AgdaPkt 2002-11-04 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

legislative enactment of the board of trustees of said city." (At p. 670.) In review of the administrative record, it is clear that the intent of the CBR district was to improve and revitalize the downtown area by only allowing selective retail uses. Debate on "antique shops," "auto parts sales" and '~inancial institutions and office fronts" is reflected in the minutes of the Planning Commission meeting of October 15, 1991, and the City Council meeting of November 4, 1991. As held by both the Jon-Mar and Magruder cases, the fact that some types of retail uses were permitted and others not, does not affect the validity of the ordinance. (c) Appellant's business is consistent with the purposes of the CBR district Appellant makes the policy argument that its proposed land use meets the purpose of the CBR district. Again, appellant must meet each of the three elements of Article 26. (d) The vast majority of appellant's customers are end-users Appellant makes the same argument as in heading no. 3 above, that it is a retail use as its customers are end users and appellant pays retail sales tax. Further, appellant argues that City staff have misapplied or misinterpreted the zoning code. Again, a proposed land use being "retail" does not create a right to locate in the CBR district. Further, whether or not staff have misapplied or misinterpreted Article 26, is the specific issue now before the City Council. 5. Staff interpretation of the CBR zoning district is inconsistent with the City General Plan Appellant argues that the City's Zoning Code and interpretatic: s thereof must be consistent with the City's General Plan; and to the extent they are not, they are invalid. Appellant cites Napa Citizens for Honest Government v. Napa County Board of Supe~,isors (2001) 91 Cai.App.4th 342 and Lesher Communications, /nc. v. City of Walnut Creek (1990) 52 Cal.3d 531,538 in support of its position. Neither case aids appellant's argument that it is entitled to be located within the CBR district. In Napa County, the board of supervisors adopted an updated specific plan for the development of an unincorporated area surrounding the county airport. One of the questions raised in that case was whether a Specific Plan must be consistent with the General Plan. There, the Court of Appeals held at p,.355, "The Updated Specific Plan, therefore, is valid only to the extent that it is consistent with the County's General Plan; i.e., to the extent that it is compatible with the General Plan's objectives, policies, general land uses and programs." PRIVILEGED & CONFIDENTIAL Council.innovations 6