|
Honorable Mayor Pulido
<br />Santa Ana City Council
<br />November 18, 2019
<br />Page 11
<br />Ventura, supra., 24 Cal,3d at p. 617.) Several cases have held that to be adequate "the
<br />notice must be such as would according to common experience be reasonably
<br />adequate to the purpose." (See, e.g., Kennedy v. South Coast Regional Corn., supra,
<br />68 Cal.App.3d at pp. 670-672; Litchfield v. County of Marin (1955) 130 Cal.App.2d 806,
<br />813; Scott v. City of fndian Wells (1972) 6 Cal.3d 541, 548-549; Drum v. Fresno County
<br />Dept. of Public Works (1983) 144 Cal.App.3d 777, 782-783.)
<br />Consistently, the SAMC likewise acknowledges the requirement for valid notice to
<br />adjacent property owners. Section 41-645 governs the City Council's review of the
<br />Planning Commission's denial of the proposed Project. (See Code 1952, § 9250,14;
<br />Ord. No. NS-455, § 1, 6-20-60; Ord. No. NS-521, § 18, 6-19-61; Ord. No. NS-989, § 1,
<br />11-17-69; Ord. No. NS-2847, § 43, 8-5-13; Ord. No. NS-2923, § 9, 9-16-17 adding § 41-
<br />645 to SAMC).) Section 41-465, subdivision (g) limits the scope of the City Council's
<br />determinations on appeal as "within the limitations imposed by this chapter' with specific
<br />reference to Chapter 41, Zoning:
<br />The council, or in the case of a zoning administrator appeal,
<br />the planning commission, may, after public hearing, affirm,
<br />reverse, change, modify the original decision and may make
<br />any additional determination it shall consider appropriate
<br />within the limitations imposed by this chapter, Such decision
<br />shall be filed with the clerk of the council, and the
<br />city planning department; one (1) copy thereof shall be sent
<br />to the applicant.
<br />(SAMC, § 41-645, subd. (g).) Along those lines, all provisions of Chapter 41 must be
<br />interpreted and applied as, not the ceiling, but the basic "minimum requirements for the
<br />promotion of the public safety, health, convenience, comfort, and general welfare."
<br />(Code 1952, § 9281; Ord. No. NS-455, § 1, 6-20-60 adding § 41-766 to SAMC,)
<br />As part of those express "limitations imposed by" Chapter 41, the City Council's ability
<br />to approve plans for a development project like the Project here are contingent on its
<br />providing of adequate notice. (See SAMC, § 41-672, subd. (a).) Specifically,
<br />"whenever approval of plans for a development project will constitute a substantial or
<br />significant deprivation of property rights of other landowners[,]" as it will here. (See
<br />ibid.) Such an approval is invalid unless the director of planning and development
<br />services has set the matter for public hearing and provided valid notice at least five (5)
<br />days prior to the date of the hearing. (See ibid.) Valid notice must include "notice of the
<br />time and place of the hearing to all persons, including businesses, corporations, or other
<br />public or private entities, shown on the last equalized assessment roll, as owning real
<br />property within three hundred (300) feet of the property which is the subject of the
<br />application." (See ibid.) Moreover, the notice "shall be given by direct mailing to the
<br />owners at least five (5) days prior to the date of the hearing." (See ibid.)
<br />4398,10118504501.2
<br />
|