Correspondence #41 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Santa Ana City Council Re: Amendment Application No. 2022-01 and Appeal No. 2022-02 appealing Planning Commission Approval of Conditional Use Permit No. 2022-14 for the Property Located at 1700-1740 E. Garry Avenue December 20, 2022 Page 2 Cart before the horse. The Santa Ana Municipal Code ("SAMC") forbids the City from granting any permit for a use not allowed as a permissible use in the in the assigned zoning district associated with the property. Specifically, where an applicant has requested a zone change, "No permit or license shall be issued for any use involved in an application for a change of zone until same shall have become final by the adoption of an ordinance by the council." (SAMC, § 41-667.) I spoke to City staff regarding this and staff indicated that its staff's practice to violate this provision because its easier for staff if the applicant obtain a CUP before the zone change is approved. City staff stated that the condition in the CUP that it not become effective until a zone change is approved is a satisfactory substitute for compliance with the SAMC. It is not. The SAMC is clear, no permits. Full -stop. The City must not issue any CUP unless or until the property is rezoned. Application is not complete. The applicant is "Rob Mitchell." Rob Mitchell did not submit any affidavit with his CUP application. Affidavit is required. City staff claims the application is complete (Agenda Packet, p. 441.) This is false. Staffs claims are false; Public, Appellant, and City Council have not seen the full CUP application. Staff claims that the City Council and the public have no need or right to see the actual CUP application because staff has adequately summarized the contents. (Agenda Packet, p. 442.) Nonsense. The law mandates the public be provided copies of the CUP application. The City council and the planning commission cannot possibly vote on an application that they have not seen. Staff claims that staff made the CUP application "available" to the appellant. (Agenda Packet, p. 442.) False. Up until last night, Staff provided nothing, despite appellant's multiple requests. To date, Appellant has not been provided the entire CUP application. Staffs claims are false; Applicant is not the owner. The applicant is "Rob Mitchell." Rob Mitchell is not the owner of the property. Staff states that "The information on the submittal affidavit is consistent with the grant deed provided with the application." (Agenda Packet, p. 442.) Again, false. The grant deed indicates that the owner of the Subject Property is Gary Owners LLC. Appellants have provided documentation from the California Secretary of State that indicates the manager of Gary Owners LLC is not Rob Mitchell. Although there is no affidavit submitted with the CUP application, one was submitted for the development project. In this affidavit, a person named Rob Mitchell claims to be a "Partner" of some undisclosed entity. LLCs do not have partners. They have managers and members.