CORRESPONDENCE - 75A - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Santa Ana City Council February 16, 2018 Page 2 applicant did not conduct additional studies since they "would have been conducted over the holidays." Over six weeks have now passed since the holiday season, however, and no additional justification has been given for not conducting these studies. Still, nothing has been done to meet the Planning Commission's requests on parking impacts. 3. The record does not support the requested parking variance Despite the significant impacts that displacing the existing parking will have on local businesses and residents, and despite the assurances staff provided that the Hotel Project will meet Code parking requirements, the applicant is requesting a variance to reduce parking by approximately 20 percent. This request is not supported by the record. The state Zoning Law provides that to justify the grant of a variance, there must be special circumstances applicable to the property such that "the strict application of the zoning ordinance deprives such property of privileges enjoyed by other property in the vicinity and under identical zoning classification." (Gov. Code, § 65906.) Here, the record does not contain substantial evidence of a valid hardship. The Staff Report states that "[s]taff is recommending approval of the applicant's request due to the economic benefits of a hotel development, the support for shared uses and parking and the irregular lot configuration." However, economic benefits to the community are legally irrelevant to variance determinations. (Broadway, Laguna, Vallejo Ass'n v. Board of Permit Appeals of City and County of San Francisco (1967) 66 Cal.2d 767, 777-79.) Similarly, whether a shared parking analysis supports the request is irrelevant under state law; it has nothing to do with a "hardship." Finally, vague assertions of the "irregular lot configuration" and the site being "bound by the Santa Ana (I-5) Freeway" are not sufficient to establish the subject property differs substantially from other parcels in the zone. (OrindaAssn. v. Board of Supervisors (1986) 182 Cal.App.3d 1145.) The record shows that the request is actually financially based and driven by the applicant's design choices. (See January 22 Planning Commission Staff Report [stating that "[s]trict application of the SAMC's off-street parking requirements would render the project infeasible due to site constraints and construction costs"].) Yet, self-induced economic justifications are insufficient. (See Broadway, supra [economic hardship insufficient]; Town ofAtherton v. Templeton (1961) 198 Cal.App.2d 146, 165 [self- induced hardship insufficient].) Even if economic hardship was a sufficient justification, there is no evidence in the record (such as an economic feasibility analysis) showing that the Hotel Project would be infeasible with code -required parking. Thus, there is no valid justification for variance, and no substantial evidence in support. Without a valid basis and substantial evidence, this Council would be granting the applicant an indefensible "special privilege" prohibited by Government Code Section 65906.