HomeMy WebLinkAboutCorrespondence - Item 18
Flores, Dora
From:Alcala, Abigail
Sent:Tuesday, February 3, 2026 2:40 PM
To:Flores, Dora
Subject:FW: Appeal Application No. 2025-2-APC
Abigail Y. Alcala, MBA, CMC | Assistant City Clerk
City of Santa Ana - City Clerk’s Office
20 Civic Center Plaza | Santa Ana, CA 92701
714-647-6520 | aalcala@santa-ana.org
City Hall hours are 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. Monday through Thursday, and 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. every other Friday. Click
here for a list of observed holidays and Friday closure dates.
The mySantaAna mobile app puts the power of the Santa Ana city government in the palm of your hand! The
free app allows residents to quickly and easily report issues to the City, access City services, and find news
and events. It is available to download from the Apple App Store and on Google Play.
Click here to report an issue directly from the City website.
From: Arias, Fernanda
Sent: Tuesday, February 3, 2026 2:17 PM
To: Hall, Jennifer <jhall@santa-ana.org>; Alcala, Abigail <AAlcala@santa-ana.org>
Cc: Ocampo, Nuvia <nocampo@santa-ana.org>; Zapien, Gema <gzapien@santa-ana.org>
Subject: FW: Appeal Application No. 2025-2-APC
Hello,
I received the public comment below for item no. 18 on tonight’s agenda.
Thank you,
Fernanda Arias Hernandez
Associate Planner, Planning Division
City of Santa Ana |Planning and Building Agency (M-20)
20 Civic Center Plaza | P.O. Box 1988 |Santa Ana, CA 92702
(714) 667-2792| FArias@santa-ana.org | (She/Her)
The mySantaAna mobile app puts the power of the Santa Ana city government in the palm of your hand! The free app
allows residents to quickly and easily report issues to the City, access City services, and find news and events.
Download the App:
Click here to report an issue directly from the City website.
1
From: ED GUTIERREZ <
Sent: Saturday, January 31, 2026 6:53 AM
To: Arias, Fernanda <farias@santa-ana.org>
Cc: Mills, Susan <smills@santa-ana.org>; Janet Brown <Janet.Brown2@mail.house.gov>
Subject: Re: Appeal Application No. 2025-2-APC
Attention: This email originated from outside of City of Santa Ana. Use caution when opening attachments or links.
Supplemental Clarification Regarding Tentative Hearing Date, Notice Timing, and Postmark
To the Planning Department, Assigned Case Planner, and the City of Santa Ana,
This supplemental correspondence is submitted in advance of the February 3, 2026 City Council hearing to
clarify the timing, nature, and adequacy of notice provided for the appeal hearing, and to ensure that these
procedural facts are accurately reflected in the administrative record.
In correspondence dated December 8, 2025, the assigned City Planner advised that the appeal application had
been “tentatively scheduled” for the City Council meeting of February 3, 2026. No subsequent correspondence
was provided to confirm that the appeal had been finalized on the City Council agenda or that the February 3
date was no longer tentative.
The only mailed notice confirming that the appeal would in fact be heard on February 3, 2026 was the public
hearing notice addressed to “Occupant.” That envelope bears a USPS postmark dated January 26, 2026, and
USPS Informed Delivery records show that the same item entered the local delivery stream on or about January
28, 2026.
Under these circumstances, the appellant’s first formal confirmation that the appeal would proceed on February
3, 2026 occurred only days before the scheduled hearing. Where the City itself characterizes a hearing date as
tentative and provides no subsequent individualized confirmation, reliance on a late-mailed, generically
addressed notice does not provide a meaningful opportunity to prepare or participate.
By contrast, the City has demonstrated in unrelated public hearing contexts—such as the March 17, 2026
noticed hearing regarding water, sewer, and recycled water service—that it can and does provide individualized
notice addressed to named persons and afford substantially greater advance time for public participation.
Generic “Occupant” addressing, combined with a January 26, 2026 mailing date and the absence of prior
confirmed notice, was not reasonably calculated to support meaningful participation in this discretionary appeal
hearing. These notice and timing deficiencies compound the procedural concerns raised in the appeal and
should be considered in evaluating whether final action is appropriate at this time.
Please include this correspondence in the administrative record and forward as appropriate for legal review.
Respectfully submitted,
Edward Gutierrez
On behalf of the Sally C. Gutierrez Trust
Appellant / Adjoining Property Owner
Santa Ana, CA 92704
2
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
Please include this correspondence in the administrative record and forward as appropriate for legal
review.
Respectfully submitted,
Edward Gutierrez
On behalf of the Sally C. Gutierrez Trust
Appellant / Adjoining Property Owner
Santa Ana, CA 92704
On Dec 8, 2025, at 12:24 PM, ED GUTIERREZ < wrote:
Subject: Appeal of CUP-MOD – February 3, 2026 City
Council Hearing | Requirement for Formal Legal Response
Thank you for confirming that you are the case planner
assigned to the appeal application.
As previously stated, this appeal raises multiple questions
of law and procedural compliance, including but not limited
to issues of CEQA applicability and exemptions, land-use
authority, cumulative impacts, public safety, and civil rights
and fair-housing obligations. These are not matters of
planning discretion alone, but matters that require formal
legal analysis and legal justification by the City as the
approving agency.
Accordingly, we formally request and expect that all legal
issues raised in the appeal be addressed from a legal
standpoint, in writing, and made part of the public
administrative record in advance of, or at minimum as part
of, the February 3, 2026 City Council hearing. A
generalized planning response is insufficient where the
4
appeal squarely challenges the legal sufficiency of the
approval itself.
The burden rests with the City of Santa Ana to clearly
articulate and defend the legal basis for the approval on
appeal, supported by applicable law, findings, and
substantial evidence in the record.
Thank you for confirming your role as case planner. We will
review the City’s formal legal position when it is issued as
part of the appeal materials.
Edward Gutierrez
Inviato dal mio iPhone
On Dec 8, 2025, at 12:16 PM, Arias, Fernanda <farias@santa-ana.org>
wrote:
I am the case planner in charge of the appeal application.
Thanks,
5
Flores, Dora
From:ED GUTIERREZ <talk2edg@gmail.com>
Sent:Tuesday, February
To:!City Clerk; Arias, Fernanda
Cc:Janet Brown; Mills, Susan
Subject:Limited Timeframe to Submit or Speak in Opposition – Appeal Application No.
2025-02
Attention: This email originated from outside of City of Santa Ana. Use caution when opening attachments or links.
Dear City Clerk and Members of the City Council,
I am writing in advance of the February 3, 2026 public hearing on Appeal Application No. 2025-02 concerning
Conditional Use Permit No. 1982-18-MOD-1, to formally note and preserve concerns regarding the limited
timeframe available for submitting written opposition and providing oral testimony.
The notice for this appeal indicates that written comments must be submitted no later than 4:00 p.m. on the day
of the hearing and that oral testimony will be taken subject to time constraints established by the Council. Given
the complexity of the project, the volume of issues raised, and the significance of the appeal—including land
use compatibility, operational impacts on an R-1 residential neighborhood, and CEQA exemption
determinations—the available time to submit or present opposition is materially limited.
This correspondence is submitted to ensure the administrative record reflects that any inability to fully present
evidence, play audio exhibits, or articulate the legal and factual basis for opposition during the hearing is a
function of procedural time constraints, and not a waiver of issues, objections, or arguments related to the
proposed CUP modification or the City’s reliance on a categorical exemption under CEQA.
I respectfully request that this email be included in the official administrative record for the appeal and
considered in conjunction with any oral or written testimony submitted before or during the hearing. This
submission is intended to preserve all objections and positions raised or intended to be raised in opposition to
the CUP, whether or not sufficient time is ultimately afforded during the public hearing itself.
Thank you for your attention and for including this correspondence as part of the record.
Sincerely,
Edward Gutierrez
Inviato dal mio iPhone
1
Flores, Dora
From:ED GUTIERREZ <talk2edg@gmail.com>
Sent:Tuesday, February
To:!City Clerk; Arias, Fernanda
Cc:ED ME DOLLY; Mills, Susan; Janet Brown
Subject:Preservation of Position Regarding Audio Evidence and CEQA Exemption – Appeal
Hearing
Attention: This email originated from outside of City of Santa Ana. Use caution when opening attachments or links.
Re: City Council consideration of Appeal Application No. 2025-02,
Dear City Clerk and Members of the Council,
I am submitting this email in advance of the appeal hearing scheduled for February 3, 2026, for the purpose of
preserving my position in the administrative record should time constraints or procedural limitations prevent
full presentation during the hearing.
At the hearing, I intend to introduce an audio recording documenting repeated, amplified, daytime noise
associated with on-site events occurring on the project grounds and intruding into adjoining R-1 residential
properties. The recording is offered as evidence of ongoing operational conditions, not as an isolated or
anecdotal occurrence.
This evidence is directly relevant to the City’s consideration of CEQA compliance. Under Public Resources
Code section 21084(c) and CEQA Guidelines section 15300.2(c), a categorical exemption may not be relied
upon where substantial evidence demonstrates a reasonable possibility of a significant environmental effect.
Noise impacts that materially interfere with residential use and enjoyment constitute a recognized
environmental effect under CEQA. The audio recording constitutes substantial evidence of such impacts.
In the event I am not permitted sufficient time to introduce the recording, play it in full, or articulate its legal
significance during the hearing, this email is submitted to ensure the administrative record reflects that the issue
was timely raised, supported by evidence, and not waived. Continued reliance on a categorical exemption in the
presence of this evidence would be legally impermissible absent specific contrary substantial evidence
identified in the record.
I respectfully request that this correspondence be included in the official administrative record for the appeal
and considered in conjunction with any evidence submitted or referenced at the hearing.
Thank you for your attention and for preserving this submission as part of the record.
Sincerely,
Edward Gutierrez
Inviato dal mio iPhone
2