Item 41 - Amendment Application No. 2022-01 and Appeal Nos. 2022-01 and 2022-02

Home Browse Search

City Response to Melinda Luthin Appeal No. 2022-02 Comment 12: This comment alleges that the Planning Commission approved the CUP without making the necessary findings of fact pursuant to SAMC Section 41-638 and Section 41-639. Response 12: As detailed in the accompanying resolution for the CUP, all required findings of fact pursuant to SAMC Section 41-638 have been made by the Planning Commission in its consideration of the requested CUP. The resolution has been included in the staff report packet as Exhibit 2, containing a full recitals section and detailed analysis of how each of the five required findings of fact can be made for the project. Comment 13: This comment alleges that the Planning Commission approved the CUP without making a proper motion. Response 13: The appellant does not expand on this statement or provide any specific detail concerning why a proper motion was allegedly not made. The Planning Commission held a duly - noticed public hearing in accordance with all SAMC and state laws, with staff from the Planning and Building Agency and the City Attorney's Office available to ensure proper conduct. A full video from the meeting is available in the October 10, 2022 agenda packet is available online at https://santa-ana.primegov.com/Portal/Meeting?meetingTemplateId=19499 . Comment 14: This comment states that the "Land use is not compatible with the General Plan." Response 14: The Industrial/Flex (FLEX) General Plan land use designation was established in order to encourage a range of low -impact industrial and limited commercial uses in the area in which the subject site is located. The project has been designed to minimize impacts onto surrounding properties. Moreover, as a result of the Sunshine Ordinance community meeting process and feedback provided by the adjacent property's representatives, the project's site plan was rotated clockwise 90 degrees to orient the loading docks away from the adjacent property. Following this revision, the applicant further revised the plans to note installation of gates and height -restriction bars to prevent large trucks from circulating on the east side of the project site, which would further minimize noise and vibration impacts on the adjacent property. These measures are all consistent with the purpose and goals of the FLEX land use designation for the area in which the subject property is located. Comment 15: This comment is claims that the proposed use for which the CUP was issued is inconsistent with the required findings of fact contained within SAMC Section 41-638. Response 15: Refer to Response No. 12. Comment 16: This states that the conditionally permitted use does not comply with the development standards in the zoning district. Response 16: Refer to Response No 8. Moreover, the project has been designed to fully comply with the development standards of the M1 zoning district. No exception or variance is required to allow a modification of these standards. Comment 17: This states that the CUP does not identify the specific use of land that is permitted. Exhibit 15 Page Aof5