SU0002294 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

942 East Pine Street P.O. Box 1503 Lodi, California 95241-1503 B I B L E C H U R C H March 28, 1996 San Joaquin County Development Department Basis for Appeal: The basis for this appeal is the fact that the primary opponent, Calva Products, Inc., failed to demonstrate how the presence of a church would adversely affect its ability to conduct business now or in the future. Calva also failed to demonstrate how a church would be adversely affected by its operations now or in the future. It is our position that the presence of a church next to Calva is compatible for the reasons stated in the staff report. After months of review and approximately $8,800 to conduct a traffic study and other analyses, the county staff recommended the approval of this use permit. In their public presentation, the opponent made no reference to the recommendation of the county staff. The argument of the opponent is without merit. Rather than attempt to demonstrate how a church would adversely affect its operations, Calva reasoned that the project should be denied to avoid the possibility of church complaints arising from its future operations. This is a highly speculative argument without any basis in fact. After researching the possible adverse affects Calva might have upon its operations, the church concluded even talk of future expansion would not adversely affect its purposes or goals. The church is prepared to invest substantial monies in the development of this site; many business owners in the church have agreed to contribute $750,000 towards this project to date. These business owners would not be willing to invest their own resources to this extent if they thought Calva would interfere with our operations or that we would interfere with theirs. Our opponent's argument before the planning commission was not based upon any objective facts. There is nothing in the staff report to suggest a reason for denying our permit; therefore, the opponent did not even mention it. The opponent could not and did not argue directly that the church would interfere with its ability to conduct business. Calva's future expansion is based on assumptions which cannot be demonstrated in fact. The argument used was entirely speculative: if Calva expands in the future it might adversely affect the church and the church might complain. To avoid this unlikely scenario the commission denied the use permit, stating an incompatible land use. Since the arguments before the planning commission were entirely speculative, we can only assume that other factors not related to the merits of the case persuaded the commissioners to vote against the church. We urge the Board of Supervisors to overturn the denial of the use permit on the basis of the staff's recommendation for approval. -4-