Laserfiche WebLink
City Response to Blake & Ayaz on behalf of Fred Cohen and Farzi Inc. LLC <br />Appeal No. 2023-06 <br />Comment 3: This comment states that the manner in which the Planning Commission conducted <br />the hearing and the actions of several planning commissioners violated the Brown Act, Santa Ana <br />Municipal Code and various legal binding precedents of state and federal courts. <br />Response 3: The Planning Commission public hearing was held in accordance with the Brown <br />Act, Santa Ana Municipal Code, and all applicable State laws. Moreover, the appellant did not <br />identify or reference what City/State codes or legal court cases were violated to support the <br />comment. <br />Comment 4: This comment states that procedural errors including but not limited to requiring the <br />applicant file an appeal without providing written determination of the City's decision, to include <br />factual analysis and/or findings. <br />Response 4: The Planning Commission provided verbal determination on the findings of denial, <br />as supported in the record. Additionally, a full recording of the meeting is publicly accessible via <br />the City's website and was posted online the next business day. <br />Comment 5: This comment states that the Planning Commission's decision was not based on <br />land use principals or laws. <br />Response 5: The Planning Commission's decision was based on required land use standards <br />outlined in the SAMC, which are required to be made to support granting of a conditional use <br />permit application. This comment is similar to comment 1. See Response 1. Lastly, the appellant <br />did not identify or reference any specific standards in the appeal application. <br />Moreover, on the October 3rd City Council meeting, staff presented three recommendations for <br />the council to consider. Action No. 1, original analysis of the project led to a recommendation to <br />approve the requested entitlements based on the factors presented in the June 26, 2023 Planning <br />Commission staff report (Exhibit 9). Action No. 2, the City Council may approve the applicants <br />appeal and overturn the Planning Commission's June 26, 2023 decision to deny the project, <br />based on the analysis presented during the June 26, 2023 staff report (Exhibit 9). Action No. 3, <br />the City Council may approve the project as originally recommended by staff, but with modified <br />conditions set forth by the discretion of the City Council which are consistent with goals and <br />policies outlined in the General Plan. <br />Comment 6: This comment claims that the Planning Commission failed to consider the <br />applicant's testimony and evidence, and the commissioner's decision was predetermined before <br />the meeting was held. <br />Response 6: The appellant was given up to 15 minutes to speak during the meeting and was <br />allowed to respond to several questions the commissioners and public posed regarding the <br />project. The appellant does not provide any further justification for the claim of predetermined <br />decisions. No written communication or other evidence has been provided to support this claim. <br />Comment 7: This comment states that Planning Commission failed in their duty to remain neutral <br />unbiased in decision making. <br />Exhibit 8 <br />Page 3 of 4 <br />