Correspondence - Item 18 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

On Jan 31, 2026, at 6:43 AM, ED GUTIERREZ < wrote: Subject: Appeal of CUP-MOD – February 3, 2026 City Council Hearing | Outstanding Request for Legal Analysis, Findings, and Procedural Deferral To the Planning Department, Assigned Case Planner, and the City of Santa Ana, This correspondence is submitted in advance of the February 3, 2026 City Council hearing to formally memorialize and reiterate a prior request, dated December 8, 2025, for written legal analysis and written findings addressing the issues raised in the pending appeal of the CUP-MOD approval. As stated in the December 8, 2025 correspondence, the appeal and opposition packet raises numerous questions of law and procedural compliance, including but not limited to CEQA applicability and claimed exemptions; the applicability of CEQA exemption exceptions based on evidence submitted on appeal; cumulative impacts; land-use authority; public safety; and civil-rights and fair-housing obligations. These matters are not issues of planning discretion alone, but require formal legal analysis and legal justification by the City as the approving agency, supported by applicable law, findings, and substantial evidence in the administrative record. To date, while the City has identified the assigned case planner and scheduled the appeal hearing, no written legal analysis or written findings responding to the legal issues raised in the appeal packet have been provided. This submission is intended to place on the record that such legal analysis and findings were formally requested on December 8, 2025, and remain outstanding as of the eve of the February 3, 2026 City Council hearing. Meaningful participation in a discretionary land-use appeal—particularly where CEQA compliance and the legal sufficiency of the approval are challenged—requires disclosure of the City’s legal position in a manner that allows review prior to, or at minimum as part of, the public hearing materials. A generalized planning response or staff recommendation is insufficient where the appeal squarely challenges the legal basis for the approval itself. Requested Procedural Outcome Given the unresolved CEQA and legal issues raised in the appeal and opposition packet, and the absence of written legal analysis and findings addressing those issues, the appellant respectfully requests that the City Council defer final action on the CUP-MOD approval until all CEQA obligations are satisfied and the City’s legal basis for the approval is fully articulated in the administrative record. Proceeding with final approval at this time would be premature and inconsistent with CEQA’s procedural requirements. If the City proceeds with the February 3, 2026 hearing without issuing written legal analysis and findings responsive to the appeal, we respectfully request that the administrative record reflect that such analysis and findings were formally requested in advance and not provided. 3