that the general plan is atop the hierarchy of local government land use law, acting as a constitution for all future developments. (De Vita v. Cty. of Napa, 9 Cal. 4th 763, 773 (1995); citing Neighborhood Action Group, 156 Cal.App.3d at 1183.) L. On February 21, 2023, staff and the Applicant met to discuss the project, during which staff informed the Applicant of the identified inconsistencies between the proposed use and the General Plan. As a result, the Applicant was given the option to withdraw the DP application or move forward with the CUP application without the supporting findings necessary in the approval of a CUP and denial recommendation. M. On May 2, 2023, the Applicant indicated, as documented in the RFCA, intent to proceed with the CUP application knowing the proposed use did not have the requisite supporting finding necessary for the CUP approval. N. On July 24, 2023, the Applicant submitted the CUP application proposing to convert an existing office space into a church. O. On September 11, 2023, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing for Conditional Use Permit No. 2023-18. The Commission voted 6:1 Resolution No. 2023-084 Page 2 of 8