Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem 37 - Appeal No. 2023-07 Denial of CUP No. 2023-18 Anchor Stone Christian Church: 2938 S. Daimler StreetPlanning and Building Agency www.santa-ana.org/planning-and-building Item # 37 City of Santa Ana 20 Civic Center Plaza, Santa Ana, CA 92701 Staff Report November 21, 2023 TOPIC: Anchor Stone Christian Church: 2938 South Daimler Street AGENDA TITLE Appeal No. 2023-07 Appealing Planning Commission Denial of CUP No. 2023-18 for Anchor Stone Christian Church to Allow a Proposed Assembly Use at 2938 South Daimler Street Legal notice published in the OC Reporter on November 8, 2023 and notices mailed on November 9, 2023. RECOMMENDED ACTION Adopt a resolution denying Appeal Application No. 2023-07 and upholding the determination of the Planning Commission to deny Conditional Use Permit No. 2023-18. RESOLUTION NO. 2023-XXX entitled A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA ANA DENYING APPEAL NO. 2023-07 AND UPHOLDING THE DETERMINATION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION TO DENY CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2023-18 TO ALLOW AN ASSEMBLY USE TO OPERATE AT 2938 SOUTH DAIMLER STREET GOVERNMENT CODE §84308 APPLIES: Yes EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Steven Lee, representing Anchor Stone Christian Church (Applicant and Property Owner), is requesting approval of Conditional Use Permit (CUP) No. 2023-18 to allow the operation of a church located at 2938 South Daimler Street. The property is located within the Professional (P) zoning district and has a General Plan Land Use Designation of Industrial/Flex-Medium (Flex-3). Pursuant to Section 41-313.5(n) of the Santa Ana Municipal Code (SAMC), churches located in the P zoning district require approval of a CUP. Moreover, pursuant to SAMC Section 41-638(a)(1), approval of a CUP is contingent on all five of the specified findings of fact contained therein being satisfied. Due to the inability to satisfy all five findings of fact required by the SAMC, among which includes the subject property's General Plan land use designation of Industrial/Flex- Medium (Flex-3) that does not allow community assembly uses such as the subject Anchor Stone Christian Church: 2938 S. Daimler Street November 21, 2023 Page 2 church, City staff is unable to make the findings supporting the approval of the application. Planning Commission Action & Background At its regular meeting on September 11, 2023, the Planning Commission received a report and staff presentation, as well as public comments, on the subject CUP application. Following staff's presentation, the Planning Commission took comments from the public, including the applicant's legal counsel, on the proposed project. The Commission voted 6:1 (Ayes: Commissioners Benninger, Escamilla, Leo, Oliva, Pham, and Woo; Noes: Ramos) to adopt a resolution denying CUP No. 2023-18. On September 14, 2023, appellant Anchor Stone Christian Church (Applicant) filed Appeal No. 2023-07, pertaining to the Planning Commission's denial of CUP No. 2023- 18. Pursuant to SAMC Section 41-645, the City Council is authorized to review appeals of Planning Commission decisions and may, after holding a public hearing, affirm, reverse, change, or modify the original decision, and may make any additional determination it shall consider appropriate within the limitations imposed by the SAMC. DISCUSSION Project Description The proposed church is located within a 5.43-acre site that contains an office complex with 18 buildings. The site is generally bounded by Deere Avenue to the east, Garry Avenue to the south, Pullman Street to the west, and Daimler Street to the north. The church is proposing to occupy a 3,843 square -foot unit that is part of an existing 8,250- square-foot building. The project proposes to occupy the aforementioned unit for worship services, religious education, and video production. Additionally, the project proposes to have summer bible school during one week of the summer. The proposed floorplan includes the lobby, social hall, auditorium, restrooms, meeting rooms, nursery to be used during worship services, and storage rooms. Proposed hours of operation would be Monday to Friday from 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. and Saturday from 10:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m.; church services will be Sunday from 9:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. Interior tenant improvements include demolition of nonbearing walls and construction of new interior partitions, construction of a stage for an auditorium, upgrades to the electrical wiring, new plumbing fixtures, new mechanical equipment, and fire sprinklers. There are no exterior changes proposed with the project. Table 1: Proiect Location and Information Item Information Project Address & Council Ward 2938 South Daimler Street Ward 4 Nearest Intersection Daimler Street & Garry Avenue General Plan Designation Industrial/Flex-Medium Flex-3 Zoning Designation Professional P Surrounding Land Uses North Professional offices East Professional offices Anchor Stone Christian Church: 2938 S. Daimler Street November 21, 2023 Page 3 Item Information South Professional offices West i Professional offices Property Size The entire office building complex is 5.43 acres, and the unit is 3,843 square feet. Existing Site Development The site is developed with an 18-building office complex. Use Permissions Allowed with approval of a CUP Zoning Code Sections Affected Development Standards Section 41-314 — 41-319 Uses Section 41-313.5 (n) Table 1: Development Standards Standards Required by SAMC Provided Building Height Maximum 35 Feet Complies; 25 Feet Setbacks Minimum 15 Feet Front Complies; 81 Feet Minimum 5 Feet Side Interior Complies; 200 Feet Minimum 10 Feet Rear Complies; Over 200 Feet Parking 1 space per 50 SF of floor area Complies with SAMC without fixed seats (The requirements (The total number number of parking spaces of parking spaces available on required for the church is 77 site is 560. However, the and the total number of parking application materials provided by spaces required for all onsite the applicant indicate that there uses is 505) are 34 parking spaces available due to lease restrictions). Project Background The project site was developed in 1978 with the existing office complex that encompasses 18 office buildings, on -site landscaping, and surface parking with a ratio of 3.8 parking spaces per 1,000 square feet of office space. The existing building is comprised of two units (2938 and 2932 South Daimler Street). The immediately adjacent unit at 2932 South Daimler Street is currently occupied by an office use. In May of 2023, Anchor Stone Christian Church applied for a certificate of occupancy for an administrative office space only, which is a use allowed by right in the P zoning district. Anchor Stone Christian Church currently operates at a separate location in the City of Irvine. On January 23, 2023, the applicant submitted a development project application to the City of Santa Ana for the change of use from office to a church. During the Development Review Project (DP) process, the Development Review Committee (DRC) identified that the proposed use was not consistent with the Industrial/Flex-Medium (Flex-3) General Plan land use designation. 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 provided 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 the resulting denial recommendation. Anchor Stone Christian Church: 2938 S. Daimler Street November 21, 2023 Page 4 Subsequently, additional meetings were held between staff and the applicant so that the applicant could learn more about the site's General Plan land use designation. On May 2, 2023, the applicant indicated intent to proceed with the subject application. The applicant subsequently submitted the CUP application on July 24, 2023. Analysis of Appeal Pursuant to Section 41-645 of the SAMC an appeal from a decision of the Planning Commission can be made by an interested party, individual, or group. An appeal application was received by Anchor Stone Christian Church appealing the Planning Commission's decision to deny CUP No. 2023-18. The appellant is requesting that the City Council overturn the Planning Commission's decision and approve CUP No. 2023-18 based on five factors. These include concerns related to the General Plan consistency and statements regarding Federal law violations. The Planning Commission agenda packet prepared for the project contains all necessary information for the Planning Commission to evaluate the applicant's request and is provided as Exhibit 2 to this report. A copy of the submitted appeal application is provided as Exhibit 3, and a detailed analysis of and response to the five claims made in Appeal No. 2023-07 is provided as Exhibit 4. Planning Commission Determination Supporting Denial CUP requests are governed by Section 41-638 of the SAMC. CUPs may be granted when it can be shown that the proposed project will not adversely impact the community and General Plan. If these findings can be made, then it is appropriate to grant the CUP. Conversely, the inability to make one or more of the requisite findings results in a denial. The proposed church, Anchor Stone Christian Church, currently operates in the City of Irvine. The applicant's request would allow the church to expand to the City of Santa Ana. The church would occupy a 3,843 square -foot tenant space previously occupied by an office use. The project site is located within an integrated professional office complex that is approximately 0.54 miles (2,851 feet) from the nearest sensitive land use. SAMC Section 41-638(a)(1) requires that all five of the specified findings of fact contained therein are satisfied before the Planning Commission may grant approval of a CUP, one of which is evaluating if the project will adversely affect the General Plan. The subject site's General Plan land use designation is Flex-3, which allows office/industrial flex spaces, research and development, and manufacturing corporate headquarters/campuses, and does not permit community assembly uses (e.g., churches) as a permissible use. Anchor Stone Christian Church: 2938 S. Daimler Street November 21, 2023 Page 5 Anchor Stone Christian Church: 2938 S. Daimler Street November 21, 2023 Page 6 Background on the General Plan The General Plan Update (GPU) was adopted in April 2022 after a seven-year effort of extensive community participation. In the pursuit of updating the General Plan, a comprehensive and inclusive approach involving numerous engagement efforts and interactions with the community was taken. The initiative began with over 60 community meetings and workshops, where residents, business leaders, and community stakeholders provided perspectives for the future vision of the community, including its land use plan in the Land Use Element. Individual community workshops were organized for the Five Focus areas identified, attracting the participation of hundreds of individuals. In addition, an online survey was circulated and received over 650 individual responses collecting input for the General Plan. The outreach effort also involved sending approximately 44,000 direct mailers to property owners and tenants in the Focus Areas, multilingual videos, and a dedicated webpage, providing ongoing updates on the process, related documents, and resources on Environmental Justice. Furthermore, engagement with the Planning Commission and City Council involved multiple study sessions and one-on-one meetings providing in-depth discussions and insights facilitating discussions at the municipal level and allowing for an informed and inclusive decision -making throughout the GPU process. These engagement efforts resulted in the crafting of the land use plan within the Land Use Element that reflects the community's visions for Santa Ana's growth and development citywide. The updated Land Use Element of the General Plan reflects and sets the community's land use and development policies and a vision for future development of the City. When considering projects of a discretionary nature, such as a CUP required for the proposed use, consistency with the General Plan must be established in order to satisfy the finding of fact that proposed uses will not have an adverse effect on the General Plan. General Plan Land Use Designation In reviewing the proposed discretionary approval request, staff evaluates the project against the five findings of fact codified in SAMC Section 41-638(a)(1), including consistency with the General Plan. 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. (DeVita v. Cty. of Napa, 9 Cal. 4th 763, 773 (1995); citing Neighborhood Action Group, 156 Cal.App.3d at 1183.). The General Plan Land Use Element land use designation describes the site's Flex-3 and allowable uses are as follows: Anchor Stone Christian Church: 2938 S. Daimler Street November 21, 2023 Page 7 The Industrial/Flex designation is intended to provide context -appropriate development in areas with existing industrial uses. When adjacent to existing residential neighborhoods, this designation can provide a buffer between homes and traditional industrial uses. When adjacent to urban - scale mixed -use development, this designation is more free to emphasize significant employment opportunities. Industrial/Flex allows for clean industrial uses that do not produce significant air pollutants, noise, or other nuisances typically associated with industrial uses, including office -industrial flex spaces, small-scale clean manufacturing, research and development and multilevel corporate offices, commercial retail, artist galleries, craft maker spaces, and live - work units'. Adaptive reuse of buildings to accommodate live -work units is encouraged. Standalone residential is not permitted. Building form and height should reflect the existing context and, if inside a Focus Area, communicate the envisioned character for the area. Based on the land use designation and development policies and allowable uses within the Flex-3 designation, the subject site is not suitable for the operation of community assembly, nor does it list community assembly -type uses as permissible under the land use designation. Conversely, land use designations such as General Commercial (GC) and its accompanying zoning districts allow for "retail and service establishments; recreational, cultural, and entertainment uses; business and professional offices; and vocational schools," among which "recreational, cultural, and entertainment uses" provide for community assembly such as religious facilities. General Plan Focus Area Designation In addition, the subject site is part of one of the five Focus Areas adopted by the General Plan also known as 55 Freeway and Dyer Road Focus Area. The various land use designations within each Focus Area work together to ensure consistency and diversity of land uses achieving development policies to balance developing goals and land use consistencies within the City. The five Focus Areas were identified by the General Plan Advisory Committee and refined through a seven-year community engagement process as the areas of the City most suitable for new development. The five Focus Areas are geographically distributed throughout the City, and each allows the City to meet its diverse needs. The purpose and intent, specific objectives, and custom land uses for each focus area were defined to facilitate new types of urban development and further embody the City's core values. The General Plan Land Use Element describes the purpose and intent of the 55 Freeway and Dyer Road Focus Area as follows: Table LU-A-1 in the Santa Ana General Plan Land Use Element does not permit live -work units in the Flex-3 designation within the 55 Freeway and Dyer Road Focus Area Anchor Stone Christian Church: 2938 S. Daimler Street November 21, 2023 Page 8 The 55 Freeway and Dyer Road Focus Area will transition from a portion of the city that is almost exclusively focused on professional office jobs to one that supports a range of commercial, and industrial/flex development. The intent is to create opportunities for a truly urban lifestyle with easy access to Downtown Santa Ana, multiple transit options, and the new investments and amenities in adjacent communities. The 55 Freeway and Dyer Road Focus Area contains three General Plan land use designations at four intensities. Among these is the Flex-3 designation, which provides for the following land uses: "Office/industrial flex spaces, [research and development facilities], clean manufacturing, corporate headquarters and campuses. Live -work units are not permitted." The subject Focus Area contains various portions north of the project site, near the interchange of the 55 Freeway and Dyer Road, that are designated GC. This GC land use designation would allow for findings to be made that the subject CUP application does not adversely affect the General Plan, while the subject site's Flex-3 designation would render the Planning Commission unable to make this required consistency finding. General Plan Goals and Policies The subject project will not be consistent with the goals and policies of the General Plan, including those from the Land Use Element (LU) and the Economic Prosperity Element (EP). An analysis of these inconsistencies is provided in Table 3 below. Table 3: Project Location and Information General Plan Goal or Policy Analysis LU-1.1, which encourages The introduction of a community assembly use and a Bible school compatibility between land uses to to the existing office complex will generate noise, traffic and enhance livability and promote healthy queuing, solid waste generation and circulation. Moreover, it will lifestyles. introduce assembly uses with youth services in close proximity to existing industrial uses in the area, counter to this General Plan policy. Additionally, the Flex-3 land use designation allows future developments with clean industrial and office uses in accordance with Table LU-A-2, which specifies interim industrial flex uses. Community assembly such as churches is not permitted. Irreconcilable land use conflicts between a sensitive receptor such as the proposed church and its school operations will be generated if the subject application were approved with future industrial uses taking place in the land use designation of the Focus Area. The purpose of the land use plan of the Land Use Element is to prevent these irreconcilable land use conflicts from occurring in the future between sensitive receptors and surrounding industrial uses. Lastly, the Flex-3 land use designation allows primarily office, industrial, clean manufacturing, research and development, and Anchor Stone Christian Church: 2938 S. Daimler Street November 21, 2023 Page 9 General Plan Goal or Policy Analysis similarly -natured industrial/production-oriented land uses and does not allow community assembly such as churches. This land use principle of preventing inconsistent land uses from locating in the same areas is currently codified in the City's Light and Heavy industrial (M1 and M2) zoning districts. The Flex-3 General Plan use designation points to the M1 land uses in Table LU-A-2 as examples of clean industrial uses commensurate with the General Plan land use designation, reaffirming this principle of not locating sensitive receptors such as community assembly uses within or in proximity to industrial areas of the City. LU-4.1, which supports complete The site is surrounded by professional and industrial uses, and neighborhoods by encouraging a mix the nearest residential community is approximately 0.3 miles of complimentary uses, community away. As such, the introduction of a religious institution in this site services, and people places within a would not be compatible with the surrounded uses and will not walkable area. encourage development of place -making within a walkable area. Moreover, as detailed above, the purpose of the land use plan of the Land Use Element is to prevent irreconcilable land use conflicts from occurring in the future between sensitive receptors and surrounding industrial uses. However, irreconcilable land use conflicts between a sensitive receptor such as the proposed church and its school operations will be generated if the subject application were approved with future industrial uses taking place in the land use designation of the Focus Area. EP-1.9, which seeks to avoid potential Establishing uses such as community assembly, coupled with land use conflicts by prohibiting the youth services and Bible school, would introduce sensitive location of sensitive receptors and receptors into an area that is mostly comprised of industrial and noxious land uses in close proximity. office uses and that is intended to transition to industrial uses over time, through implementation of the General Plan. The purpose of the land use plan in the Land Use Element is to prevent these land use conflicts from taking place through goals, policies, and zoning practices designed to create "a physical environment that encourages healthy lifestyles, a planning process that ensures that health impacts are considered, and a community that actively pursues policies and practices that improve the health of our residents," as listed as an adopted Core Value of the Land Use Element. Approval of the subject application would be contrary to the Land Use Element and this adopted Core Value. EP-2.3, which encourages the As promulgated by the adopted General Plan Land Use Element, development of mutually beneficial introducing community assembly does not support the and complementary business clusters development of mutually beneficial and complementary business within the community. clusters at the subject site. To the contrary, it will create irreconcilable conflicts by introducing a sensitive receptor within an area that is presently and continuing to transition to industrial uses. Approval of the requested application would lead to present and future land use conflicts stemming from noise, traffic, vibrations, queuing, solid waste generation, and circulation. Anchor Stone Christian Church: 2938 S. Daimler Street November 21, 2023 Page 10 General Plan Goal or Policy Analysis Moreover, community assembly uses are not listed as permissible within the subject site's General Plan land use designation, as the use is not considered among those that foster development of mutually beneficial and complementary business clusters within the community. The land use would be incompatible with surrounding uses and approval of the CUP would be contrary to the General Plan. Public Notification and Community Outreach Public notifications were posted, published, and mailed in accordance with City and State regulations. There are no established Neighborhood Associations in the vicinity as the property is surrounded by industrial and commercial uses within the 1,000-foot radius. At the time this report was printed, no issues of concern were raised regarding the proposed CUP. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT Denial of Appeal No. 2023-07 would result in upholding the Planning Commission's September 11, 2023, denial of the requested entitlement, thereby resulting in no project. Therefore, there is no environmental impact associated with this action. FISCAL IMPACT There is no fiscal impact associated with this action. EXHIBIT(S) 1. Resolution 2. Planning Commission Agenda Packet with Public Comments 3. Appeal Application 4. City Response to Appeal Application Submitted By: Minh Thai, Executive Director of Planning and Building Agency Approved By: Steven A. Mendoza, Acting City Manager RESOLUTION NO. 2023-XX A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA ANA DENYING APPEAL NO. 2023-07 AND UPHOLDING THE DETERMINATION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION TO DENY CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2023-18 TO ALLOW AN ASSEMBLY USE TO OPERATE AT 2938 SOUTH DAIMLER STREET BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA ANA AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. The City Council of the City of Santa Ana hereby finds, determines, and declares as follows: A. Property Owner Anchor Stone Christian Church (Applicant) is requesting approval of Conditional Use Permit (CUP) No. 2023-18 to allow an assembly use to operate at an existing office space located at 2938 South Daimler Street. B. Pursuant to Section 41-313.5(n) of the Santa Ana Municipal Code (SAMC), assembly uses such as churches located in the P zoning district require approval of a CUP. C. Pursuant to SAMC Section 41-638(a)(1), the Planning Commission shall grant approval of a CUP only if all five of the specified findings of fact contained therein are satisfied. D. On July 18, 2022, the Applicant acquired the site located at 2938 South Daimler Street, prior to contacting City of Santa Ana staff to ensure the proposed use would be allowed subject to General Plan land use consistency, zoning laws, and land use requirements. E. The Applicant did not engage with the City regarding the permissibility of their proposed assembly use on the Property. It is a fundamental responsibility of any party seeking to establish a new use, to proactively seek clarity on the regulatory and zoning requirements from City staff. This proactive approach involves consulting with relevant municipal departments, understanding the jurisdiction's General Plan and zoning ordinances, and ensuring alignment with the City's land use policies. F. Alternative General Plan land use designations such as General Commercial (GC) and its accompanying zoning districts allow for retail and service establishments; recreational, cultural, and entertainment uses; business and professional offices; and vocational schools, among which recreational, cultural, and entertainment uses provide for community assembly such as religious facilities. Resolution No. 2023-XX Page 1 of 8 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 Industrial/Flex-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 (Ayes: Commissioners Benninger, Escamilla, Leo, Oliva, Pham, and Woo; Resolution No. 2023-XX Page 2 of 8 Noes: Ramos) to adopt a resolution denying CUP No. 2023-18. P. On September 14, 2023, appellant Steven Lee with Anchor Stone Christian Church, filed Appeal No. 2023-07. Pursuant to SAMC Section 41-645, the City Council is authorized to review appeals of Planning Commission decisions ad may, after holding a public hearing, affirm, revers, change, modify the original decision and may make any additional determination it shall consider appropriate within the limitation imposed by Chapter 41 of the SAMC. To support the City's recommendation to deny the appeal application and uphold the Planning Commission's denial of CUP No. 2023-18, the City prepared a response to the comments contained within the appeal application, attached as Exhibit 4 to the Request for Council Action (RFCA) staff report, dated November 21, 2023. Q. On November 21, 2023, the City Council held a duly noticed public hearing on Appeal No. 2023-07 for CUP No. 2023-18. R. The City Council determines that the following findings, which must be established in order to grant CUP No. 2023-18 pursuant to SAMC Section 41- 638(a)(1), have not been established. Specifically, CUP Finding 5 of Section 41-638(a)(1)(v) that the proposed use will not adversely affect the general plan of the city or any specific plan applicable to the area of the proposed use. Therefore, the City Council affirms the Planning Commission's denial of CUP-2023-18 finding: 1. That the proposed use will adversely affect the general plan of the city or any specific plan applicable to the area of the proposed use. The subject site has a General Plan land use designation of Industrial/Flex-Medium (Flex-3), which is intended to provide context -appropriate development in areas with existing industrial uses. Industrial/Flex allows for clean industrial uses that do not produce significant air pollutants, noise, or other nuisances typically associated with industrial uses, including office - industrial flex spaces, small-scale clean manufacturing, research and development and multilevel corporate offices, commercial retail, artist galleries, craft maker spaces, and live -work units. Based on the land use designation, development policies and allowable uses within the Flex-3 designation, the subject site is not suitable for the operation of community assembly, nor does it list community assembly -type uses as permissible under the land use designation. Conversely, land use designations such as General Commercial (GC) and its accompanying zoning districts allow for "retail and service establishments; recreational, cultural, and entertainment uses; business and professional offices; and vocational schools," among which "recreational, cultural, and entertainment uses" provide for community assembly such as religious facilities. Resolution No. 2023-XX Page 3 of 8 In addition, the subject site is part of one of the five Focus Areas adopted by the General Plan also known as 55 Freeway and Dyer Road Focus Area. The various land use designations within each Focus Area work together to ensure consistency and diversity of land uses achieving development policies to balance developing goals and land use consistencies within the City. The five Focus Areas were identified by the General Plan Advisory Committee and refined through a seven-year community engagement process as the areas of the City most suitable for new development. The five Focus Areas are geographically distributed throughout the City, and each allows the City to meet its diverse needs. The purpose and intent, specific objectives, and custom land uses for each focus area were defined to facilitate new types of urban development and further embody the City's core values. Furthermore, the 55 Freeway and Dyer Road Focus Area is intended to transition from an area that exclusively focused on professional office to an area that supports a range of commercial, and industrial/flex development. Moreover, the overall scale and experience of the focus area along the freeway and city boundary are intended to reflect an urban intensity and design, with inspiring building forms and public spaces. The industrial/flex land use designation is meant to promote large- scale office -industrial flex spaces, multilevel corporate offices, and research and development in creative buildings and spaces. Additionally, the subject project will not be consistent with the goals and policies of the General Plan, including those from the Land Use Element (LU) and the Economic Prosperity Element (EP). Specifically, policies 1.1 and 4.1 of the Land Use Element (LU) and policies 1.9 and 2.3 of the Economic Prosperity Element (EP). Policy 1.1 of the LU encourages compatibility between land uses to enhance livability and promote healthy lifestyles. The introduction of a community assembly use and a Bible school to the existing office complex will generate noise, traffic and queuing, solid waste generation and circulation. Moreover, it will introduce assembly uses with youth services in close proximity to existing industrial uses in the area, counter to this General Plan policy. Additionally, the Flex-3 land use designation allows future developments with clean industrial and office uses in accordance with Table LU-A-2, which specifies interim industrial flex uses. Community assembly such as churches is not permitted. Irreconcilable land use conflicts between a sensitive receptor such as the proposed church and its school operations will be generated if the CUP application were approved with future Resolution No. 2023-XX Page 4 of 8 industrial uses taking place in the land use designation of the Focus Area. The purpose of the land use plan of the Land Use Element is to prevent these irreconcilable land use conflicts from occurring in the future between sensitive receptors and surrounding industrial uses. In addition, the Flex-3 land use designation allows primarily office, industrial, clean manufacturing, research and development, and similarly -natured industrial/production-oriented land uses and does not allow community assembly such as churches. This land use principle of preventing inconsistent land uses from locating in the same areas is currently codified in the City's Light and Heavy industrial (M1 and M2) zoning districts. The Flex-3 General Plan use designation points to the M1 land uses in Table LU-A-2 as examples of clean industrial uses commensurate with the General Plan land use designation, reaffirming this principle of not locating sensitive receptors such as community assembly uses within or in proximity to industrial areas of the City. Policy 4.1 of the LU supports complete neighborhoods by encouraging a mix of complimentary uses, community services, and people places within a walkable area. The site is surrounded by professional and industrial uses, and the nearest residential community is approximately 0.3 miles away. As such, the introduction of a religious institution in this site would not be compatible with the surrounded uses and will not encourage development of place -making within a walkable area. Moreover, as detailed above, the purpose of the land use plan of the Land Use Element is to prevent irreconcilable land use conflicts from occurring in the future between sensitive receptors and surrounding industrial uses. However, irreconcilable land use conflicts between a sensitive receptor such as the proposed church and its school operations will be generated if the CUP application were approved with future industrial uses taking place in the land use designation of the Focus Area. Policy 1.9 of the EP seeks to avoid potential land use conflicts by prohibiting the location of sensitive receptors and noxious land uses in close proximity. Establishing uses such as community assembly, coupled with youth services and Bible school, would introduce sensitive receptors into an area that is mostly comprised of industrial and office uses and that is intended to transition to industrial uses over time, through implementation of the General Plan. The purpose of the land use plan in the Land Use Element is to prevent these land use conflicts from taking place through goals, policies, and zoning practices designed to create "a physical environment that encourages healthy lifestyles, a planning process that ensures that health impacts are considered, and a community that actively pursues policies and Resolution No. 2023-XX Page 5 of 8 practices that improve the health of our residents," as listed as an adopted Core Value of the Land Use Element. Approval of the CUP application would be contrary to the Land Use Element and this adopted Core Value. Policy 2.5 of the EP encourages the development of mutually beneficial and complementary business clusters within the community. As promulgated by the adopted General Plan Land Use Element, introducing community assembly does not support the development of mutually beneficial and complementary business clusters at the subject site. To the contrary, it will create irreconcilable conflicts by introducing a sensitive receptor within an area that is presently and continuing to transition to industrial uses. Approval of the requested application would lead to present and future land use conflicts stemming from noise, traffic, vibrations, queuing, solid waste generation, and circulation. Moreover, community assembly uses are not listed as permissible within the subject site's General Plan land use designation, as the use is not considered among those that foster development of mutually beneficial and complementary business clusters within the community. The land use would be incompatible with surrounding uses and approval of the CUP would be contrary to the General Plan. Section 2. In accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the CEQA Guidelines, this project is exempt from further review under Section 15061(b)(4) of the CEQA Guidelines, as the City Council has denied Appeal No. 2023-07, and affirm the determination of the Planning Commission to deny Conditional Use Permit No. 2023-18. Section 3. The City Council of the City of Santa Ana, after conducting the public hearing, hereby denies Appeal No. 2023-07 and affirms the Planning Commission denial of CUP No. 2023-18 for the proposed assembly use at 2938 South Daimler Street. The denial shall prohibit the assembly use at the subject site but leaves in effect the permitted office uses, allowed by right under SAMC Section 41-313, subject to all applicable standards and regulations set forth in Chapter 41 of the Santa Ana Municipal Code. This decision is based upon the evidence submitted at the above -referenced hearing, including but not limited to: The Request for Planning Commission Action dated September 11, 2023, and exhibits attached thereto; the Request for City Council Action (RFCA) dated November 21, 2023 and exhibits attached thereto; and the public testimony, written and oral, all of which are incorporated herein by this reference. [Signatures on the following page] Resolution No. 2023-XX Page 6 of 8 ADOPTED this 21st day of November 2023, by the following vote: Valerie Amezcua Mayor APPROVED AS TO FORM: Sonia R. Carvalho City Attorney Jose Montoya Assistant City Attorney AYES: Councilmembers NOES: Councilmembers ABSTAIN: Councilmembers NOT PRESENT: Councilmembers Resolution No. 2023-XX Page 7 of 8 CERTIFICATE OF ATTESTATION AND ORIGINALITY I, Jennifer L. Hall, City Clerk, do hereby attest to and certify the attached Resolution No. 2023-XX to be the original resolution adopted by the City Council of the City of Santa Ana on November 21, 2023. Date: City Clerk, City of Santa Ana Resolution No. 2023-XX Page 8 of 8 Public Hearing: The Planning Commission decision on Conditional Use Permits, Variances, Tentative Tract and Parcel Maps, Minor Exceptions, Site Plan Review, and Public Convenience or Necessity Determinations are final unless appealed within 10 days of the decision by any interested party or group (refer to the Basic Meeting Information page for more information). The Planning Commission recommendation on Zoning and General Plan amendments, Development Agreements, Specific Developments, and Specific Plans will be forwarded to the City Council for final determination. Legal notice was published in the OC Reporter on August 28, 2023 and notices were mailed on said date. 1. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2023-18 FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 2938 SOUTH DAIMLER STREET LOCATED WITHIN THE PROFESSIONAL (P) ZONING DISTRICT. Project Applicant: Steven Lee (Applicant) on behalf of Anchor Stone Christian Church (Property Owner). Proposed Project: The applicant is requesting approval of Conditional Use Permit No. 2023-18 to allow a church to occupy the existing office building. Environmental Impact: Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), there is no environmental impact associated with this action. Recommended Action: Adopt a resolution denying Conditional Use Permit No. 2023-18. Minutes: Commission had questions for staff, and applicant's attorney, and architect. Applicant, Steven Lee, spoke in favor of the project. Resident, Scott Yilshen, spoke in favor of the project. Resident, Michael Ellman, spoke in favor of the project. Planning and Building Agency Item # 1 City of Santa Ana 20 Civic Center Plaza, Santa Ana, CA 92701 Planning Commission Staff Report September 11, 2023 Topic: CUP No. 2023-18 — Anchor Stone Christian Church (2938 S. Daimler Street) RECOMMENDED ACTION Adopt a resolution denying Conditional Use Permit No. 2023-18. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Steven Lee, representing Anchor Stone Christian Church (Applicant and Property Owner), is requesting approval of Conditional Use Permit (CUP) No. 2023-18 to allow the operation of a church located at 2938 South Daimler Street. The property is located within the Professional (P) zoning district and has a General Plan Land Use Designation of Industrial/Flex-Medium (Flex-3). Pursuant to Section 41-313.5(n) of the Santa Ana Municipal Code (SAMC), churches located in the P zoning district require approval of a CUP. Moreover, pursuant to SAMC Section 41-638(a)(1), the Planning Commission shall grant approval of a CUP only if all five of the specified findings of fact contained therein are satisfied. Due to the inability to satisfy all five findings of fact required by the SAMC, among which includes the subject property's General Plan land use designation of Industrial/Flex-Medium (Flex-3) that does not allow community assembly uses such as the subject church, City staff is unable to make the findings supporting the approval of the application. DISCUSSION Project Description The proposed church is located within a 5.43-acre site that contains an office complex with eighteen (18) buildings. The site is generally bounded by Deere Avenue to the east, Garry Avenue to the south, Pullman Street to the west, and Daimler Street to the north. The church is proposing to occupy a 3,843 square -foot unit that is part of an existing 8,250-square-foot building. The project proposes to occupy aforementioned unit for worship services, religious education, and video production. Additionally, the project proposes to have summer bible school during one week of the summer. The proposed floorplan includes the lobby, social hall, auditorium, restrooms, meeting rooms, nursery to be used during worship services, and storage rooms. Proposed hours of operation would be Monday to Friday from 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. and Saturday from 10:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m.; church services will be Sunday from 9:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. Interior tenant improvements include demolition of nonbearing walls and construction of new9ifltffN5 artitions, construction of a stage for an auditorium, upgrades to the electrical Planning Commission 1 — 1 CUP No. 2023-18 — Anchor Stone Christian Church (2938 S. Daimler Street) September 11, 2023 Page 2 wiring, new plumbing fixtures, new mechanical equipment, and fire sprinklers. There are no exterior changes proposed with the project. Table 1: Project Location and Information Item Information Project Address & Council Ward 2938 South Daimler Street Ward 6 Nearest Intersection Daimler Street & Garry Avenue General Plan Designation Industrial/Flex-Medium Flex-3 Zoning Designation Professional P Surrounding Land Uses North Professional offices East Professional offices South Professional offices West Professional offices Property Size The entire office building complex is 5.43 acres, and the unit is 3,843 square feet. Existing Site Development The site is developed with an 18-buildingoffice complex. Use Permissions Allowed with approval of a CUP Zoning Code Sections Affected Development Standards Section 41-314 — 41-319 Uses Section 41-313.5 n Table 2: Development Standards Standards Required by SAMC Provided Building Height Maximum 35 Feet Complies; 25 Feet Setbacks Minimum 15 Feet (Front) Complies; 81 Feet Minimum 5 Feet (Side Interior) Complies; 200 Feet Minimum 10 Feet (Rear) Complies; Over 200 Feet Parking 1 space per 50 SF of floor area without fixed seats Does not comply; 34 spaces Project Background The project site was developed in 1978 with the existing office complex that encompasses eighteen (18) office buildings, on -site landscaping, and surface parking with a ratio of 3.8 parking spaces per 1,000 square feet of office space. The existing building is comprised of two units (2938 and 2932 South Daimler Street). The immediately adjacent unit at 2932 South Daimler Street is currently occupied by an office use. In May of 2023, the church applied for a certificate of occupancy for administrative office space, which a use allowed by right in the P zoning district. Anchor Stone Christian Church currently operates at a separate location in the City of Irvine. On January 23, 2023, the applicant submitted a development project application to the City for the change of use from office to a church. During the Development Review Project (DP) process, the Development Review Committee (DRC) identified that the proposed use was not consistent with the Industrial/Flex-Medium (Flex-3) General Plan land use designation. 9/11 /2023 Planning Commission 1 — 2 CUP No. 2023-18 — Anchor Stone Christian Church (2938 S. Daimler Street) September 11, 2023 Page 3 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 provided 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 the resulting denial recommendation. Following additional meetings between staff and the applicant so that the applicant could learn more about the site's General Plan land use designation, on May 2, 2023, the applicant indicated intent to proceed with the subject application. The applicant subsequently submitted the CUP application on July 24, 2023. Project Analysis CUP requests are governed by Section 41-638 of the SAMC. CUPs may be granted when it can be shown that the proposed project will not adversely impact the community and General Plan. If these findings can be made, then it is appropriate to grant the CUP. Conversely, the inability to make these findings results in a denial. The proposed church, Anchor Stone Christian Church currently operates in the City of Irvine. The applicant's request would allow the church to expand to the City of Santa Ana. The church would occupy a 3,843 square -foot tenant space previously occupied by an office use. The project site is located within an integrated professional office complex that is approximately 0.54 miles (2,851 feet) from the nearest sensitive land use. SAMC Section 41-638(a)(1) requires that all five of the specified findings of fact contained therein are satisfied before the Planning Commission may grant approval of a CUP, one of which is evaluating if the project will adversely affect the General Plan. The subject site's General Plan land use designation is Flex-3, which allows office/industrial flex spaces, research and development, and manufacturing corporate headquarters/campuses and does not permit community assembly uses such as churches as a permissible use. Background on the General Plan The General Plan Update (GPU) was adopted in April 2022 after a seven-year effort of extensive community participation. In the pursuit of updating the General Plan, a comprehensive and inclusive approach involving numerous engagement efforts and interactions with the community was taken. The initiative began with over 60 community meetings and workshops, where residents, business leaders, and community stakeholders provided perspectives for the future vision of the community, including its land use plan in the Land Use Element. Individual community workshops were organized for the Five Focus areas identified, attracting the participation of hundreds of individuals. In addition, an online survey was circulated and received over 650 individual responses collecting input for the General Plan. The outreach effort also involved sending approximately 44,000 direct mailers to property owners and tenants in the Focus Areas, multilingual videos, and a dedicated webpage, providing ongoing updates on the process, 9/11 /2023 Planning Commission 1 — 3 CUP No. 2023-18 — Anchor Stone Christian Church (2938 S. Daimler Street) September 11, 2023 Page 4 related documents, and resources on Environmental Justice. Furthermore, engagement with the Planning Commission and City Council involved multiple study sessions and one- on-one meetings providing in-depth discussions and insights facilitating discussions at the municipal level and allowing for an informed and inclusive decision -making throughout the GPU process. These engagement efforts resulted in the crafting of the land use plan within the Land Use Element that reflects the community's visions for Santa Ana's growth and development citywide. The updated Land Use Element of the General Plan reflects and sets the community's land use and development policies and a vision for future development of the City. When considering projects of a discretionary nature, such as a CUP required for the proposed use, consistency with the General Plan must be established in order to satisfy the finding of fact that proposed uses will not have an adverse effect on the General Plan. General Plan Land Use Designation In reviewing the proposed discretionary approval request, staff evaluates the project against the five findings of fact codified in SAMC Section 41-638(a)(1), including consistency with the General Plan. 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. (DeVita v. Cty. of Napa, 9 Cal. 4th 763, 773 (1995); citing Neighborhood Action Group, 156 Cal.App.3d at 1183.). The General Plan Land Use Element land use designation describes the site's Flex-3 and allowable uses are as follows: The Industrial/Flex designation is intended to provide context -appropriate development in areas with existing industrial uses. When adjacent to existing residential neighborhoods, this designation can provide a buffer between homes and traditional industrial uses. When adjacent to urban - scale mixed -use development, this designation is more free to emphasize significant employment opportunities. Industrial/Flex allows for clean industrial uses that do not produce significant air pollutants, noise, or other nuisances typically associated with industrial uses, including office -industrial flex spaces, small-scale clean manufacturing, research and development and multilevel corporate offices, 9/11 /2023 Planning Commission 1-4 CUP No. 2023-18 — Anchor Stone Christian Church (2938 S. Daimler Street) September 11, 2023 Page 5 commercial retail, artist galleries, craft maker spaces, and live -work units'. Adaptive reuse of buildings to accommodate live -work units is encouraged. Standalone residential is not permitted. Building form and height should reflect the existing context and, if inside a Focus Area, communicate the envisioned character for the area. Based on the land use designation and development policies and allowable uses within the Flex-3 designation, the subject site is not suitable for the operation of community assembly, nor does it list community assembly -type uses as permissible under the land use designation. Conversely, land use designations such as General Commercial (GC) and its accompanying zoning districts allow for "retail and service establishments; recreational, cultural, and entertainment uses; business and professional offices; and vocational schools," among which "recreational, cultural, and entertainment uses" provide for community assembly such as religious facilities. General Plan Focus Area Designation In addition, the subject site is part of one of the five Focus Areas adopted by the General Plan also known as 55 Freeway and Dyer Road Focus Area. The various land use designations within each Focus Area work together to ensure consistency and diversity of land uses achieving development policies to balance developing goals and land use consistencies within the City. The five Focus Areas were identified by the General Plan Advisory Committee and refined through a seven-year community engagement process as the areas of the City most suitable for new development. The five Focus Areas are geographically distributed throughout the City, and each allows the City to meet its diverse needs. The purpose and intent, specific objectives, and custom land uses for each focus area were defined to facilitate new types of urban development and further embody the City's core values. The General Plan Land Use Element describes the purpose and intent of the 55 Freeway and Dyer Road Focus Area as follows: The 55 Freeway and Dyer Road Focus Area will transition from a portion of the city that is almost exclusively focused on professional office jobs to one that supports a range of commercial, and industrial/flex development. The intent is to create opportunities for a truly urban lifestyle with easy access to Downtown Santa Ana, multiple transit options, and the new investments and amenities in adjacent communities. The 55 Freeway and Dyer Road Focus Area contains three General Plan land use designations at four intensities. Among these is the Flex-3 designation, which provides for the following land uses: "Office/industrial flex spaces, [research and development Table LU-A-1 in the Santa Ana General Plan Land Use Element does not permit live -work units in the Flex-3 designation within the 55 Freeway and Dyer Road Focus Area 9/11 /2023 Planning Commission 1-5 CUP No. 2023-18 — Anchor Stone Christian Church (2938 S. Daimler Street) September 11, 2023 Page 6 facilities], clean manufacturing, corporate headquarters and campuses. Live -work units are not permitted." The subject Focus Area contains various portions north of the project site, near the interchange of the 55 Freeway and Dyer Road, that are designated GC. This GC land use designation would allow for findings to be made that the subject CUP application does not adversely affect the General Plan, while the subject site's Flex-3 designation would render the Planning Commission unable to make this required consistency finding. General Plan Goals and Policies The subject project will not be consistent with the goals and policies of the General Plan, including those from the Land Use Element (LU) and the Economic Prosperity Element (EP). An analysis of these inconsistencies is provided in Table 3 below. Table 3: Project Location and Information General Plan Goal or Policy Analysis LU-1.1, which encourages The introduction of a community assembly use and a Bible school compatibility between land uses to to the existing office complex will generate noise, traffic and enhance livability and promote healthy queuing, solid waste generation and circulation. Moreover, it will lifestyles. introduce assembly uses with youth services in close proximity to existing industrial uses in the area, counter to this General Plan policy. Additionally, the Flex-3 land use designation allows future developments with clean industrial and office uses in accordance with Table LU-A-2, which specifies interim industrial flex uses. Community assembly such as churches is not permitted. Irreconcilable land use conflicts between a sensitive receptor such as the proposed church and its school operations will be generated if the subject application were approved with future industrial uses taking place in the land use designation of the Focus Area. The purpose of the land use plan of the Land Use Element is to prevent these irreconcilable land use conflicts from occurring in the future between sensitive receptors and surrounding industrial uses. Lastly, the Flex-3 land use designation allows primarily office, industrial, clean manufacturing, research and development, and similarly -natured industrial/production-oriented land uses and does not allow community assembly such as churches. This land use principle of preventing inconsistent land uses from locating in the same areas is currently codified in the City's Light and Heavy industrial (M1 and M2) zoning districts. The Flex-3 General Plan use designation points to the M1 land uses in Table LU-A-2 as examples of clean industrial uses commensurate with the General Plan land use designation, reaffirming this principle of not locating sensitive receptors such as community assembly uses within or in proximity to industrial areas of the City. 9/11 /2023 Planning Commission 1-6 CUP No. 2023-18 — Anchor Stone Christian Church (2938 S. Daimler Street) September 11, 2023 Page 7 General Plan Goal or Policy Analysis LU-4.1, which supports complete The site is surrounded by professional and industrial uses, and neighborhoods by encouraging a mix the nearest residential community is approximately 0.3 miles of complimentary uses, community away. As such, the introduction of a religious institution in this site services, and people places within a would not be compatible with the surrounded uses and will not walkable area. encourage development of place -making within a walkable area. Moreover, as detailed above, the purpose of the land use plan of the Land Use Element is to prevent irreconcilable land use conflicts from occurring in the future between sensitive receptors and surrounding industrial uses. However, irreconcilable land use conflicts between a sensitive receptor such as the proposed church and its school operations will be generated if the subject application were approved with future industrial uses taking place in the land use designation of the Focus Area. EP-1.9, which seeks to avoid potential Establishing uses such as community assembly, coupled with land use conflicts by prohibiting the youth services and Bible school, would introduce sensitive location of sensitive receptors and receptors into an area that is mostly comprised of industrial and noxious land uses in close proximity. office uses and that is intended to transition to industrial uses over time, through implementation of the General Plan. The purpose of the land use plan in the Land Use Element is to prevent these land use conflicts from taking place through goals, policies, and zoning practices designed to create "a physical environment that encourages healthy lifestyles, a planning process that ensures that health impacts are considered, and a community that actively pursues policies and practices that improve the health of our residents," as listed as an adopted Core Value of the Land Use Element. Approval of the subject application would be contrary to the Land Use Element and this adopted Core Value. EP-2.3, which encourages the As promulgated by the adopted General Plan Land Use Element, development of mutually beneficial introducing community assembly does not support the and complementary business clusters development of mutually beneficial and complementary business within the community. clusters at the subject site. To the contrary, it will create irreconcilable conflicts by introducing a sensitive receptor within an area that is presently and continuing to transition to industrial uses. Approval of the requested application would lead to present and future land use conflicts stemming from noise, traffic, vibrations, queuing, solid waste generation, and circulation. Moreover, community assembly uses are not listed as permissible within the subject site's General Plan land use designation, as the use is not considered among those that foster development of mutually beneficial and complementary business clusters within the community. The land use would be incompatible with surrounding uses and approval of the CUP would be contrary to the General Plan. 9/11 /2023 Planning Commission 1 — 7 CUP No. 2023-18 — Anchor Stone Christian Church (2938 S. Daimler Street) September 11, 2023 Page 8 Public Notification and Community Outreach Public notifications were posted, published, and mailed in accordance with City and State regulations. Copies of the public notice, including a 1,000-foot notification radius map, and the site posting are provided in Exhibit 5. There are no established Neighborhood Associations in the vicinity as the property is surrounded by industrial and commercial uses within the 1,000-foot radius. At the time this report was printed, no issues of concern were raised regarding the proposed CUP. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT There is no environmental impact associated with this action. FISCAL IMPACT There is no fiscal impact associated with this action. EXHIBIT(S) 1. Resolution 2. Vicinity Zoning and Aerial Map 3. Vicinity General Plan Land Use Designation Map 4. Full Project Plans 5. Copy of Public Notices Submitted By: Fernanda Arias, Assistant Planner I Approved By: Minh Thai, Executive Director of Planning and Building Agency, Planning and Building Agency 9/11 /2023 Planning Commission 1 — 8 RESOLUTION NO. 2023-XXX A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF SANTA ANA DENYING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2023-18 AS CONDITIONED TO ALLOW ANCHOR STONE CHRISTIAN CHURCH TO OPERATE AT 2938 SOUTH DAIMLER STREET BE IT RESOLVED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF SANTA ANA AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. The Planning Commission of the City of Santa Ana hereby finds, determines, and declares as follows: A. Property Owner Anchor Stone Christian Church ("Applicant") is requesting approval of Conditional Use Permit (CUP) No. 2023-18 to allow a church to operate at an existing office space located at 2938 South Daimler Street. B. Pursuant to Section 41-313.5(n) of the Santa Ana Municipal Code (SAMC), churches located in the P zoning district require approval of a CUP. C. Pursuant to SAMC Section 41-638(a)(1), the Planning Commission shall grant approval of a CUP only if all five of the specified findings of fact contained therein are satisfied. D. On January 23, 2023, the Applicant submitted a development project application to the City for the change of use from office to a church. Following a thorough analyses during the Development Project Review (DP) process, the Development Review Committee (DRC) identified that the proposed use was not consistent and furthered conflicts negatively impacting enjoyment and uses of the property within the Industrial/Flex-Medium (Flex-3) General Plan land use designation. E. 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 the SAMC, among which includes the subject property's General Plan land use designation of Industrial/Flex-Medium (Flex- 3) that does not allow community assembly uses such as the subject church. F. 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.) Resolution No. 2023-XXX Page 1 of 7 9/11 /2023 Planning Commission 1 — 9 G. 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. H. On May 2, 2023, the Applicant indicated intent to proceed with the CUP application. I. On July 24, 2023, the Applicant submitted the CUP application proposing to convert an existing office space into a church. J. On September 11, 2023, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing for Conditional Use Permit No. 2023-18. K. The Planning Commission determines that the following findings, which must be established in order to grant this CUP pursuant to SAMC Section 41-638, have not been established. Specifically, Conditional Use Permit Finding 5 of Section 41-638, as it relates to the proposed use adversely affecting the general plan of the city or any specific plan applicable to the area of the proposed use, is not met. Therefore, the finding for denial of CUP 2023-18 is adopted as follows: 1. That the proposed use will adversely affect the general plan of the city or any specific plan applicable to the area of the proposed use. The subject site has a General Plan land use designation of Industrial/Flex-Medium (Flex-3), which is intended to provide context -appropriate development in areas with existing industrial uses. Industrial/Flex allows for clean industrial uses that do not produce significant air pollutants, noise, or other nuisances typically associated with industrial uses, including office - industrial flex spaces, small-scale clean manufacturing, research and development and multilevel corporate offices, commercial retail, artist galleries, craft maker spaces, and live -work units. Based on the land use designation, development policies and allowable uses within the Flex-3 designation, the subject site is not suitable for the operation of community assembly, nor does it list community assembly -type uses as permissible under the land use designation. Conversely, land use designations such as General Commercial (GC) and its accompanying zoning districts allow for "retail and service establishments; recreational, cultural, and entertainment uses; business and professional offices; and vocational schools," among which "recreational, cultural, and entertainment uses" provide for community assembly such as religious facilities. Resolution No. 2023-XXX Page 2 of 7 9/11 /2023 Planning Commission 1 — 10 In addition, the subject site is part of one of the five Focus Areas adopted by the General Plan also known as 55 Freeway and Dyer Road Focus Area. The various land use designations within each Focus Area work together to ensure consistency and diversity of land uses achieving development policies to balance developing goals and land use consistencies within the City. The five Focus Areas were identified by the General Plan Advisory Committee and refined through a seven-year community engagement process as the areas of the City most suitable for new development. The five Focus Areas are geographically distributed throughout the City, and each allows the City to meet its diverse needs. The purpose and intent, specific objectives, and custom land uses for each focus area were defined to facilitate new types of urban development and further embody the City's core values. Furthermore, the 55 Freeway and Dyer Road Focus Area is intended to transition from an area that exclusively focused on professional office to an area that supports a range of commercial, and industrial/flex development. Moreover, the overall scale and experience of the focus area along the freeway and city boundary are intended to reflect an urban intensity and design, with inspiring building forms and public spaces. The industrial/flex land use designation is meant to promote large- scale office -industrial flex spaces, multilevel corporate offices, and research and development in creative buildings and spaces. Additionally, the subject project will not be consistent with the goals and policies of the General Plan, including those from the Land Use Element (LU) and the Economic Prosperity Element (EP). Specifically, policies 1.1 and 4.1 of the Land Use Element (LU) and policies 1.9 and 2.3 of the Economic Prosperity Element (EP). Policy 1.1 of the LU encourages compatibility between land uses to enhance livability and promote healthy lifestyles. The introduction of a community assembly use and a Bible school to the existing office complex will generate noise, traffic and queuing, solid waste generation and circulation. Moreover, it will introduce assembly uses with youth services in close proximity to existing industrial uses in the area, counter to this General Plan policy. Additionally, the Flex-3 land use designation allows future developments with clean industrial and office uses in accordance with Table LU-A-2, which specifies interim industrial flex uses. Community assembly such as churches is not permitted. Irreconcilable land use conflicts between a sensitive receptor such as the proposed church and its school operations will be generated if the CUP application were approved with future industrial uses taking place in the land use designation of the Resolution No. 2023-XXX Page 3 of 7 9/11 /2023 Planning Commission 1 —11 Focus Area. The purpose of the land use plan of the Land Use Element is to prevent these irreconcilable land use conflicts from occurring in the future between sensitive receptors and surrounding industrial uses. In addition, the Flex-3 land use designation allows primarily office, industrial, clean manufacturing, research and development, and similarly -natured industrial/production-oriented land uses and does not allow community assembly such as churches. This land use principle of preventing inconsistent land uses from locating in the same areas is currently codified in the City's Light and Heavy industrial (M1 and M2) zoning districts. The Flex-3 General Plan use designation points to the M1 land uses in Table LU-A-2 as examples of clean industrial uses commensurate with the General Plan land use designation, reaffirming this principle of not locating sensitive receptors such as community assembly uses within or in proximity to industrial areas of the City. Policy 4.1 of the LU supports complete neighborhoods by encouraging a mix of complimentary uses, community services, and people places within a walkable area. The site is surrounded by professional and industrial uses, and the nearest residential community is approximately 0.3 miles away. As such, the introduction of a religious institution in this site would not be compatible with the surrounded uses and will not encourage development of place -making within a walkable area. Moreover, as detailed above, the purpose of the land use plan of the Land Use Element is to prevent irreconcilable land use conflicts from occurring in the future between sensitive receptors and surrounding industrial uses. However, irreconcilable land use conflicts between a sensitive receptor such as the proposed church and its school operations will be generated if the CUP application were approved with future industrial uses taking place in the land use designation of the Focus Area. Policy 1.9 of the EP seeks to avoid potential land use conflicts by prohibiting the location of sensitive receptors and noxious land uses in close proximity. Establishing uses such as community assembly, coupled with youth services and Bible school, would introduce sensitive receptors into an area that is mostly comprised of industrial and office uses and that is intended to transition to industrial uses over time, through implementation of the General Plan. The purpose of the land use plan in the Land Use Element is to prevent these land use conflicts from taking place through goals, policies, and zoning practices designed to create "a physical environment that encourages healthy lifestyles, a planning process that ensures that health impacts are considered, and a community that actively pursues policies and practices that improve the health of our residents," as listed as Resolution No. 2023-XXX Page 4 of 7 9/11 /2023 Planning Commission 1 — 12 an adopted Core Value of the Land Use Element. Approval of the CUP application would be contrary to the Land Use Element and this adopted Core Value. Policy 2.5 of the EP encourages the development of mutually beneficial and complementary business clusters within the community. As promulgated by the adopted General Plan Land Use Element, introducing community assembly does not support the development of mutually beneficial and complementary business clusters at the subject site. To the contrary, it will create irreconcilable conflicts by introducing a sensitive receptor within an area that is presently and continuing to transition to industrial uses. Approval of the requested application would lead to present and future land use conflicts stemming from noise, traffic, vibrations, queuing, solid waste generation, and circulation. Moreover, community assembly uses are not listed as permissible within the subject site's General Plan land use designation, as the use is not considered among those that foster development of mutually beneficial and complementary business clusters within the community. The land use would be incompatible with surrounding uses and approval of the CUP would be contrary to the General Plan. Section 2. In accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the CEQA Guidelines, this project is exempt from further review under Section 15061(b)(4) of the CEQA Guidelines, as the Planning Commission has denied Conditional Use Permit No. 2023-18. Section 3. The Applicant shall indemnify, protect, defend and hold the City and/or any of its officials, officers, employees, agents, departments, agencies, authorized volunteers, and instrumentalities thereof, harmless from any and all claims, demands, lawsuits, writs of mandamus, referendum, and other proceedings (whether legal, equitable, declaratory, administrative or adjudicatory in nature), and alternative dispute resolution procedures (including, but not limited to arbitrations, mediations, and such other procedures), judgments, orders, and decisions (collectively "Actions"), brought against the City and/or any of its officials, officers, employees, agents, departments, agencies, and instrumentalities thereof, that challenge, attack, or seek to modify, set aside, void, or annul, any action of, or any permit or approval issued by the City and/or any of its officials, officers, employees, agents, departments, agencies, and instrumentalities thereof (including actions approved by the voters of the City) for or concerning the project, whether such Actions are brought under the Ralph M. Brown Act, California Environmental Quality Act, the Planning and Zoning Law, the Subdivision Map Act, Code of Civil Procedure sections 1085 or 1094.5, or any other federal, state or local constitution, statute, law, ordinance, charter, rule, regulation, or any decision of a court of competent jurisdiction. It is expressly agreed that the City shall have the right to approve the legal counsel providing the City's defense, and that Applicant shall reimburse the City for any costs and expenses directly and necessarily incurred by the City in the course of the defense. City shall promptly notify the Applicant of any Action brought and City shall cooperate with Applicant in the defense of the Action. Resolution No. 2023-XXX Page 5 of 7 9/11 /2023 Planning Commission 1 — 13 Section 4. The Planning Commission of the City of Santa Ana, after conducting the public hearing, hereby denies Conditional Use Permit No. 2023-18 for the proposed church at 2938 South Daimler Street. The denial shall prohibit the church use at the subject site but leaves in effect the permitted office uses, allowed by right under SAMC Section 41-313, subject to all applicable standards and regulations set forth in Chapter 41 of the Santa Ana Municipal Code. This decision is based upon the evidence submitted at the above - referenced hearing, including but not limited to: The Request for Planning Commission Action dated September 11, 2023, and exhibits attached thereto; and the public testimony, written and oral, all of which are incorporated herein by this reference. ADOPTED this 11 th day of September 2023 by the following vote. AYES: Commissioners: NOES: Commissioners: ABSENT: Commissioners: ABSTENTIONS: Commissioners: Bao Pham Chairperson APPROVED AS TO FORM: Sonia R. Carvalho City Attorney By: Jose Montoya Assistant City Attorney Resolution No. 2023-XXX Page 6 of 7 9/11 /2023 Planning Commission 1 — 14 CERTIFICATE OF ATTESTATION AND ORIGINALITY I, Nuvia Ocampo, Planning Commission Secretary, do hereby attest to and certify the attached Resolution No. 2023-XXX to be the original resolution adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Santa Ana on September 11, 2023. Date: Nuvia Ocampo Planning Commission Secretary Resolution No. 2023-XXX Page 7 of 7 9/11 /2023 Planning Commission 1 — 15 8/11/23, 11:55AM CUP No. 2023-18 for Anchor Stone Christian Church 2938 S. Daimler Street 12 'sl�' 5 Santa Ana Boundary Zoning lZoned- c—,ity Commercial -Museum District ■ General Commercial ■ Planned Shopping Center ■ Arterial Ca m mercial ■ Commercial Residential ■ South Main Street C—n, al District Gov --,Center ■ Li", Industrial ■ Heavy Industrial ■ Open Space Land ' Metm East Overlay Zone �■ Pmleesional Single -Family Residence ■ Two -Family R-id a nce ■ Multiple -Family Residence ■ Suhurban Apartment ■ Residential -Estate ■ Specific Development W. I ■ Specific Development r' II ■ Specific Development No. 12 ■ Specific Development No- 13 ■ Specific Development No. 15 ■ Specific Development No. 16 ■ Specific Development No. 17 ■ Specific Development No. 18 ■ Specific Development No 19 ■ Specific Development No. 2 ■ Specific Development No. 20 ■ Specific Development No. 21 ■ Specific Development No. 25 ■ Specific Development No 26 ■ Specific Development No. 27 ■ Specific Development No. 31 ■ Specific Development No. 32 ■ Specific Development No. 34 ■ Specific Development No 35 ■ Specific Development No. 36 ■ Specific Development No. 38 ■ Specific Development No. 39 ■ Specific Development rl 4 ■ Specific Development No 40 ■ Specific Development No.41 ■ Specific Development No.42 ■ Specific Development No. 43 ■ Specific Development No. 44 ■ Specific Development No- 46 ■ Specific Developm Ent r' 48 Specific Development W. 49 e t L`' x F) .k 5 { M1 365 feet �1 - N7N, to" 00. 'r. t N Exhibit 2 - Vicinity Zoning and Aerial View 9/11 /2023 7n?R Dinital Man Prnrinrtc All rinhtc racarvari 1-16 https://apps.spatiaRlf gia6bui &sl i trOn/CurrentBuiId/HtmI/printpreview.htm1 1/2 CUP No. 2023-18 for Anchor Stone Christian Church 2938 S. Daimler Street s' w � f ' Focus Area Outline ' f 4 General Plan Land Use Designation r LR-7 (Low Density Residential) '.j 0 LMR-11 (Low-Msdium Density Residential) r 0 MR-15 (Medium Density Residentiaq CR-30 (Corridor Residential) 0 INS (Institutional) OS (Open Space) 0 PAD (Professional & Administrative Office) 0 PAO-1 (Professional &Administrative Office - Medium) �4 0 PAO-1.5 (Professional & Administrative Office - Medium High) s` PAO-2 (Professional & Administrative Office - High) ' f GC (General Commercial) e^ GC-1 (General Commercial - Medium) GC-1.5 (General Commercial - Medium High) _ 0 IND (Industrial) - FLEX-1.5 (Industrial/Flex- Low) FLEX-3 (Industrial(Flex- Medium) 0 UN-20 (Urban Neighborhood - Low) 0 UN-30 (Urban Neighborhood - Medium Low) 0 UNL40 (Urban Neighborhood - Medium) 0 UN-50 (Urban Neighborhood - Medium High) OBPDC (One Broadway Plaza District Center) - DC-1 (District Center -Low) - DC-1.5 (District Center - Medium Low) DC-2 (District Center - Medium) DC-2.1 (District Center -Medium DC-2.1) • DC-2.54 (District Center - Medium DC-2.54) s1 DC-3 (District Center - Medium High DC-3) a o DC-5 (District Center - High DC-5) V % Exhibit 3 - Vicinity General Plan Land Use Designation Map 9/11 /2023 Planning Commission 1 — 17 Exhibit 4 - Full Project Plans CUP No. 2023-18 for Anchor Stone Christian Church 2938 S. Daimler Street CITY OF SANTA ANA CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT (CUP) FOR: ANCHOR STONE CHRISTIAN CHURCH 2938 DAIMLER STREET, SANTA ANA, CA 92705 CUP SHEET INDEX SHEET NUMBER SHEET NAME A000-C COVER A010-C MAPS A011-C EXISTING SITE PLAN A101-C FLOOR PLAN - LEVEL 1 A111-C EXISTING EXTERIOR CLL VH I IUIN3 a:Z0alx09l►1:10]C1A 0111[0]01 PROJECT SCOPE A RENOVATION OF EXISTING INTERIOR SPACE TO CREATE AN AUDITORIUM, MEETING ROOMS, AND SUPPORT SPACES FOR THE PURPOSE OF RE119MMATEAHRSY 2938 DAIMLER STREET SANTA ANA, CA 92705 2. ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NUMBER 430-173-16 3. APPLICANT AND PROPERTY OWNER AWVEMNIE 2938 DAIMLER SZNTMANA, CA 92705 PROPERTY OWNER: ANCHORSTONE CHRISTIAN CHURCH 2938 DAIMLER STREET SANTA ANA, CA 92705 4. REDVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA NOT APPLICABLE 5. CURRENT ZONING / GENERAL PLAN P/FLEX, INDUSTRIAL/FLEX 6. TOTAL LOT SIZE EXISTING, NO CHANGE 7. PROPOSED USE AND FLOOR AREA RELIGIOUS ASSEMBLY - 3,621SF 8. OCQNPIVMABIfi(SF) B TYPE OF CONSTRUCTION: V-N a. OCC A-3 AREA: 2,369.57 SF b. OCC B AREA: 1,251.43 SF 9. OFF -SITE PARKING DIV 7, SEC. 41-1411 1:50 SF NON -FIXED SEATNG UQ)137 / 50 EROVIDED 64 34 10. PARKING STALL DIMENSIONS: INTERIOR: 9'-0" X 1T-6" EXT PERIMETER: 9'-0" X 20'- 0" DRIVE AISLE: 23'-0" 9/11 /2600-C COVER Planning Commission 1 — 18 3033-11-18 9:03:33 AM E%5— t 11— it 9/11 /2023 Planning ommission SCdIL: 1/16 = r-o- ` I INSM PAAANG 2938 Daimler St. OBELISK 3800 PACIRC COAST HIGHWAY TORRAHCE, CPLIFORMA 90505 Christian Church 2938 Daimler Street San a Ana CA,92705 H- U) lY W J Q 0 2215 ANCOAI OC MY 10, 2023 f511py� %r IX 1 35 � ucnczlw a` f pF tAl\EOP Site Plan a xm R.Sw�oR(��w r-ami A-001 Grip-hid U ,4U' ,U' 12u, 1bu, NU V�� V 1 1 L 1 L �DSSd�AM 9/11 /2023 Planning Commission 1 — 21 LV6& IIU TO �y g g S BE CONSTRUCTED N U' 4' 6' 1 ti' i1' tI Ul LtVEL 1111N - iNVA 9/11 /2023 Planning Commission 1 — 22 K''%TION T 11 MUE APPLII��. b LIMI I )"' I IN c;uN ATIO feVATI 9/11 /2023 Planning Commission 1 - 23 ORANGE COUNTY REPORTER This space for filing stamp only -- SINCE 1921 - 600 W SANTA ANA BLVD STE 812, SANTA ANA, CA 92701 Telephone (714) 543-2027 / Fax (714) 542-6841 NUVIA OCAMPO CITY OF SANTA ANA/PLANNING & BUILDING AGEN 20 CIVIC CENTER PLAZA 2ND FLR SANTA ANA, CA - 92702 PROOF OF PUBLICATION (2015.5 C.C.P.) State of California ) County of ORANGE ) ss Notice Type: GPN - GOVT PUBLIC NOTICE Ad Description: 2938 S Daimler I am a citizen of the United States and a resident of the State of California; I am over the age of eighteen years, and not a party to or interested in the above entitled matter. I am the principal clerk of the printer and publisher of the ORANGE COUNTY REPORTER, a newspaper published in the English language in the city of SANTA ANA, county of ORANGE, and adjudged a newspaper of general circulation as defined by the laws of the State of California by the Superior Court of the County of ORANGE, State of California, under date 06/20/1922, Case No. 13421. That the notice, of which the annexed is a printed copy, has been published in each regular and entire issue of said newspaper and not in any supplement thereof on the following dates, to -wit: 09/01/2023 Executed on: 09/01/2023 At Los Angeles, California I certify (or declare) under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. ig uigiiqpu�igi����upiiunature uipmi , z4 Email Planning Commission O R#: 3734817 NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING BEFORE THE SANTA ANA PLANNING COMMISSION The City of Santa Ana encourages the public to participate in the decision - making process. We encourage you to contact us prior to the Public Hearing if you have any questions . Planning Commission Action: The Planning Commission will hold a Public Hearing to receive public testimony, and will take action on the item described below. Decision on this matter will be final unless appealed within 10 calendar days of the decision by any interested party or roup. roiect Location: 2938 South Daimler Street located within the Professional (P) zoning district. Project Applicant: Steven Lee (Applicant) on behalf of Anchor Stone Christian Church (Property Owner) Proposed Project: The applicant is requesting approval of Conditional Use Permit No. 2023-18 to allow a church to occupy the existing office building. Environmental Impact: Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), there is no environmental impact associated with this action. Meeting Details: his matter will be heard on Monday, September 11, 2023 at 5:30 p.m. in the City Council Chambers, 22 Civic Center Plaza, Santa Ana, CA 92701. Members of the public may attend this meeting in person or join via Zoom. For the most up-to-date information on how to participate virtually in this meeting, please visit https://www.santa-ana.org/planning- and-bu ild ing m-pparticipation/. Written Comentsg f you are unable to participate in the meeting, you may send written comments by e-mail to PBAeComments@santa-ana.org (reference the Agenda Item # in the subject line) or mail to Nuvia Ocampo, Recording Secretary, City of Santa Ana, 20 Civic Center Plaza — M20, Santa Ana, CA 92701. Deadline to submit written comments is 4:00 p.m. on the day of the meeting. Comments received after the deadline may not be distributed to the Commission but will be made part of the record. Where To Get More Information: Additional details regarding the proposed action(s), including the full text of the discretionary item, may be found on the City website 72 hours prior to the public hearing at: https://santa- ana.primegov.com/public/portal. Who To Contact For Questions: Should you have any questions, please contact Fernanda Arias with the Planning and Building Agency at Fadas@santa-ana.org or(714)667-2792. Note: Iff you challenge the decision on the above matter, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this notice, or in written correspondence delivered to the Planning Commission or City Council of the City of Santa Ana at, or prior to, the public hearing. Si tiene preguntas en espanol, favor de Hamer a Nuvia Ocampo (714) 667-2732. N6ucAnlifinIacbAngti6ngVI6t, An di § in tho a j cho Tony Lai s o (714) 565-2627. 9/1/23 OR-3734817# 4 `^ CITY OF SANTA ANA - - Planning and Building Agency ,w 20 ivic Center Plaza • P.O. Box 1988 Santa Ana, California 92702 www.santa-ana.org/pba NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING BEFORE THE SANTA ANA PLANNING COMMISSION The City of Santa Ana encourages the public to participate in the decision -making process. This notice is being sent to those who live or own property within 1000 feet of the project site or who have expressed an interest in the proposed action. We encourage you to contact us prior to the Public Hearing if you have any questions. Planning Commission Action: The Planning Commission will hold a Public Hearing to receive public testimony, and will take action on the item described below. Decision on this matter will be final unless appealed within 10 calendar days of the decision by any interested party or group Project Location: 2938 South Daimler Street located within the Professional (P) zoning district. ProiTnnlicant: Steven Lee (Applicant) on behalf of Anchor Stone Christian Church (Property Owner) Proposed The applicant is requesting approval of Conditional Use Permit No. 2023-18 to allow a church to occupy the existing office building. Environmental Impact: Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), there is no environmental impact associated with this action. Meeting Details: This matter will be heard on Monday, September 11, 2023 at 5:30 p.m. in the City Council Chambers, 22 Civic Center Plaza, Santa Ana, CA 92701. Members of the public may attend this meeting in person or join via Zoom. For the most up-to-date information on how to participate virtually in this meeting, please visit https://www.santa-ana.or lannina-and-building- me� artici atp ion/. Written Comments: If you are unable to participate in the meeting, you may send written comments by e-mail to PBAeComments4santa-ana.ora (reference the Agenda Item # in the subject line) or mail to Nuvia Ocampo, Recording Secretary, City of Santa Ana, 20 Civic Center Plaza — M20, Santa Ana, CA 92701. Deadline to submit written comments is 4:00 p.m. on the day of the meeting. Comments received after the deadline may not be distributed to the Commission but will be made part of the record. Where To Get More Information: Additional details regarding the proposed action(s), including the full text of the discretionary item, may be found on the City website 72 hours prior to the public hearing at: https://santa-ana_ pr. megov.com/ —eqov.com/publmc/portal. Who To Contact For Questions: Should you have any questions, please contact Fernanda Arias with the Planning and Building Agency at Farias..santa-ana.org or (714) 667-2792. Note: If you challenge the decision on the above matter, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this notice, or in written correspondence 9/11 /2023 Planning Commission 1 — 25 delivered to the Planning Commission or City Council of the City of Santa Ana at, or prior to, the public hearing. Si tiene preguntas en espanol, favor de Ilamar a Nuvia Ocampo (714) 667-2732. Neu can lien lac bang tieng Viet, An dien thoai cho Tony Lai so (714) 565-2627. 1000' RADIUS NOTIFICATION MAP :,, I, danni 023 ng Commission 2938 South Daimler Street 1,000 FT.1B47er Map 11FL-- f� ..fir if Planning and Building Agency Planning Division 20 Civic Center Plaza P.O. Box 1988 (M-20) Santa Ana, CA 92702 (714) 647-5804 I. OWNER/APPLICANT Applicant Anchor Stone Christian Church APPEAL APPLICATION Full name of Person, Firm, or Corporation 626 616-2312 2938 Daimler Street, Santa Ana, CA 92705 ( ) Mailing Address Area Code Phone No. Legal owner Name: Anchor Stone Christian Church. a California religious corporation Legal Owner Address: 2938 Daimler Street, Santa Ana, CA 92705 Phone No.: §26 ) 616-2312 P49 ) 466-7077 Fax: ( ) steven733@gm II. PROPERTY INFORMATION Land Use corporate office Professional (P) Flex-3 Existing Land Use of Property and/or Building Zoning District General Plan Designation Location 2938 Daimler Street, Santa Ana. California between E. Deere Avenue Street Address Name of Nearest Intersecting Street SEE REVERSE SIDE FOR SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS III. REASON FOR REQUEST In the following provided space, please clearly specify and explain the error(s) of decision or requirement upon which you are basing this appeal. (If additional space is needed, please attach additional comments to the back of this application.) Applicant appeals the Planning Commission's denial of Conditional Use Permit No, 21 Applicant is a religious corporation organized under California's Nonprofit Religious C Applicant appeals for the reasons previously stated at Tab 1 hereto, as well as the fol <> Denial of the CUP imposes a substantial burden on applicant's religious exercise <> City staff have never identified a compelling governmental interest for denying a C <> Applicant asked the Planning Commission to consider RLUIPA but it refused to do <> The City is continuing its unlawful "pattern and practice" of violating RLUIPA - See Applicant's Signature: Date: Sept. 14, 2023 APPEAL APPLICATION NO. cm\cntr-frm\appeal 5/00 TAB 1 Planning and Building Agency Planning Division 20 Civic Center Plaza P.O. Box 1988 (M-20) Santa Ana, CA 92702 (714) 647-5804 I. OWNER/APPLICANT APPEAL APPLICATION Applicant Anchor Stone Christian Church Full name of Person, Firm, or Corporation 2938 Daimler Street, Santa Ana, CA 92705 (626 ) 616-2312 Mailing Address Area Code Phone No. Legal Owner Name. Anchor Stone Christian Church, a California religious corporation Legal Owner Address. 2938 Daimler Street, Santa Ana, CA 92705 Phone No.: (626 ) 616-2312 (949) 466-7077 Fax: ( ) steven733@gmail.com II. PROPERTY INFORMATION Land Use corporate office Professional (P) Flex-3 Existing Land Use of Property and/or Building Zoning District General Plan Designation Location 2938 Daimler Street, Santa Ana, California between E. Deere Avenue & E. Garry Avenue Street Address Name of Nearest Intersecting Street SEE REVERSE SIDE FOR SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS III. REASON FOR REQUEST In the following provided space, please clearly specify and explain the error(s) of decision or requirement upon which you are basing this appeal. (If additional space is needed, please attach additional comments to the back of this application.) Applicant appeals the DRC's 2/21/23 denial of DP No. 2023-2 for a conditional use permit (CUP). Applicant is a religious corporation organized under California's Nonprofit Religious Corporation law. Applicant acquired the property to USE as its future corporate headquarters & church campus. The property was recently redesignated as "Flex-3" in the General Plan (GP) Land Use Element. Corporate headquarters & campuses are expressly permitted USES under the Flex-3 designation. The property is within the "P" zoning district, and churches are permitted USES in that district. The DRC 6/1/23 denial letter provides no rational or legal basis for its decision to deny the CUP. Applicant's Signature: APPEAL APPLICATION NO. cm\cntr-frm\appeal 5/00 Date: June 9, 2023 TAB 2 e 8:23-cv-00183-DOC-KES Document 25 Filed 05/09/23 Page 1 of 18 Page ID #:180 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 KRISTEN CLARKE Assistant Attorney General Civil Rights Division SAMEENA SHINA MAJEED Chief, Housingand Civil Enforcement Section CABBIE PACCO, Acting Deputy Chief NOAH SACKS, Trial Attorney TERRENCE MANGAN, Trial Attorney U.S. Department of Justice Civil Rights Division Housingg and Civil Enforcement Section 150 M. Street NE Washington, D.C. 20001 Telephone: (202) 531-5995 Email: terrence.mangan2kusdoj.gov E. MARTIN ESTRADA United States Attorney DAVID M. HARRIS Assistant United States Attorney Chief, Civil Division RICHARD M. PARK Assistant United States Attorney Chief, Civil Rights Section, Civil Division MATTHEW NICKELL (Cal. Bar No. 304828) Assistant United States Attorne Federal Buildingg, Suite 7516 300 North Los Angeles Street Los Angeles California 90012 Telephone: .(213) 894-8805, Facsimile: (213) 894-7819 Email:. matthew.nickell crzusdo .aov Attorneys for UNITED STATES OF AMERICA UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA MICAH' S WAY, Plaintiff, V. CITY OF SANTA ANA, Defendant. SOUTHERN DIVISION Case No. 8:23-cv-00I 83-DOC-KES STATEMENT OF INTEREST IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO DISMISS PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT Date: June 5, 2023 Time: 8:30 a.m. Courtroom: 10-A Hon. David O. Carter United States District Judge se 8:23-cv-00183-DOC-KES Document 25 Filed 05/09/23 Page 2 of 18 Page ID #:181 1 TABLE OF CONTENTS 2 TABLE OF AUTHORITIES..............................................................................................2 3 I. STATEMENT OF INTEREST OF THE UNITED STATES......................................4 4 II. BACKGROUND..........................................................................................................4 S111, ARGUMENT................................................................................................................ 7 6 A. MW plausibly alleged that its distribution of food and drinks to homeless 7 individuals is "religious exercise" under RLUIPA......................................................... 7 8 B. MW plausibly alleged that the City's complete refusal to allow it to provide food 9 or drinks to homeless individuals "imposes a substantial burden" on its religious 10 exercise under RLUIPA................................................................................................12 11 IV. CONCLUSION..................................................................................................... ...15 12 CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE................................................................................17 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 1 se 8:23-cv-00183-DOC-KES Document 25 Filed 05/09/23 Page 3 of 18 Page 1D #:182 1 TABLE OF AUTHORITIES 2 Cases 3 Acad. of Our Lady of Peace v. City of San Diego, No. 09CV962-WQH-AJB, 2010 WL 4 1329014 (S.D. Cal. Apr. 1, 2010).................................................................................12 5 Ashcroft v. Igbal, 556 U.S. 662(2009)...............................................................................4 6 Bell Atlantic Co. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007)...........................................................4 7 Cutter v. Wilkinson, 544 U.S. 709(2005).......................................................................7 9 8 Fifth Ave. Presbyterian Church v. City of New York, 293 F.3d 570 (2d. Cir. 2002) ......... 8 9 First Lutheran Church v. City of St. Paul, 326 F.Supp.3d 745 (D. Minn. 2018).......11, 14 10 Greene v. Solano Cnty. Jail, 513 F.3d 982 (9th Cir. 2008)..........................................7, 13 11 Guru Nanak Sikh Soc. of Yuba City v. County of Sutter, 456 F.3d 978 (9th Cir. 2006)....12, 12 13,15 13 Harbor Missionary Church Corp. v. City of San Buenaventura, 642 F.App'x 726 (9th 14 Cir. 2016)...................................................................................................................8, 9 15 Int'l Church of Foursquare Gospel v. City of San Leandro, 673 F.3d 1059 (9th Cir. 16 2011).......................................................................................................................10, 14 17 Johnson v. Baker, 23 F.4th 1209 (9th Cir. 2022).......................................................10, 13 18 Mintz v. Roman Catholic Bishop, 424 F.Supp.2d 309 (D. Mass. 2006)...........................11 19 Murguia v. Langdon, 61 F.4th 1096 (9th Cir. 2023)........................................................14 20 New Harvest Christian Fellowship v. City of Salinas, 29 F.4th 596 (9th Cir. 2022) ...12, 14 21 San Jose Christian College v. City of Morgan Hill, 360 F.3d 1024 (9th Cir. 2004)....12, 14 22 Scottish Rite Cathedral Assn. of Los Angeles v. City of Los Angeles, 156 Cal.App.4th 23 108 (Cal. App. 2007)..............................................................................................11, 12 24 Thomas v. Review Bd. of the Ind. Employment Sec. Div., 450 U.S. 707 (1981) ..............12 25 W. Presbyterian Church v. Bd. of Zoning Adjustment of D. C., 862 F.Supp. 538 (D.D.C. 26 1994)................................................................................................................... 8, 11-12 27 Warsoldier v. Woodford, 418 F.3d 989 (9th Cir. 2005).................................................. 13 28 Wisconsin v. Yoder, 406 U.S. 205(1972).........................................................................13 2 e 8:23-cv-00183-DOC-KES Document 25 Filed 05/09/23 Page 4 of 18 Page ID #:183 1 World Outreach Conf. Ctr. v. City of Chicago, 591 F.3d 531 (7th Cir. 2009).......8, 11, 12 2 Statutes 3 28 U.S.C. § 517...................................................................................................................4 4 42 U.S.C. § 2000cc.............................................................................................................7 5 42 U.S.C. § 2000cc-2..........................................................................................................4 6 42 U.S.C. § 2000cc-3.......................................................................................................I 8 ' 7 42 U.S.C. § 2000cc-5...................................................................7, 9, 13 8 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000cc etseq.................................................................................................4 9 Legislative History 10 146 Cong. Rec. S6689(daily ed. July 13 2000 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 3 8:23-cv-00183-DOC-KES Document 25 Filed 05/09/23 Page 5 of 18 Page ID #:184 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 I 27 28 11. STATEMENT OF INTEREST OF THE UNITED STATES Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 517, the United States respectfully submits this Statement of Interest to the Court relating to the Defendant City of Santa Ana's ("City") Motion to Dismiss ("Motion" or "Mot."), ECF No. 16. ' This case raises important questions involving the application of the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act ("RLUIPA"), 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000cc et seq. In addition to creating a private cause of action, RLUIPA charges the Attorney General with enforcing its provisions. See 42 U.S.C. § 2000cc-2(f). Because this litigation implicates the proper interpretation and application of RLUIPA, the United States has a strong interest in the issues raised by the City's Motion and believes that its participation will aid the Court. The scope of the United States' Statement of Interest is limited to what constitutes religious exercise and whether Plaintiff has sufficiently alleged a substantial burden claim under RLUIPA. As Plaintiff has plausibly alleged a violation of RLUIPA, the City's Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's RLUIPA claim should be denied. II. BACKGROUND According to the Complaint ("Compl."), ECF No. 1, Micah's Way ("MW'), is a "faith -based organization" named after the "`Micah Mandate' set forth in Micah 6:8 in the Bible." 2 Compl. ¶5. The "Micah Mandate" requires followers "[t]o act justly, and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with your God." Id. MW describes itself as a ' Under 28 U,S.C. § 517, "[t]he Solicitor General, or any officer of the Department of Justice, may be sent by the Attorney General to any State or district in the United States to attend to the interests of the United States in a suit pending in a court of the United States, or in a court of a State, or to attend to any other interest of the United States." Z A court must, on a motion to dismiss, assume the truth of the well -pleaded allegations of the complaint. Ashcroft v_ Igbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (citing Bell Atlantic Co. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007)). For this reason, the United States treats the Plaintiff's allegations as true in this Statement of Interest. The United States takes no position on the merits of Plaintiffs claims, including whether the City has violated RLUIPA. rd 8:23-cv-00183-DOC-KES Document 25 Filed 05/09/23 Page 6 of 18 Page ID #:185 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 "Christian ministry" that follows the teachings of Jesus Christ, and particularly the words of Matthew 25:35-40, which state, "For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink ..." Id. ¶4. Consistent with this mandate, MW provides charitable services to homeless individuals, including by providing light food and beverages, to persons who come to their Resource Center. Id. ¶7. In particular, MW believes it "has a religious duty to help the homeless that come to it ... including by providing a cup of coffee and a muffin if a client is hungry." Id. ¶27. Since early 2016, MW's Resource Center has been located at 1517 East Fourth Street in Santa Ana, California. Compl. ¶51. MW describes this as an "excellent location" because it is only half a mile from the Department of Motor Vehicles ("DMV"), facilitating its ID voucher services.' Id. ¶52. MW has paid yearly fees to the City for a business license, but does not have a Certificate of Occupancy ("COO"). Id. ¶�10, 54-56. In early 2020, MW began providing snacks and beverages outdoors in response to the COVID-19 pandemic. Compl. �57. Around this same time, a needle exchange program operated by the American Addiction Institute began operations two doors down from MW. The exchange was associated with increased neighborhood complaints of drug use, trespassing, littering, and loitering. Id. ¶158-60, 64-67. In November 2021, the City's mayor received a complaint "begging" him to "do something about the homeless houses" after individuals "dump[ed] trash and bleach" on a local resident's door. Compl. 164. In response, the mayor instructed various city departments "to devise whatever measures they could come up with to compel MW and the Needle Exchange to move out of the 4th Street neighborhood or, at the very least, to severely curtail their operations." Id. �¶67, 68, 74. MW assists homeless persons fill out ID vouchers, which allows them to obtain a free California photo ID from the DMV. MW also assists homeless persons in obtaining birth certificates so that they can qualify for various government benefits, including housing assistance. Compl. ¶52. 5 8:23-cv-00183-DOC-KES Document 25 Filed 05/09/23 Page 7 of 18 Page lD #:186 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 1 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 On November 29, 2021, the City issued an Administrative Citation to MW for "engaging in unpermitted food distribution" and "conducting business operations without a valid COO." Compl.' 79. The following day, the City held a community meeting regarding its "enforcement efforts" against MW. Id. ¶¶98-104. The mayor stated that MW and the needle exchange were "not in the right location," and that a solution was possible only if they were "open-minded about finding relocation." Id. �T103-04. His intention was "to correct what's happening here, but also prevent it from happening anyplace else in the City." Id. T102. MW applied for a COO in December 2021, but was denied in January 2022. Compl. T12. MW reapplied in February 2022, but was denied again "on the grounds that MW was engaged in food distribution activities that were allegedly not permitted in the Professional district." Id. In March 2022, MW informed the City that its refusal to grant a COO permitting it to provide food and beverages to poor and homeless individuals was a violation of RLUIPA. Id. ¶107. On June 7, 2022, the City informed MW that it would "take all appropriate action," including the "issuance of administrative fines, criminal prosecution and/or civil remedies such as injunctions and penalties," if MW continued operating without a COO. Id. ¶13. MW administratively appealed the City's second COO denial in August 2022. Compl. ¶14. Following a hearing, the administrative hearing officer concluded that the City had failed to adequately "address the RLUIPA issues." Id. ' 16. MW subsequently met with City officials and offered to return to its pre -pandemic practice of providing food and drink indoors rather than from its garden courtyard. Id. ¶112. However, the City rejected this offer. Id. ¶113. Regardless, MW reverted to its pre -pandemic procedures and currently only distributes food and beverages inside its Resource Center. Id. �29. Although MW informed the City in writing of this policy change, on January H, 2023, the City notified MW that it would not permit MW to "provid[e] any food or beverages of any kind to any clients or any other members of the public (whether rich or poor), either inside or outside MW's Resource Center." Id. ¶¶31-32, 35. Accordingly, 6 se 8:23-cv-00183-DOC-KES Document 25 Filed 05/09/23 Page 8 of 18 Page ID #187 1 MW remains "subject to potential fines, injunctions, and criminal prosecution" from the 2 City. Id. ¶31; see also id. ¶11 3 On January 30, 2023, MW filed this suit, alleging inter alia that the City's actions 4 violated RLUIPA by imposing a substantial burden on its religious exercise. Compl. 5 �1116-27. On March 22, 2023, the City moved to dismiss MW's claims. Mot. at 2. 6 Specifically, the City argues that MW's "use of its property, as alleged in the Complaint, 7 does not constitute a religious exercise under RLUIPA," and that its denial of MW's 8 COO application does not impose a substantial burden on MW's religious exercise 9 because food and drink distribution is merely "incidental" to MW's practices. Id. 10 III. ARGUMENT 11 RLUIPA provides that "[n]o government shall impose or implement a land use 12 regulation in a manner that imposes a substantial burden on the religious exercise of a 13 person, including a religious assembly or institution" unless the government 14 demonstrates that the imposition of that burden is the least restrictive means of furthering 15 a compelling governmental interest. 42 U.S.C. § 2000cc(a)(1). Here, MW has plausibly 16 alleged a violation of RLUIPA because its Complaint asserts that (1) providing food and 17 drink to homeless individuals is a part of its "religious exercise," and (2) the City's 18 outright ban on this practice "imposes a substantial burden on its religious exercise." 19 A. MW plausibly alleged that its distribution of food and drinks to 20 homeless individuals is "religious exercise" under RLUIPA. 21 RLUIPA broadly defines "religious exercise" as "any exercise of religion, whether 22 or not compelled by, or central to, a system of religious belief." 42 U.S.C. § 2000ce- 23 5(7)(A). This definition is deliberately far-reaching, as evidenced by Congress' intent to 24 distinguish RLUIPA "from traditional First Amendment jurisprudence" by "expand[ing] 25 the reach of the protection to include `any religious exercise."' Greene v. Solano Cnty. 26 Jail, 513 F.3d 982, 986 (9th Cir. 2008) (citing Cutter v. Wilkinson, 544 U.S. 709, 715 27 (2005)). Indeed, RLUIPA itself demands that it be "construed in favor of a broad 28 protection of religious exercise, to the maximum extent permitted by the terms of this 7 8:23-cv-00183-DOC-KES Document 25 Filed 05/09/23 Page 9 of 18 Page ID #:188 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 chapter and the Constitution." 42 U.S.C. § 2000cc-3(g). Consistent with this broad mandate, courts have routinely found that providing charity to homeless individuals ---including by offering food and drink --can constitute "religious exercise" under RLUIPA. See, e.g., Harbor Missionary Church Corp. v. City of San Buenaventura, 642 F. App'x 726, 727-29 (9th Cir. 2016) (finding that the church's homeless ministry, which included offering food, was "an integral part of its religious exercise"); World Outreach Conf. Ctr. v. City of Chicago, 591 F.3d 531, 537 (7th Cir. 2009) (holding that the City's denial of a permit impeded the church's "religious mission of providing living facilities to homeless and other needy people"); Fifth Ave. Presbyterian Church v. City of New York, 293 F.3d 570, 574-75 (2d. Cir. 2002) (finding that operating a homeless shelter constitutes religious exercise); see also W. Presbyterian Church v. Bd. of Zoning Adjustment of D. C., 862 F. Supp. 538, 544 (D.D.C. 1994) (noting that, in the Religious Freedom Restoration Act context, the "concept of acts of charity as an essential part of religious worship is a central tenet of all major religions," including by providing "clothing for the naked, food.for the hungry, and benevolence to the needy") (emphasis added).' Here, MW alleges that providing food and drink to poor and homeless individuals is an integral part of its religious exercise. MW asserts that it is a Christian "faith -based organization" named after the "Micah Mandate," as set forth in the Bible. Compl. 15. Feeding homeless persons is part of its "Christian ministry." Id. 1�4, 19, 26, 42-43. MW feeds homeless persons because it believes it "has a religious duty to help the homeless that come to it ... including by providing a cup of coffee and a muffin if a client is hungry." Id. ¶27. This belief is rooted in "heeding and implementing the 4 These rulings are consistent with RLUIPA's legislative intent, which aimed to protect organizations like MW that exercise their faith through charity, including by distributing food to homeless individuals. During RLUIPA's legislative process, a sponsoring senator specifically cited a "meals program for the homeless and the working poor" as a type of land use that should receive protection as religious exercise. See 146 Cong. Rec. S6689 (daily ed. July 13, 2000) (statement of Sen. Kennedy). 8 C 8:23-cv-00183-DOC-KES Document 25 Filed 05/09/23 Page 10 of 18 Page ID #:189 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 following words of Jesus Christ: `For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink.' .... (Matthew 25:35-40)." Id. ¶4. Indeed, MW "takes great solace in the fact that providing charitable assistance to persons in need is a practice that is embraced by every major religion in the world," and MW believes it is doing "God's work" by "providing food to the hungry, drink to the thirsty, clothing to the needy, and shelter to the homeless." Id. 142. This type of faith -based outreach is akin to Harbor Missionary Church Corp, where the Ninth Circuit found that a city's denial of a conditional use permit, which prevented the plaintiff "from conducting its homeless ministry, an integral part of its religion," violated RLUIPA's substantial burden provision. 642 Fed. App'x at 729. Similar to MW, the Church in Harbor Missionary used its property to provide "basic needs to the City's homeless men and women," such as food, clothing, showers, and counseling. Id. at 727. The Church cited "the Bible at Matthew 25:34-46" as a source for its "belief that its homeless ministry is part of its religious duty to feed the hungry and clothe the naked," and that "sharing meals with homeless men and women —when done within the walls of the Church under a religious mandate—constitute[d] sacred duties." Id. at 728-29. MW's religious beliefs are similarly rooted in religious text. Compl. 1�4, 25. And like Harbor Missionary, MW's practice of distributing food and beverages to people in need is an act of religious exercise. The City claims that MW's food and drink distribution is not religious exercise because it is "merely an incidental use of minor significance." Mot. at 10 (emphasis added). But MW's Complaint makes clear that food and drink distribution is an integral part of its religious exercise and not of "minor significance." Compl. 114, 27, 42. Moreover, the City's argument runs counter to the plain language of RLUIPA, which protects any religious exercise, "whether or not compelled by, or central to, a system of religious belief." 42 U.S.C. § 2000cc-5(7)(A) . In other words, the centrality or significance of the belief or conduct at issue does not dictate whether it is "religious exercise" under RLUIPA. See Cutter, 544 U.S. at 725 n.13 (noting that RLUIPA "bars 9 8:23-cv-00183-DOC-KES Document 25 Filed 05/09/23 Page 11 of 18 Page lD #:190 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 inquiry into whether a particular belief or practice is `central' to" an individual's religion). Indeed, in Johnson v. Baker, the Ninth Circuit rejected a similar argument, finding that the defendant "grossly missed] the mark" by insinuating that an incarcerated individual's particular religious practice —using scented oils before prayer —was "not really that important to his worship practice." 23 F.4th 1209, 1215 (9th Cir. 2022) (emphasis in original). Johnson also emphasized that a plaintiff need only demonstrate that a "particular facet" of his religious practice has been burdened under RLUIPA, and that "it makes no difference" that a plaintiff may still practice his "religion as a whole" under the government's restrictions. Id. at 1214-15. As alleged in its Complaint, MW's feeding homeless individuals is an important part of its ministry and is, at the very least, a "particular facet" of its religious expression. Compl. TT4, 7-8, 27, 31, 38-39. Accordingly, the City cannot prohibit MW's distribution of food and drink by erroneously branding it of "minor significance" to its overall religious practice. Citing to MW's many other services, such as providing ID vouchers and hygiene products, the City argues that MW's operations "are purely administrative and are not religious in nature." Mot. at 10. However, as the City acknowledges in its motion, it denied MW's COO because MW distributed food and drink, not because it provided ID vouchers or hygiene products. Mot. at 4. While MW's other activities are also part of its religious mission, Compl. ¶¶ 6, 52, they are not at issue in this litigation. Rather, the conduct in question is providing food and drink to the needy, and the City's Motion simply ignores the Complaint's many allegations that MW has a "religious duty" to feed homeless persons. See, e.g., id. ¶27; see also Intl Church of Foursquare Gospel v. City of San Leandro, 673 F.3d 1059, 1069 (9th Cir. 2011) (holding that district court may not reject the plaintiff's "characterization of its core beliefs"). Moreover, the premise of the City's argument —that certain activities are intrinsically secular and therefore not religious exercise —has been repeatedly rejected by courts. For example, in World Outreach Conf. Dr., the Seventh Circuit found that "even the recreational and other nonreligious services provided at the community center 10 CJ Ise 8:23-cv-00183-DOC-KES Document 25 Fiied 05/09/23 Page 12 of 18 Page ID #:191 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 are integral to the World Outreach's religious mission .... Souls aren't saved just in church buildings." 591 F.3d at 535; see also First Lutheran Church v. City of St. Paul, 326 F.Supp.3d 745, 753, 761 (D. Minn. 2018) (finding that Church's nonprofit day - shelter and community center focused on "providing hospitality and practical assistance to the disadvantaged, homeless, or lonely" is "a form of ... religious exercise").' Cases cited by the City reinforce the point that religious exercise is not limited to traditional houses of worship and can include seemingly lay or "administrative" pursuits. For example, in Scottish Rite Cathedral Association of Los Angeles, the court acknowledged that RLUIPA protections have "been applied to activities as divergent as religiously affiliated schools ... nonprofit hospitals ... and faith -based crisis centers." 156 Cal.AppAth at 118. And in Mintz v. Roman Catholic Bishop, the court found that a proposed "parish center," which would "house an office for religious education and would serve as a meeting place for the parish council," fell "well within the definition of `religious exercise."' 424 F.Supp.2d 309, 319 (D. Mass. 2006). Undoubtedly, operating meeting places, schools, offices, hospitals, and crisis centers requires significant amounts of administrative work; nevertheless, these uses constitute religious exercise when operated for a religious purpose. And considering that offering food to the hungry cannot reasonably be mistaken as a rote administrative task, but rather has spiritual foundations and is a "central tenet of all major religions," MW's practice of feeding homeless individuals is unquestionably religious exercise. See W. Presbyterian Church, s Some courts have found that when a religious organization engages in purely commercial conduct, like leasing its property to a commercial enterprise, that activity is not "religious exercise" for the purposes of RLUIPA. See, e.g., Scot. Rite Cathedral Ass'n of Los Angeles v. City of Los Angeles, 156 Cal.AppAth 108, 118-120 (Cal. App. 2007) (finding that City's actions in prohibiting masonic temple from renting its building to for -profit commercial activities, including a boxing match, did not infringe on temple's religious exercise). However, here, the City does not contend that the challenged conduct —feeding homeless persons —is commercial or that MW somehow financially profits from it_ In fact, the City concedes that "Plaintiff is not operating a commercial use." Mot. at 9. 11 e 8:23-cv-00183-DOC-KES Document 25 Filed 05/09/23 Page l3 of 18 Page ID #:192 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 862 F. Supp. at 544) (noting that one of the "five Pillars of Islam" includes giving "alms to the poor"; one of Hinduism's "five daily obligations of worship" includes "giving food or aid to the poor"; and that religious worship in Judaism includes tendering "food for the hungry[] and benevolence to the needy"). B. MW plausibly alleged that the City's complete refusal to allow it to provide food or drinks to homeless individuals "imposes a substantial burden" on its religious exercise under RLUIPA. Government conduct that "impose[s] a significantly great restriction or onus upon [religious] exercise" may create a substantial burden in violation of RLUIPA. San Jose Christian Coll. v. City of Morgan Hill, 360 F.3d 1024, 1034 (9th Cir. 2004). A land use regulation may impose a substantial burden if it exerts "substantial pressure on an adherent to modify his behavior and to violate his beliefs." Guru Nanak Sikh Soc. of Yuba City v. County of Sutter, 456 F.3d 978, 988 (9th Cir. 2006) (citing Thomas v. Review Bd. of the Ind. Employment Sec. Div., 450 U.S. 707, 717-18 (1981)). Whether a land use regulation substantially burdens religious exercise is a highly fact -dependent question that requires examining the "totality of the circumstances." New Harvest Christian Fellowship v. City of Salinas, 29 FAth 596, 602 (9th Cir. 2022), cert. denied, 143 S. Ct. 567 (2023). "[D]etermining whether a burden is substantial ... is ordinarily an issue of fact." Acad. of Our Lady of Peace v. City of San Diego, No. 09CV962-WQH-AJB, 2010 WL 1329014, at * 11 (S.D. Cal. Apr. 1, 2010) (quoting World Outreach Conf. Ctr., 591 F.3d at 539)). Here, MW has pleaded sufficient facts to plausibly show that the City has imposed a substantial burden on MW's religious exercise by denying its COO. Under the City's G Indeed, cases cited by the City underscore that a substantial burden analysis is a fact - specific inquiry that requires examination of a complete record. See New Harvest Christian Fellowship v. City of Salinas, 29 FAth 596, 599 (9th Cir. 2022), cent. denied, 143 S. Ct. 567 (2023) (appeal of grant of summary judgment); San Jose Christian, 360 F.3d at 1027 (same); Scot. Rite Cathedral Assn of Los Angeles, 156 Cal. App. 4th at 114 (appeal of denial of writ of administrative mandamus). 12 8:23-cv-00183-DOC-KES Document 25 Filed 05/09/23 Page 14 of 18 Page ID #:193 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 demands, MW would be completely prohibited at its current location from distributing food and beverages to homeless individuals who come to its doors, a service that MW believes it has a "religious duty" to perform. Compl. ¶¶ 4, 8, 27, 31-32, 38. The City has also threatened to fine and criminally prosecute MW unless it ceases this practice. Id. 113, 13, 31, 39. This conduct is sufficient to establish a "substantial burden" on religious exercise in violation of RLUIPA. See Johnson, 23 FAth at 1215-16 (noting that "government action that threatens `punishment[] to coerce a religious adherent to forgo her or his religious beliefs"' may amount to a substantial burden) (quoting Warsoldier v. Woodford, 418 F.3d 989, 996 (9th Cir. 2005)); see also Wisconsin v. Yoder, 406 U.S. 205, 218 (1972) (holding that a "threat of criminal sanction[] to perform acts undeniably at odds with fundamental tenets of their religious beliefs" burdened religious exercise). The City's decision to deny MW's COO and to threaten monetary and criminal consequences is not a "mere inconvenience," as the City argues. Mot. at 12, 13. Rather, the City has inflicted "substantial pressure" to compel MW to modify its behavior by ceasing to perform "act[s] of charity in providing ... food and beverage items to the poor and homeless persons." Compl. ¶8. In banning MW's practice, the City imposes a substantial burden on MW's religious exercise. See Guru Nanak, 456 F.3d at 988; Greene, 513 F.3d at 988 (holding that "an outright ban on a particular religious exercise is a substantial burden on that religious exercise") (emphasis added). As discussed earlier, the City's assertion that there is no substantial burden on MW's religious exercise because food and drink distribution is "merely incidental" to MW's operations, Mot. at 12, is both legally and factually incorrect. See Sec. II1.A supra. The City's argument ignores the plain language of RLUIPA, which expressly protects "any" religious exercise regardless of whether it is "compelled by, or central to, a system of religious belief." 42 U.S.C. § 2000cc-5(7) (emphasis added). It is therefore irrelevant how "central" food distribution is to MW's religious beliefs in assessing whether the City's conduct has substantially burdened religious exercise in violation of 13 C� e 8:23-cv-00183-DOC-KES Document 25 Filed 05/09/23 Page 15 of 18 Page ID #:194 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 RLUIPA. See also First Lutheran Church, 326 F.Supp.3d at 761-62 (holding that 20- person capacity limitation and "No Trespassing" sign requirement imposed a substantial burden in violation of RLUIPA on church's religious exercise because it interfered with efforts to assist homeless persons). In any event, the Complaint contains ample facts establishing that food distribution to homeless persons is an important part of MW's religious exercise and is not "merely incidental." Compl. %4, 27, 42, And MW's facts must be accepted as true, and all reasonable inferences drawn in favor of MW, on a motion to dismiss. Murguia v. Langdon, 61 F.4th 1096, 1106 (9th Cir. 2023). Further, although not required at the pleading stage, MW alleges that it lacks readily available alternatives and that it is effectively precluded from changing locations.' For example, MW alleges that moving locations would be "impossible" due to the costs and unlikelihood of finding a landlord willing to rent to an organization that serves homeless individuals, and that it cannot relocate without experiencing significant uncertainty, delay, or expense, or otherwise violating its religious purpose. Comps. ¶39. These allegations further support plaintiff's substantial burden claim under RLUIPA. See New Harvest, 29 F.4th at 602-04 (evidence that other available properties are unsuitable because of "size, configuration, safety, or current uses" can support substantial burden finding); Int'1 Church of Foursquare Gospel, 673 F.3d at 1067 (finding evidence of lack of other suitable sites in the city to house the church's expanded operation supported substantial burden claim). Moreover, MW has also plausibly alleged that the City could apply the same reasoning to deny any future COO applications, even if MW were to relocate. In 2021, the mayor directed various staff and departments to identify a basis for removing MW ' While the City makes passing reference to "ready alternatives" as a factor in the substantial burden analysis, the City cites no case where a RLUIPA plaintiff was required to plead that it lacked adequate alternative locations to withstand a motion to dismiss. Cases discussing the availability of alternative locations have done s0 in the context of summary judgement. See, e.g., New Harvest, 29 F_4th at 603; San Jose Christian Coll., 360 F.3d at 1035. 14 C4se 8:23-cv-00183-DOC-KES Document 25 Filed 05/09/23 Page 16 of 18 Page ID #:195 I 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 from its location, Compl. ¶74, and stated his intent to prevent homelessness -related issues "from happening anyplace else in the City," id. ¶102 (emphasis added). Accordingly, MW has plausibly alleged that "the City would [not] agree to provide a COO" to MW in any location. Id. ¶40; see Guru Nanak, 456 F.3d at 989 (reasoning that prior application denials "to a significantly great extent lessened the possibility that future [] applications would be successful"). The City has informed MW that it "will not entertain" any conditions short of MW shuttering its food and beverage service. Compl. 132. MW ceased distributing food and beverages outside of the office and moved this activity indoors in order to address the City's concerns, but these actions have not appeased the City. Id. ¶127-29, 112. The City's complete prohibition on allowing MW to feed homeless individuals at its Resource Center under any circumstances further supports MW's claim that the City has violated RLUIPA by imposing a substantial burden on its religious exercise. See Guru Nanak, 456 F.3d at 991 (upholding substantial burden finding in part because defendant refused to accept mitigation conditions offered by plaintiff or suggest what conditions it would accept to permit religious temple). IV. CONCLUSION MW's Complaint alleges sufficient facts plausibly showing (1) that its food and beverage distribution to homeless individuals is religious exercise protected by RLUIPA, and (2) that the City's denial of its COO application substantially burdens its religious exercise in violation of RLUIPA. Therefore, the City's motion to dismiss MW's RLUIPA claim should be denied. Dated: May 9, 2023 E. MARTIN ESTRADA United States Attorney Respectfully submitted, FOR THE UNITED STATES: KRISTEN CLARKE Assistant Attorney General Civil Rights Division 15 C� se 8:23-cv-00183-DOC-KES Document 25 Filed 05/09/23 Page 17 of 18 Page ID #:196 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 DAVID M. HARRIS Assistant United States Attorney Chief, Civil Division RICHARD M. PARK Assistant United States Attorney Chief, Civil Rights Section, Civil Division Is/ Matthew Nickell MATTHEW NICKELL Assistant United States Attorney Civil Rights Section, Civil Division SAMEENA SHINA MAJEED Chief, Housing and Civil Enforcement Section Civil Rights Division CARRIE PAGNUCCO Acting Deputy Chief, Housing and Civil Enforcement Section Civil Rights Division Is/ Noah Sacks NOAH SACKS Trial Attorney, Housing and Civil Enforcement Section Civil Rights Division /s/ Terrence Mangan TERREN CE MAN GAN Trial Attorney, Housing and Civil Enforcement Section Civil Rights Division Attorneys for the United States ofAmerica 16 C� se 8:23-cv-00183-DOC-KES Document 25 Filed 05/09/23 Page 18 of 18 Page ID ##:197 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE The undersigned, counsel of record for the United States, certifies that this brief contains 5,120 words, which complies with the word limit of L.R. 11-6.1. Dated: May 9, 2023 Respectfully submitted, Is/ Matthew Nickell MATTHEW NICKELL Assistant United States Attorney Civil Rights Section, Civil Division 17 MEMORANDUM MCT # 67459 TO: Finance & Management Services Agency Thursday, September 14, 2023 FROM: Planning and Building Agency �aucation Isr SUBJECT: Miscellaneous Cash Transaction All fees are subject to change at any time and may also be affected by scheduled adjustments on July 1 of each year. The Payee must pay the prevailing rate at the time payment is made. PROJECT NAME: Anchor Stone Christian Church MASTER ID # 2023-179697 PROJECT ADDRESS: 2938 S Daimler St, Santa Ana, CA 92705-5811 AP #430-173-16 Application # APPL-2023-7-APC Permit # ISSUED TO: Steven Lee ADDRESS: 1030 N Mountain Ave #198 Ontario, CA 91762 ITEM DESCRIPTION QTY UNIT RATE AMOUNT FUND NO. 1 Appeal (Applicant) 1.0000 $4,944.00 $4,944.00 01116002 53606 Comments: Created via Planning Invoice process Issued By: web_plpay (Planning and Building Agency) NOTES: For payment to be considered complete, a Miscellaneous Cash Transaction (MCT) must be paid in full. TOTAL MCT AMOUNT: $4,944.00 GL Account # Total 01116002 53606 $4,944.00 Page 1 of 1 City Response to Anchor Stone Christian Church ADDeal No. 2023-07 Comment 1: Applicant appeals for the reasons in Tab 1. Reason A: Corporate headquarters and campuses are expressly permitted uses under the Industrial/Flex-Medium land use designation. Reason B: The property is within Professional (P) zoning district, and churches are permitted uses in that district. Reason C: The Development Review Committee (DRC) denial letter issued on June 1, 2023, provides no rational or legal basis for its decision to deny the proposed CUP. Response 1: See responses to points A through B below. Response A: Staffs evaluation of the submitted project relied exclusively on the details provided by the applicant within the application, which explicitly indicates that the intended land use is for assembly purposes. In this case, staffs assessment was entirely framed by the information contained within the application and plans, and staff had no basis for considering any corporate headquarters plans that were not explicitly detailed. As such, the staffs review was firmly anchored in the scope of the proposed assembly use. Moreover, in May of 2023, Anchor Stone Christian Church applied for a certificate of occupancy (COO) for an administrative office space only. However, Anchor Stone Christian Church has not finalized the COO as they have not scheduled the required inspection conducted by the City of Santa Ana Building Division. Response B: Pursuant to Section 41-313.5 of the SAMC, churches and accessory church buildings may be permitted in the P zoning district, subject to the issuance of a conditional use permit. Churches and accessory church buildings are not a uses that are permitted by right. Pursuant to Section 41-638 of the SAMC CUPs may be granted only when it can be shown that a project will not adversely impact the community and General Plan. If these findings can be made, then it is appropriate to grant the CUP. Conversely, the inability to make these findings results in a denial. Furthermore, SAMC Section 41-638(a)(1) requires that all five of the specified findings of fact contained therein are satisfied before the Planning Commission may grant approval of a CUP, one of which is evaluating if the project will adversely affect the General Plan. The subject site's General Plan land use designation is Flex-3, which allows office/industrial flex spaces, research and development, and manufacturing corporate headquarters/campuses, and does not permit community assembly uses (e.g., churches) as a permissible use. Lastly, the proposed use will not be consistent with the goals and policies of the General Plan, including those from the Land Use Element (LU) and the Economic Prosperity Element (EP), as was comprehensible analyzed in the project staff report. Response C: The DRC denial letter issued on June 1, 2023, outlined the requirements needed for the Development Project (DP) application to be deemed complete by City staff. Pursuant to the Standards of Approval outlined in Section 41-670(1) and Section 41- 673(b)(1) of the SAMC, the proposed project must be consistent with the general plan and City Response to Anchor Stone Christian Church ADDeal No. 2023-07 any applicable specific plan adopted pursuant to California Government Code, Section 65450 et seq. Moreover, the letter outlined the requirements needed for staff to provide a recommendation to the Planning Commission to approve the CUP listed in Section 41- 638(a)(1) of the SAMC. Comment 2: Denial of the Conditional Use Permit (CUP) imposes a substantial burden on applicant's religious exercise. Response 2: CUP requests are governed by Section 41-638 of the Santa Ana Municipal Code (SAMC). CUPs may be granted when it can be shown that the proposed project will not adversely impact the community and General Plan. If these findings can be made, then it is appropriate to grant the CUP. Conversely, the inability to make these findings results in a denial. The decisions regarding land use and the CUP are fundamentally anchored in a careful evaluation of the proposed assembly use for the existing office building. This evaluation also centers on identifying any inconsistencies with the General Plan land use designation. Additionally, a comprehensive analysis of how the proposed assembly use aligns with the pre -established vision of the General Plan land use element was necessary for staff to make a recommendation to the Planning Commission. This entails an assessment of whether the intended use harmoniously fits within the existing zoning and land use framework. The consideration of inconsistencies is pivotal in ensuring that the proposed development adheres to the city's broader goals and policies, fostering sustainable and compatible growth. During the Planning Commission hearing, the Applicant alleged that staff's denial recommendation of its CUP violated Applicant's religious exercise under the federal statute known as the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act ("RLUIPA"). In general, RLUIPA prohibits a government from implementing a land use regulation that imposes a substantial burden on religious exercise unless the government demonstrates that it furthers a compelling government interest by the least restrictive means. City staff is aware of all applicable laws, including RLUIPA and made its recommendations and proposed findings in accordance with the Santa Ana Municipal Code and all other applicable laws. Comment 3: City staff have never identified a compelling governmental interest for denying a CUP. Response 3: City staff's denial recommendation is primarily grounded in the observation that the proposed assembly use does not align with the General Plan's land use designation for the area, which is classified as Industrial/Flex-Medium (Flex-3). This incompatibility raises concerns regarding the harmonious integration of the proposed activity within the existing zoning and land use framework. The City staffs evaluation highlights the need for the proposed assembly use to align with the General Plan land use designation to ensure the sustainable and coherent development of the area. In reviewing the proposed CUP request, staff evaluates the project against the five findings of fact codified in SAMC Section 41-638(a)(1), including consistency with the General Plan. 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 2 City Response to Anchor Stone Christian Church ADDeal No. 2023-07 developments. (DeVita v. Cty. of Napa, 9 Cal. 4th 763, 773 (1995); citing Neighborhood Action Group, 156 Cal.App.3d at 1183.). The General Plan Land Use Element land use designation describes the site's Flex-3 and allowable uses are as follows: The Industrial/Flex designation is intended to provide context -appropriate development in areas with existing industrial uses. When adjacent to existing residential neighborhoods, this designation can provide a buffer between homes and traditional industrial uses. When adjacent to urban -scale mixed -use development, this designation is more free to emphasize significant employment opportunities. Industrial/Flex allows for clean industrial uses that do not produce significant air pollutants, noise, or other nuisances typically associated with industrial uses, including office -industrial flex spaces, small-scale clean manufacturing, research and development and multilevel corporate offices, commercial retail, artist galleries, craft maker spaces, and live -work units. Adaptive reuse of buildings to accommodate live -work units is encouraged. Standalone residential is not permitted. Building form and height should reflect the existing context and, if inside a Focus Area, communicate the envisioned character for the area. Based on the land use designation and development policies and allowable uses within the Flex-3 designation, the subject site is not suitable for the operation of community assembly, nor does it list community assembly -type uses as permissible under the land use designation. Conversely, land use designations such as General Commercial (GC) and its accompanying zoning districts allow for "retail and service establishments; recreational, cultural, and entertainment uses; business and professional offices; and vocational schools," among which "recreational, cultural, and entertainment uses" provide for community assembly such as religious facilities. During the Planning Commission hearing, the Applicant alleged that staff's denial recommendation of its CUP violated Applicant's religious exercise under the federal statute known as RLUIPA. In general, RLUIPA prohibits a government from implementing a land use regulation that imposes a substantial burden on religious exercise unless the government demonstrates that it furthers a compelling government interest by the least restrictive means. City staff is aware of all applicable laws, including RLUIPA and made its recommendations and proposed findings in accordance with the Santa Ana Municipal Code and all other applicable laws. Comment 4: Applicant asked the Planning Commission to consider RLUIPA but the Planning Commission refused to do so. Response 4: The Planning Commission made a land use determination based on the applicant's proposed land use (i.e., assembly use) for the existing office building. During the Planning Commission hearing, the Applicant alleged that staff's denial recommendation of its CUP violated Applicant's religious exercise under the federal statute known as RLUIPA. In general, RLUIPA prohibits a government from implementing a land use regulation that imposes a substantial burden on religious exercise unless the government demonstrates that it furthers a compelling government interest by the least restrictive means. City staff is aware of 3 City Response to Anchor Stone Christian Church Appeal No. 2023-07 all applicable laws, including RLUIPA and made its recommendations and proposed findings in accordance with the Santa Ana Municipal Code and all other applicable laws. The commission adhered to the applicable land use regulations, zoning ordinances, and broader city planning considerations. In accordance with California Government Code Section 65300 and 65800, local jurisdictions have the power and responsibility to adopt general plans and zoning ordinances that are designed to facilitate and regulate the safe, orderly, and sustainable development of their communities. The focus is primarily on how the proposed assembly use aligns with the established zoning and land use policies. The land use decisions were made in accordance with the pertinent local regulations and guidelines, maintaining the integrity of the City's planning and development process. Comment 5: The City is continuing its unlawful "pattern and practice" of violating RLUIPA. Response 5: The land use decisions made during the Planning Commission meeting on September 11, 2023, were meticulously rooted in the examination of the proposed assembly land use for the existing office building only. It is essential to emphasize that the Applicant's proposed religious assembly use played no role in the Planning Commission's determination nor in staff's analysis of land use inconsistencies as it relates to the City's general plan. The primary focus of the Planning Commission's deliberations was the compatibility of the proposed land use (i.e., assembly use) with the zoning and land use regulations set forth by the city. The Planning Commission emphasized its commitment to impartiality in the decision -making process based solely on the proposed assembly use. The emphasis was placed squarely on evaluating the assembly use's conformity with local zoning ordinances and land use policies, ensuring that it would seamlessly integrate into the existing and future development without introducing any religious or institutionalized aspects that might trigger RLUIPA-related concerns. This approach not only upholds the integrity of the City's land use regulations but also marks the importance of considering land use decisions within the context of the local planning framework, allowing for judicious and consistent urban development.