Item 37 - Appeal No. 2023-07 Denial of CUP No. 2023-18 Anchor Stone Christian Church: 2938 S. Daimler Street

Home Browse Search

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