My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
Item 17 - Appeal No. 2023-06 appealing Planning Commission denial of modification to CUP No. 2019-41 and CUP No. 2023-03 – New Service Station at 2230 N Tustin
Clerk
>
Agenda Packets / Staff Reports
>
City Council (2004 - Present)
>
2023
>
10/03/2023 Regular
>
Item 17 - Appeal No. 2023-06 appealing Planning Commission denial of modification to CUP No. 2019-41 and CUP No. 2023-03 – New Service Station at 2230 N Tustin
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
10/3/2023 11:57:08 AM
Creation date
10/3/2023 11:35:07 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Clerk
Doc Type
Agenda Packet
Item #
17
Date
10/3/2023
Jump to thumbnail
< previous set
next set >
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
223
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
2107 N. Broadway, gulte 106 Santa Ana, CA b BLAKE 6 AYAZ <br />July 5, 2023 <br />Delivered in Person <br />Jennifer L. Hall <br />Santa Ana City Clerk <br />20 Civic Center Plaza, M-30 <br />Santa Ana, CA 92701 <br />3 <br />Re: GROUNDS FOR APPEAL <br />Conditional Use Permit No. 2019-41-MOD-1 and Conditional Use Permit No. <br />2023-03 <br />Ms. Hall: <br />Please allow this correspondence to set forth some of the grounds to appeal the decision made by <br />the Planning Commission at its scheduled hearing on June 26, 2023 with regard to the above <br />entitled matter. <br />GROUNDS TO APPEAL <br />1) Findings cannot no do support the decision of the planning commission; 2) Facts relied upon <br />by the decision body are not supported in the record 3) The manner in which the hearing was <br />conducted along with the actions of several planning commissioner violated the law, to include <br />but not in any way limited to the applicants constitutional rights, the Brown Act, the Santa Ana <br />Municipal code and various legal and binding precedents of the state and federal courts; 4) Grave <br />procedural errors including but not limited to requiring applicant to file an appeal without <br />providing a written determination of the city's decision, to include factual analysis and/or findings; <br />5) Decisions was not based on land use principals or laws; 6) The planning commissioners failed <br />to consider applicant's testimony and evidence, rather they had made up their minds well before <br />the hearing even took place; 7) Planning Commission failed their duty in remaining neutral and <br />unbiased in the decision making; 8) There was no evidence either substantial or circumstantial <br />provided at the hearing to support the Planning Commission's decision to deny applicants <br />application; 8) and any other grounds based on review of the entirety of the record to include, <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.