The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About32A - 2106-2230 N. TUSTIN AVE. REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION ~ ~ CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: CLERK OF COUNCIL USE ONLY: DECEMBER 19, 2005 TITLE: TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 2005-08 (COUNTY MAP NO. 2004-178) AND VARIANCE NO. 2005-61 TO SUBDIVIDE AN EXISTING PARCEL INTO TWO LOTS AT 2106-2230 NORTH TUSTIN AVENUE - ROBERT H. ELSNER, APPLICANT APPROVED o As Recommended o As Amended D Ordinance on 151 Reading o Ordinance on 2nd Reading o Implementing Resolution o Set Public Hearing For \J~ 1J.fW )it CITY MANAGER CONTINUED TO FILE NUMBER RECOMMENDED ACTION Receive and file the staff report denying Tentative Parcel Map No. 2005- 08 (County Map No. 2004-178), Variance No. 2005-61(a), Variance No. 2005- 61(c) and Variance No. 2005-61(c). PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION On November 28, 2005, the Planning Commission adopted resolutions denying Tentative Parcel Map No. 2005-08 (County Map No. 2004-178), Variance No. 2005-61 (a) to allow a reduction in parking spaces, Variance No. 2005- 61 (b) to allow a reduction in minimum setbacks and Variance No. 2005- 61(c) to allow a reduction in landscaping by a vote of 6:0 (De La Torre absent) in the Arterial Commercial (C5) zoning district at 2106-2230 North Tustin Avenue (Exhibit A) . FISCAL IMPACT There is no fiscal impact associated with this action. ~eVino E utive Director Planning & Building Agency AN:rb an\plancomm\tpmOS-08vaOS-61,cc 32A-1 REQUEST FOR Planning Commission Action ~ ~ PLANNING COMMISSION SECRETARY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING DATE: NOVEMBER 28, 2005 TITLE: PUBLIC HEARING - FILED BY ROBERT H. ELSNER FOR TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 2005-08 AND VARIANCE NO. 2005-61 TO SUBDIVIDE AN EXISTING PARCEL INTO TWO LOTS AT 2106-2230 NORTH TUSTIN AVENUE APPROVED o As Recommended o As Amended o Set Public Hearing For DENIED o Applicant's Request o Staff Recommendation CONTINUED TO Prepared by Ann Hsin-An Ni fI~ . Executive Director Planning Manager RECOMMENDED ACTION Adopt resolutions denying: 1. Tentative Parcel Map No. 2005-08 (County Map No. 2004-178). 2. Variance No. 2005-61(a) to allow a reduction in parking spaces. 3. Variance No. 2005-61(b) to allow a reduction in minimum setbacks. 4. Variance No. 2005-61(c) to allow a reduction in landscaping. DISCUSSION Request of Applicant Robert H. Elsner, on behalf of the Heinecke Family Trust, approval of a tentative parcel map and variances to allow parking, setbacks, and landscaping in order to subdivide a two parcels at 2106-2230 North Tustin Avenue. is requesting reductions in property into Property Description The property is located in the Arterial Commercial (C5) zoning district and has a General Plan land use designation of General Commercial (GC). The site is surrounded by commercial uses to the north, south and east and multi-family residential to the west (Exhibits 1 and 2) . EXHIBIT A 32A-2 Tentative Parcel Map No. 2005-08 Variance No. 2005-61 November 28, 2005 Page 2 The subject property is approximately 3.17 acres in area. The property is flat, slightly irregular in shape and is currently occupied by three commercial buildings with a total floor area of 31,100 square feet. The property is located on the west side of Tustin Avenue between Santa Clara Avenue and Seventeenth Street. Project Description The applicant is proposing to subdivide the existing nonconforming property into two parcels. Parcel 1 will consist of 0.50 acres of area with 259 feet of street frontage. Parcel 2 will consist of 2.63 acres with approximately 580 feet of street frontage. Parcel 2 currently does not conform to the provisions of the zoning code with respect to parking, setbacks and landscaping. A total of 170 parking spaces are provided for Parcel 2, while 181 spaces are required by code (Exhibit 3). Access to the proposed proj ect will be provided from Tustin and Santa Clara Avenues. Tustin Avenue is designated as an Arterial Street in the City's Circulation Element. Analysis of the Issues Regulating the subdivision of property for purposes of sale and development is a core function of local legislative bodies, such as cities. Whenever a new subdivision of land is proposed, staff must carefully evaluate the proposal in order to ensure that the design will result in a high quality project that will endure over time. In order to accomplish this evaluation, staff relies on the State Subdivision Map Act, goals and policies contained in the City's General Plan, and standards contained in the City's Chapter 34 of the subdivisions and Chapter 41 of the Zoning Ordinances. Section 66473 of the Subdivision Map Act states that the city shall disapprove a map for failure to meet or perform any of the requirements or conditions imposed by this division or local ordinance. Further, Section 34-67 of the Santa Ana Municipal Code states that no map shall be approved for any subdivision which, if subdivided, developed or used in the manner proposed would result in a violation of Chapter 8 (Buildings and Structures) or Chapter 41 (Zoning) of this Code. However, a tentative map may be approved subject to conditions that the subdivider obtain permits, variances or modify the proposed subdivision as necessary to conform to the requirements of said chapters. 32A-3 Tentative Parcel Map No. 2005-08 Variance No. 2005-61 November 28, 2005 Page 3 In this case, which includes a request for a variance from the City's standards in order to effectuate the sub-division, there is no special circumstance applicable to the subject property, including size, shape, topography, location or surroundings. The subject site is approximately 3.17 acres in area, located on the southwest corner of Tustin and Santa Clara Avenues. The adjacent commercial buildings are developed on sites with similar lot size and configurations. There is no basis to make the findings for the proposed variance that would allow reductions in parking, setback and landscaping. Section 66474(b) of the Subdivision Map Act also states that the legislative body of a city shall deny a tentative map if it makes the finding that the design or improvement of the proposed subdivision is not consistent with the applicable general and specific plans. In the case of the proposed project, the applicant is proposing to create a new legal parcel of land that could be owned in fee by a potential purchaser. After analyzing the proj ect, staff finds that the applicant's proposal to create new legal parcels through the proposed map is not consistent with the City's General Plan. In addition, the subdivision of a larger parcel into two smaller lots may result in adverse long-term impacts to the orderly development of this property and, therefore, the area of the city in which it is located. The subdivision of land into small parcels, as proposed by the applicant, is not consistent with Policy 2.7 of the Land Use Element of the General Plan, which is intended to promote the rehabilitation of commercial properties. The proposed subdivision of an existing parcel into two smaller parcels makes it difficult to reassemble property for future development as property continues to be subdivided, especially large-scale development proj ects. Under the current ownership conditions, the vacant parcel (proposed Parcell) would be developed as an integrated parcel with proposed Parcel 2, which contains an existing retail center. Upon the sale of one parcel to another owner, it becomes extremely difficult to maintain an integrated development due to dual ownership. Further, the development of proposed Parcel 1 would be further constrained in site and physical design, which could present challenges in attracting and maintaining long-term viable uses and, therefore, result in blighting conditions. 32A-4 Tentative Parcel Map No. 2005-08 Variance No. 2005-61 November 28, 2005 Page 4 Setback and Landscaping Variance The existing landscape setback along Tustin Avenue ranges from three feet to eight feet. There is no landscaping provided along the west property line adjacent to residential uses. A yard of not less than 15 feet is required when it is adjacent to a street and a landscaped area not less than five feet wide is required abutting a residential use. Tustin Avenue is one of the designated paths in the Urban Design Element of the General Plan. Policy 3.3 of the Urban Design Element encourages enhanced landscaping to be provided to visually strengthen the path and enhance adjacent development. Adequate setbacks and landscaping are utilized to create visual continuity and a consistent streetscape that contributes to the urban commercial character of Tustin Avenue. If approved, the proposed project would not implement these landscape standards and thus it would be inconsistent with the General Plan in this respect as well. Parking Variance A total of 170 parking spaces were provided when the shopping center was constructed in 1965. Under today's code, 181 spaces are required for all the current uses on site, representing a non-conformity of 11 parking spaces or six percent. The proposed subdivision of an existing parcel into two smaller parcels makes it difficult to coordinate rehabilitation of the buildings, parking areas and landscaping as each parcel may suffer as a "stand alone" parcel. In the past, the City has only approved variances to allow parking reductions for large commercial developments with a shared parking analysis to demonstrate two or more individual land uses could share parking spaces without conflict or encroachment. Accordingly, the proposed parking reduction is not recommended. The proposed subdivision was reviewed by the Zoning Administrator on June 22, 2005. The Zoning Administrator determined that the proposed subdivision would result in a new parcel (Parcel 2) with nonconforming setbacks, landscaping and parking. The proposed subdivision may be approved provided these variances are approved by the Planning Commission. Since the Zoning Administrator has no authority to approve or disapprove variances, the Zoning Administrator referred the proposed subdivision to the Planning Commission for action. 32A-5 Tentative Parcel Map No. 2005-08 Variance No. 2005-61 November 28, 2005 Page 5 Based upon the above analysis and findings, the proposed subdivision and variance request are not in compliance with the City's General Plan Land Use Element nor are there any special circumstances related to the property that would make it eligible for a variance. As a result, staff recommends denial of Tentative Parcel Map No. 2005-08 (County Map No. 2004-178) and Variance No. 2005-61a, band c. CEQA Compliance This proj ect was reviewed in accordance with the Guidelines for the California Environmental Quality Act. The recommendation is exempt from further review pursuant to Section 15270. This exemption applies to projects which a public agency disapproves. Statutory Exemption Environmental Review No. 2004-178 will be filed for this project. , L??:rJr) 2. . vii~:::gosS:;cP Senior Planner --.......... Ann Hsin-An Ni Associate Planner AN:JM an\plancomm\tpm05-08va05-61,pc 32A-6 --I" ~ r----u U ~ liiJl~;::ciJ I ~2~J I R1 , (C--'r. ;::--- j~ 'O.R' ~~r ~ RH200 'O'RH2~~ I' ~ 'ON LN 'O-R' 'O.R' .7200 ~ : 1 @ -7200 -7200 ~ 8 R1 z ~ N IAN lN~ I cm.~--. '-- ~ 60-AH200 ~ ~ 60.A1-7200 ~ i FAIAHAVEN AV. r----- 0'_ ~~ r ' r:l~~ R1 uf3 GROVEMONT 5T ~) =--'r==::"":=-=lr-:.,J II II II II II II II II II I, II II _"- _',-.!I ;~l/ ___ __-_-.::... ~......~//-:, Ii A1 1\ II II II II II II II II II II II II II ~ ~ -===-==-:~ ~ ~ . A1 J~ R4 60-A 1-7200 ~~ I Rl R4ill l?l~ <( IOANA RE R4 gl R4-.J o R4 II R4 FR~ZEN Avll R4 Rl ~ ,""- ~83.ur f,.279.5'...J9()"\--------365 R1 t-' '" VJ R1 i p /CS -t- "- fo--~"I-! C5 / Go:Mir i -7200 ~ \ R1 R4 R4 I I ~",,--,, , ~ ;-;~,:oJ,~ L;:;;~ AV . 8- j' I- -'-~I-~' ~~v I 6oJFF!.L;';j o : 'O-R'" IJ ~ PROJECT C5 I 0 ~ < 7200 '0 R' "~a: SITE ~&D · o ~ 7~O~~ ~~~ g AU: V 'I A1 I 60-R1-7;oo ii: 131.~ff"'"': \ I .l43 I ;;__-Y75ti' 1351 L R 848 1 (dAj Air ---1~ ~ _ CATALINA 130 -I ~JTi ~ ~.,.- 'O.R'-7200 ~ " ~ \-'1 '"' ~ A1 ~ 132 ~ ~ " I SD:a2 R3 : ""'UNA ^' -' ATALlNA A '-"': P i _ ./ A1 ~~ 0 ~ -j 'OR~7,2~ R1 CS L.---,l-f'fiO". ) , ~ 0 ~ 1 R1 P LN ~; Cl R3 "Al ' ] :::: I:: I ;;-: i_ j R4. "' _~ :> II ~ CO" i GCb[ ~'I~ "::~; :" r:'F~ ~ - - - -'-~ 17THST.'~-- j c~:, c~". ~; 7 -::' ~ i ,~' ~Il M E I ~."1' 1~~ t---80e3'-. 1. C5...J " 'RllO Rl-B Rl-B ~I '''H ~1 tn~ 15 i 3 R1 'i R' ~ -----.. W HIN N V r----"\ 0 U I ] ~ Al } F R1 rp;;- I Al. I l~ '--"-- ~ )~ A1 ~ Rl "~~l~60-Rl- ~, a <( 7200 ,w, ~~ u a: ~ 60-Rl-7200 ...vAION AV ,O-R'-7200 f- R3 ~ R' R' -L. M F R AV, " " < o ~ 'E ~~ .::" C1 ~ ~ C1 ~r-~'~ ~ R1 R4 i '....Il I~' t I __J J -' R4-PWQ 'I L::=.:::-I'l ~-~ S)_J R4-PRD A1 -B C-SM C1 C1-MD C2 C3 C3-A C4 C5 GENERAL AGRICULTURAL PARKING MODIFICATION COMMERCIAL SOUTH MAIN COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL COMM_ COMMERCIAUMUSEUM DISTRICT GENERAL COMMERCIAL CENTRAL BUSINESS CENTRAL BUSINESS-ARTIST VILLAGE PLANNED SHOPPING CENTER ARTERIAL COMMERCIAL CR GC M1 M2 MO o P PCD PRD COMMERCIAL RESIDENTIAL GOVERNMENT CENTER LIGHT INDUSTRIAL HEAVY INDUSTRIAL MILITARY OPERATIONS OPEN SPACE PROFESSIONAL PLANNED COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT PLANNED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT a t$P'~ TPM 05-08/ VA 05-61 TUSTIN AVENUE SHOPPING CENTER PARCEL MAP 2106-2230 NORTH TUSTIN AVENUE l' = 1000 FEET r? \\ C i t Y of T us tin ~ ~ == W w a: u.. II> II> L ~[ ~~ R1 R2 R3 R4 RE SO SP SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL TWO FAMILY RESIDENCE MULTIPLE FAMILY RESIDENCE SUBURBAN APARTMENTS RESIDENTIAL ESTATE SPECIFIC DEVELOPMENT SPECIFIC PLAN A cW' - = 500 FEET N G AGE N C Y P LAN N AND BU LD EXHIBIT 1 32A-7 N G 1m ~~ COMMERCIAL COMMERCIAL A c9I' AGE N C Y COMMERCIAL VACANT RETAIL SALES SANTA CLARA AVENUE " CHILDCARE W CENTER ::::l -J Z W "'--- ~ '" - C> PROJECT SITE ct RESIDENTIAL lu ~ ::, z i= 0 COMMERCIAL CJ) ::::l ~ C> RES DE~TI L VACANT / CATALINA AVENUE RtjSIDIEN TjIA LI COMMERCIAL '1 r TPM 05-08/ VA 05-61 TUSTIN AVENUE SHOPPING CENTER PARCEL MAP 2106-2230 NORTH TUSTIN AVENUE PLANNING AND BUILDING EXHIBIT 2 32A-8 ~ ~ - .J I ~ ~ Il:~ <:) ~c:s <:) ~~i ~~ C\i ~~! ~ 0; . i;~ ~ ~ '~I ~ 1:1 I!I i;d t) n; ~' Cc: ~ "'~ ~ ~:s ...... ~i! ~ ~~f ~ih ~ ~ t-.:: ., u ~~ (133~S :JI7Bnd) 3nN3/1 V VI:/V7:J VJ.NVS ~--....... -- - - - ~ - ~ - -----. -~ --~-- ~ i:~ { ~~~ I, ~ ~~~ ~.~ ~ji ~~~ r ~ "" i1 "'~ ~ ~~~ I:! !,~ O!; ~ ~ ~~ ~ r~ l~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~ G:J ~ ~~~ ~i~ ~ ~ ; il~~ t:J ~ . , @ I @ " w~~ -~- ~~ ~ai ~ 1;; ~ ~ . (n)...\lIlD(,I~Cd!I ~ ~\ ~~ \ Is ~ j ~ N JlIOl""8If>> rum; I ~ ~~ ~~ 8~ l2.~ "I~ i. ~~~ ~~~~ ;-:,,~~ !.", ~~..."' 'O(<:l>-. '''l I u-' I=g~~ c~, ~~l~ ~h ~ ~~ ~ ~~ ~ ~~ ~~:~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~.:~ ~~ ~a Ul ~~: ~~ ~~ i:~ ~I ~~~ ~~. ~~ ~~~ ~~ ~~@ ~~~ ~~ ~~~ ~ ~~g ~~~ ~~ ~~"l ~~ ~~~ ~~~ ~~ ~~~ ~~ ~~~ 2~~ ~~ ~~; ~~ ~~~ ~~~ ~~ l:l..:2 p:;~ ~~~ e:~QJ .tr::!~ ~~. ~~ ~~~ ~~~ t~~ ~~~)..~ Q~2 e~~ g~~ ~~- ~~ ~~ f2~- !:!~'t J mil: ill IIi ili ii~ ~~~ i~~ 21~ i~~ G I5i " 8 e ~~~ ~"ll.':.' ~il i~ ~~~ ;~ ~M~ ~~ ~~ ~8 ~ ~~~ - ~~ ~ 8 ~ ~~~ ~ c ~ . ~~i~ ~5 " ~ ~ ~~~~ ~~ ~ " g ~~~. 8 < !~~ ~ i~~~ ~ ~ I~ ~ H~~i ~ .~~~ ~~~~ ~ ~~ ~ "'~~~ ~ ~~f~ !~~~ ~ ~~'" . ~~~~~~ ~ ~~i~ !~h · ~~~ ~ 50;0 ~ < ~i~~ w. ~ ~~" a ~"~~~~ i ;~d i~~i ~ d~ ~ ~ !~~~ a ~ ~ ~!i~ e~!~ ~ ~~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ . . . ~~~~ __ t:;~~ ~i ~~~~ I~ ~~~~ . -.J "! ~<<. I:: ; ~~ ~ ~n I h~ ~. "'~~ ~ " , ------- ~ i ,--::J C:) -1 ~ r:-<~ ~ ..'....; ~ .'".... " ,'~,. ~ '-.'- ~, ~ !l! j:: ~ ~ .... ~~~ eu ~~~ ~~ti ~~~ .~E~ 'u, -<' :-J;:, ~~ ct:~ "'l:~ Cl ~ ~\ "\,).''-* '2. '\).- -, ~ ']'-, i1' D ~ '" "" &5 I I~ I ~" I ~lj I '" f" II ~~ f..:~ 9)~ 2 0~ I I -0 "" " ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ u ~ ~ ~ ~ ~"- i~S ~~~ ~ ~ ~ IHg g~El ~ ~ i I I I 1. ~ ~ j"'C' Iii C> C> '" u,,' f ~ ~' ~ .' ~ ~ h '-) '( l'-' ~ r;'6t " I I I l I I +- I I I I I I ~., I E;~ I 't ~~'O( ~~~ ~~" ~s~ I 'N h a --1 KO -11/22/05 RESOLUTION NO. 2005-78 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF SANTA ANA DENYING TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 2005-08 (COUNTY MAP NO. 2004-178); VARIANCE NO. 2005-25(A) FOR A REDUCTION IN PARKING SPACES; VARIANCE NO. 2005-25(B) FOR A REDUCTION IN MINIMUM SETBACKS; AND DENYING VARIANCE NO. 2005-25(C) FOR A REDUCTION IN LANDSCAPING FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 2106-2230 NORTH TUSTIN AVENUE BE IT RESOLVED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF SANTA ANA AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. The Planning Commission of the City of Santa Ana hereby finds, determines and declares as follows: A. Applicant is requesting approval of Tentative Parcel Map No. 2005-08 (County Map No. 2004-178); Variance No. 2005-25(a) to allow a reduction in parking spaces; Variance No. 2005-25(b) to allow a reduction in minimum setbacks; and Variance No. 2005-25(c) to allow a reduction in landscaping for the property located at 2106-2230 North Tustin Avenue. B. Tentative Parcel Map No. 2005-08, Variance No. 2005-25 (a)(b) and (c) came before the Planning Commission of the City of Santa Ana for a duly noticed public hearing on November 28, 2005. C. Applicant is requesting approval of Tentative Parcel Map No. 2005-08 (County Map No. 2004-178) for the property located at 2106-2230 North Tustin Avenue. 1. For Tentative Parcel Map No. 2005-07, the Planning Commission determines that the findings necessary to grant the Tentative Parcel Map have not been established: i. The proposed project, as conditioned, and its design and improvements are consistent with the General Commercial land use designation of the General Plan and are otherwise consistent with all other elements of the General Plan and any applicable specific plans. The proposed subdivision is not consistent with the Land Use element of the General Plan. As property continues to be subdivided, it becomes difficult to reassemble property for future development or rehabilitation, especially large-scale development projects. The subdivision of land into small parcels, 32A-10 Resolution No. 2005-78 Page 1 of 6 as proposed by the applicant, is not consistent with Policy 2.7 of the General Plan which is intended to promote the rehabilitation of commercial properties. ii. The proposed project, as conditioned, conforms to all applicable requirements of the zoning and subdivision codes as well as other applicable City ordinances. The proposed subdivision does not conform to the provisions of the Subdivision Map Act. Section 66474{b) of the Subdivision Map Act states that the legislative body of a city shall deny a tentative map if it makes the finding that the design or improvement of the proposed subdivision is not consistent with the applicable general and specific plans. Under the current ownership conditions, the vacant parcel (Parcel 1) would be developed as an integrated parcel with Parcel 2, which contains an existing retail center. Upon the sale of one parcel to another owner, it becomes extremely difficult to maintain an integrated development due to dual ownership. The coordinated rehabilitation of the buildings, parking areas and landscaping would suffer as each parcel would be a "stand alone" parcel. iii. The project site is physically suitable for the type and density of the proposed project. The proposed site is not physically suitable for the subdivision as proposed since new nonconformance in the parking requirement existed at Parcel 2. A total of 181 parking spaces are required for Parcel 2, only 170 parking spaces are provided. iv. The design and improvements of the proposed project will not cause substantial environmental damage or substantially and avoidably injure fish and wildlife or their habitat. Since the project site is located in an urbanized area, there are no known fish or wildlife populations existing on the project site. Therefore, the proposed subdivision will not cause any substantial environmental damage or substantially and avoidably injure fish and wildlife or their habitat. v. The design or improvements of the proposed project will not cause serious public health problems. There are no new buildings or building square footage proposed as part of this project and, therefore, no alterations are proposed to the development project 32A-11 Resolution No. 2005-78 Page 2 of 6 that would create public health problems. The subdivisions proposed in Tentative Parcel Map No. 2005-08 will not affect the health or safety of persons residing in the vicinity since the project does not involve any new buildings on the project site. vi. The design or improvements of the proposed project will not conflict with easements necessary for public access through or use of the property within the proposed project. The subdivision proposed will not create any conflicts with existing easements found on the site. If approved, Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions (CC&Rs) will be required to ensure the appropriate easements such as access, egress, drainage, utility and other necessary easements are maintained over both parcels. D. Applicant is requesting approval of Variance No. 2005-25(a) to allow a reduction in parking spaces; Variance No. 2005-25(b) to allow a reduction in minimum setbacks; and Variance No. 2005-25(c) to allow a reduction in landscaping for the property located at 2106-2230 North Tustin Avenue 1. Santa Ana Municipal Code Section 41-638 authorizes the Planning Commission to grant a variance upon making certain findings. The Planning Commission determines that the findings necessary to grant the Variances have not been established: i. That because of special circumstances applicable to the subject property, including size, shape, topography, location or surroundings, that the strict application of the zoning ordinance is found to deprive the subject property of privileges not otherwise at variance with the intent and purpose of the provisions of this Chapter. There is no special circumstance applicable to the subject property. The subject site is approximately 3.17 acres in area, located on the southwest corner of Tustin and Santa Clara Avenues. The property is flat, slightly irregular in shape and is currently occupied by three commercial buildings with a total floor area of 31,100 square feet. The site is surrounded by commercial uses to the north, south and east and multi-family residential to the west. The adjacent commercial buildings are developed on sites with similar lot size and configurations. As such, the subject property is not being deprived of privileges that are not otherwise at variance with the intent and purpose of the provisions of SAMC Chapter 41 because of strict application of the zoning ordinance. 32A-12 Resolution No. 2005-78 Page 3 of 6 ii. That the granting of a variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of one or more substantial property rights. The granting of the variance is not necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of property right since the property currently exists as a legal parcel with nonconforming setback, landscaping and parking. A legal non-conforming building and/or site could continue to be used or occupied without the need to comply with current code. The granting of the setback, landscaping and parking variances will prohibit this property to be brought into conformance with the city development standards when future development occurs. iii. That the granting of a variance will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to surrounding property. Adequate setbacks and landscaping are utilized to create visual continuity and a consistent streetscape that contributes to the urban commercial character of Tustin Avenue. Further, the City has only approved variances to allow parking reductions for large commercial development with a shared parking analysis to demonstrate two or more individual land uses could share parking spaces without conflict or encroachment. Further, Tustin Avenue is one of the designated paths in the Urban Design Element of the General Plan. Policy 3.3 of the Urban Design Element encourages enhanced landscaping to be provided to visually strengthen the path and enhance adjacent development. Adequate setbacks and landscaping are utilized to create visual continuity and a consistent streetscape that contributes to the urban commercial character of Tustin Avenue. The granting of the parking, setbacks and landscaping variances will be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to the surrounding property by allowing a commercial development that is not in scale and character with existing development in the area. iv. That the granting of a variance will not adversely affect the General Plan of the City. The granting of the variance will adversely affect the General Plan of the City. Tustin Avenue is one of the designated paths in the Urban Design Element of the 32A-13 Resolution No. 2005-78 Page 4 of 6 General Plan. Policy 3.3 of the Urban Design Element encourages enhanced landscaping to be provided to visually strengthen the path and enhance adjacent development. Adequate setbacks and landscaping are utilized to create visual continuity and a consistent streetscape that contributes to the urban commercial character of Tustin Avenue. Policy 2.7 of the Land Use Element of the General Plan promotes the rehabilitation of commercial properties while Policy 2.9 of the Land Use Element supports new developments which are harmonious in scale and character with existing development in the area. The granting of the variance will prohibit this property to be brought into conformance with the city development standards when future development occurs. E. This project was reviewed in accordance with the Guidelines for the California Environmental Quality Act. The recommendation is exempt from further review pursuant to Section 15270. This exemption applies to projects which a public agency disapproves. Statutory Exemption Environmental Review No. 2004-178 will be filed for this project. Section 2. The Planning Commission of the City of Santa Ana, after conducting the public hearing, hereby denies for the property located at 2106-2230 North Tustin Avenue: 1. Tentative Parcel Map No. 2005-08 (County Map No. 2004-178). 2. Variance No. 2005-25(a) to allow a reduction in parking spaces. 3. Variance No. 2005-25(b) to allow a reduction in minimum setbacks. 4. Variance No. 2005-25(c) to allow a reduction in landscaping. These decisions are based upon the evidence submitted at the abovesaid hearing, which includes, but is not limited to: the Request for Planning Commission Action dated November 28,2005 and exhibits attached thereto; and the public testimony written and oral, all of which are incorporated herein by this reference ADOPTED this 28th day of November, 2005 by the following vote: AYES: Commissioners: Betancourt, Cribb, Gartner, Leo, Lutz, Rodriguez(6) NOES: Commissioners: None (0) ABSENT: Commissioners: De La Torre (1) ABSTENTIONS: Commissioners: None (0) 32A-14 Resolution No. 2005-78 Page 5 of 6 Christopher Leo Vice-Chairman APPROVED AS TO FORM: Joseph W. Fletcher, City Attorney By: Kylee O. Otto Assistant City Attorney CERTIFICATE OF ATTESTATION AND ORIGINALITY I, MARTHA RAMIREZ, Clerk of the Planning Commission, do hereby attest to and certify the attached Resolution No. 2005-78 to be the original resolution adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Santa Ana on November 28, 2005. Date: Clerk of the Planning Commission City of Santa Ana 32A-15 Resolution No. 2005-78 Page 6 of 6 32A-16