City Response to Anchor Stone Christian Church
Appeal No. 2023-07
1 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: Staff's 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, staff's 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 staff's 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
Appeal No. 2023-07
2 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 staff's 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 City Response to Anchor Stone Christian Church
Appeal No. 2023-07
3 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 City Response to Anchor Stone Christian Church
Appeal No. 2023-07
4 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.