Laserfiche WebLink
<br /> <br />2 <br />Accordingly, the Planning Commission (the “Commission”) should deny the CUP application, or <br />in the alternative, continue this hearing for 120 days to allow the Conklin’s and other affected parties <br />adequate time to investigate, and present evidence and argument. <br />I. THE COMMISSION SHOULD DENY THE CUP APPLICATION BECAUSE FOUR OF <br />THE FIVE MANDATORY FINDINGS CANNOT BE MADE. <br />A. The Proposed Project Fails to Meet the Requirements to Approve the CUP Because <br />the Project Will Be Detrimental to the Public Welfare <br /> <br />As stated in the Planning Commission Staff Report for the Project, pursuant to Section 41-638 of <br />the Santa Ana Municipal Code (“SAMC”), the Commission may grant a CUP for specific uses located <br />at a particular location only if the Applicant establishes all of the following: <br /> <br />(i) That the proposed use will provide a service or facility which will contribute to the <br />general well being of the neighborhood or the community; and <br />(ii) That the proposed use will not, under the circumstances of the particular case, be <br />detrimental to the health, safety, or general welfare of persons residing or working in the <br />vicinity; and <br />(iii) That the proposed use will not adversely affect the present economic stability or <br />future economic development of property in the surrounding area; <br />(iv) That the proposed use will comply with the regulations and conditions specified in <br />this chapter for such use; and <br />(v) That the proposed use will not adversely affect the general plan of the city or any <br />specific plan applicable to the area of the proposed use. <br /> <br /> The Commission’s standard requires all five of the above elements satisfied in order to grant a <br />CUP. The record in support of its decision must contain substantial evidence to support its findings, and <br />the findings must in turn support the decision and be sufficiently detailed to “bridge the analytical gap” <br />between the raw evidence and the final decision. (Topanga Association for a Scenic Community v. <br />County of Los Angeles (1974) 11 Cal.3d 506, 511.) At minimum, the Project fails to meet elements 1, 2, <br />3, and 5 required by SAMC Section 41-638. These elements are addressed in turn below. Thus, the <br />Planning Commission should deny the CUP.