Correspondence #41 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

City Response to Melinda Luthin and William Stevens Letters Dated December 20, 2022 pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15183. Pursuant to California Public Resources Code (PRC) Section 21083.3 and State CEQA Guidelines Section 15183, projects that are "consistent with the development density established by the existing zoning, community plan or general plan policies for which an EIR was certified shall not require additional environmental review, except as might be necessary to examine whether there are project -specific significant effects which are peculiar to the project or its site." As detailed in the Environmental Impact section of this report, the project was fully evaluated to determine if there are any project -specific significant effects which are peculiar to the project or its site, and none were subsequently determined. Therefore, the Section 15183 exemption prepared for the project is the appropriate form of environmental review. The exemption is attached to the report as Exhibit 10 and a complete response to this is contained in Exhibit 13 to the staff report. Comment 2: This comment states that memo of the GPOPA own_ an easement-whtc crisscrosses approximately 40% of the developer's buildable area. The location of the GPOPA easement upon.the developer's property is specifically fixed in the easement language, and may not be relocated without the consent of GPOPA Members and sale of their easement interest. The developer's building plans rely on the release of the GPOPA easement interest. Such release or agreement has not been approved by the GPOPA Members at this time, and consequently developer's application is premature until the parties can reach a firm agreement. Response 2: See response to Melinda Luthin's Comment 6, above. Moreover, the resolution for the CUP has been conditioned to require proof of modification of any easements affected by the project to be submitted prior to issuance of a building permit to construct the project. Without such evidence, building permits may not be issued. Mr. Stevens asserts that the parties are working to possibly m'ke such an agreement; this is a private matter between the two parties. Comment.3: This com ment states that staff report packet is missing pages from the application, including the submittal affidavit, and that the applicant's authority to submit the application is unclear. Response 3: See response to Melinda Luthin's Comment 5, above. Comment 4: This comment challenges the applicant's and staffs analyses of the five required findings of fact to grant a CUP, pursuant to Santa Ana Municipal Code (SAMC) Section 41-638. Response 4: The project has been fully analyzed and conditions to ensure that all five required findings of fact can be made to support granting of the requested CUP. Failure to comply with the approved plans and the conditions of approval will result in inability to issue building permits for the project and/or enforcement actions by the City, should the need arise. Comment 5: This comment states that the subject project site and the adjacent GPOPA site were built by the same builder and share infrastructure for drainage, power, telecommunications, ingress, and egress, and that approval and development of the project site would result in disruption to these utilities serving the GPOPA site. Response 5: See response to Melinda Luthin's Comment 6, above. Moreover, the resolution for the CUP has been conditioned to require proof of modification of any easements affected by the Page 4 of 5