Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout75A - TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 2009-01: 1013 S ELLIOT PLACE REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION '!~~i"' CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: CLERK OF COUNCIL USE ONLY: NOVEMBER 16, 2009 TITLE: APPROVED ? As Recommended PUBLIC HEARING - APPEAL NO. 2009-05 ? As Amended FOR TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO . 2 00 9 - O 1 ? Ordinance on 1S1 Reading TO SUBDIVIDE A RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY ? Ordinance on 2"d Reading ? Implementing Resolution INTO TWO SEPARATE PARCELS AT 1013 ? Set Public Hearing For SOUTH ELLIOTT PLACE - PETER PHAM, APPLICANT ,/',1 CONTINUED TO / i FILE NUMBER CITY MANAGER RECOMMENDED ACTION 1. Adopt a resolution denying Appeal No. 2009-05. 2. Adopt a resolution denying Tentative Parcel Map No. 2009-01. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION On October 12, 2009, the Planning Commission denied Appeal No. 2009-02 and adopted a resolution denying Tentative Parcel Map No. 2009-01 by a vote of 5:0 (Yrarrazaval absent) to subdivide a residential property into two separate parcels at 1013 South Elliott Place located in the Single Family Residential (R1) zoning district (Exhibit A). The Planning Commission upheld the recommendation of the Zoning Administrator and agreed that the subdivision request conflicted with several policies within the City's General Plan Urban Design and Land Use Elements and would not be a benefit to the community in the long term. ZONING ADMINISTRATOR ACTION On September 9, 2009, the Zoning Administrator adopted a resolution denying Tentative Parcel Map No. 2009-O1. FISCAL IMPACT There is no fiscal impact associated with this action. Jay Trevino Executive Director ' Planning & Building Agency MF:rb mf\reporte\appea109-02(tpm09-O1) 1013 S Elliott P1ace.111609.cc 75A-1 Ls 75A-2 REQUEST FOR Planning Commission Action PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING DATE: PLANNING COMMISSION SECRETARY OCTOBER 12, 2009 APPROVED TITLE: ? As Recommended PUBLIC HEARING - FILED BY PETER PRAM ? As Amended FOR APPEAL NO. 2009-02 OF TENTATIVE ? Set Public Hearing For PARCEL MAP NO. 2009-01 TO SUBDIVIDE A DENIED RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY INTO TWO SEPARATE ? Applicant's Request PARCELS AT 1013 SOUTH ELLIOTT PLACE ? Staff Recommendation CONTINUED TO Prepared by Matt Foulkes Executive irect Planning M ager RECOMMENDED ACTION 1. Deny Appeal No. 2009-02. 2. Adopt a resolution denying Tentative Parcel Map No. 2009-01. Zoning Administrator Action Adopted a resolution denying Tentative Parcel Map No. 2009-01 at its September 9, 2009 meeting. DISCUSSION Request of Applicant The applicant, Peter Pham, is requesting approval of Appeal No. 2009-02 for Tentative Parcel Map No. 2009-01 to subdivide a residential property into two separate parcels in order to construct two new single family residences at 1013 South Elliott Place. Property Description The subject property is located within the Single-Family Residential (R-1) zoning district and has a General Plan land use designation of Low-Density Residential (LR-7). Surrounding land uses are residential to the north, south and east with Newhope Elementary School located west of the project site (Exhibits 1 and 2). The subject property is a 14, 674 square foot parcel located on the north side of Elliott Place between Regent Drive and Gates Street. The interior lot is rectangular in shape and has approximately 108 feet of street EXHIBIT A 75A-3 Appeal No. 2009-02 Tentative Parcel Map No. 2009-O1 October 12, 2009 Page 2 frontage. Although currently vacant, building records indicate that a 1,607 square foot residence and garage previously existed on the property. A permit was issued and finaled in 2005 to demolish the structures and clear the lot. Project Description A parcel map is requested by Mr. Pham to subdivide an existing residential property into two separate parcels in order to construct two single-family residences. As proposed, the two-story, four bedroom, three and a half bathroom residences will both be 3,233 square feet. The floor plans for the two homes will be mirror images of each other, with each house having an attached, 724 square foot, three car garage for a total building footprint of 3,957 square feet. The second story for each residence has been oriented primarily over the residence with a second story setback provided in the rear. The exterior of the two homes will also be similar in architectural style with large cylindrical pillars on either side of a double-door entryway with a large arched window above. The exterior materials will be primarily stucco with a brick veneer accent provided along the base of the front elevation and stucco trim around each of the sliding windows. Landscaping will be installed in accordance with the Single-Family Residential (R-1) zoning requirements (Exhibits 3, 4 and 5). Analysis of the Issues A tentative parcel map is necessary to subdivide the property for the purpose of constructing two single-family residences on the subject property. Government Code 66411 grants Cities the ability to regulate and control the design and improvement of subdivisions within its boundaries subject to conformance with the Subdivision Map Act. In order to evaluate the appropriateness of a subdivision request, the Subdivision Map Act has identified several findings that must be made in order to approve a request for land division. These findings include determining whether the proposed subdivision meets the applicable zoning standards, General Plan policies and determining the environmental and public health impacts. Using the above-mentioned findings as evaluation criteria for the appropriateness of the project, staff has determined that although the proposed project complies with the various zoning requirements for the Single-Family Residential (R-1) zone and the density proposed is within the limits of the Low-density Residential (LR-7) General Plan Land Use 7 5A-4 Appeal No. 2009-02 Tentative Parcel Map No. 2009-O1 October 12, 2009 Page 3 designation, there are both environmental and public health impacts associated with this subdivision and the project does not comply with numerous policies of the City's General Plan Land Use and Urban Design Elements. The project's unique location within a neighborhood that has historically included stables for live stock, specifically horses, has resulted in the proposed subdivision having an adverse impact on public health standards relating to the proximity of livestock to humans. Section 5-18 of the Santa Ana Municipal Code requires that no person shall keep livestock within 100 feet of any family residence with the exception of the home on the property. Negative health impacts including noxious odors and communicable diseases have been associated with the close proximity of humans to livestock. The approval of this subdivision request would further a non-conformity with this code requirement by reducing the lot size and street frontage to the point of becoming practically impossible for the proposed lots to maintain the 100-foot separation from the neighboring properties. Further, the proposed project would also impact public health and safety by increasing the impervious surface on the subject property substantially above the amount that would be created without the proposed subdivision. This increase in impervious surface area, through the installation of two separate driveways, will result in a greater amount of water run-off from the property. This increase in water run- off will negatively affect public health and safety by increasing the likelihood of flooding onto the street and adjoining properties as well as an increase in the amount of pollutants entering storm drains and sewers. This neighborhood, originally constructed in an unincorporated section of Orange County was built with a "rural" infrastructure and, as such, does not have traditional curb and gutter making it less able to accommodate increased runoff. In addition to the public health and safety concerns, the proposed subdivision is in conflict with several General Plan policies. Primary amongst these policies is Urban Design Element Policy 2.12, which states that development and subdivision patterns are to be compatible with existing patterns of development in and around the neighborhood. With an average lot size of 14,000 square feet and an average street frontage of 100.42 feet, the "Little Texas" neighborhood, in which this project is located, is one of the few remaining large lot subdivisions within the City. The proposed subdivision would result in two lots that would 75A-5 Appeal No. 2009-02 Tentative Parcel Map No. 2009-O1 October 12, 2009 Page 4 be incompatible with the pattern of land division in the area by being approximately one-half the size and street frontage of the average lot in the neighborhood. The protection of this unique area is further bolstered by both Urban Design Element Policy 2.8 and Land Use Element Policy 4.1, which state that the character and uniqueness of existing neighborhoods are to be protected from intrusive development. Approval of this subdivision would result in the creation of two parcels which are not in character with the existing neighborhood by being more than 3,000 square feet smaller than the next smallest lot in the neighborhood and providing less than one-half the street frontage (Exhibits 6 and 7). In addition to the lot size being incompatible with the existing neighborhood, the architectural design of the proposed homes is also in conflict with both Urban Design Element Policy 2.2 and Land Use Element Policy 2.10. Collectively, these policies state that new development must be consistent and harmonious in scale, bulk, pattern and architectural style with the existing neighborhood. While there is no defining architectural style within the neighborhood, the majority of homes are one-story, low pitched homes with either wood or stucco siding. This scale and pattern of development is not consistent with the large two-story homes that are being proposed. Although several larger homes have recently been built in the neighborhood that compare more closely with the proposed project in terms of scale and bulk, these larger homes are constructed on substantially larger lots with more than double the street frontage which has allowed them to more seamlessly blend in with the remaining neighborhood. The proposed project's scale and bulk, combined with its minimal lot size and street frontage, further the project's inconsistency with the surrounding neighborhood and General Plan policies. The General Plan, specifically the Land Use and Urban Design Elements, establish the long-range vision for both land use and urban form within the City. The goals and policies of these documents, in concert with the Municipal Code, not only assist in the evaluation process for development proposals, but are also part of the required legal findings for making a recommendation on a project. Although the proposed project meets the minimum development standards for the Single-Family Residential (R-1) zoning district, its numerous conflicts with the General Plan has resulted in staff recommending denial of Tentative Parcel Map No. 2009-O1. 75A-6 Appeal No. 2009-02 Tentative Parcel Map No. 2009-01 October 12, 2009 Page 5 A hearing on the project was held with the Zoning Administrator on September 9, 2009. Following a presentation by staff and testimony from the public, the Zoning Administrator adopted a resolution denying Tentative Parcel Map No. 2009-O1 based on findings that the proposed subdivision was not consistent with the development pattern of the neighborhood and the project conflicted with several policies of the City's General Plan. The applicant has appealed the decision of the Zoning Administrator based on the proximity of the subject property to other lots which are comparable in size to the ones that are being proposed as part of the subdivision request (Exhibit 8). The locations of the lots that are referenced are directly to the north of the subject property and between 1,203 and 2,435 feet away from the property to the south and southwest. The properties to the north of the subject parcel are located within a separate subdivision tract that was developed entirely independently of the subdivision in question. The subdivision to the north is not accessible from the "Little Texas" neighborhood by vehicle or by foot and, much like the subdivision to the east of the neighborhood, has an entirely separate development pattern and architectural style than the subject neighborhood. The other properties mentioned as part of the appeal application are located within Tract No. 1298; however, each of the four parcels that were subdivided are located along the edge of the subdivision adjacent to Edinger Avenue and Newhope Street. While technically within the tract, these properties do not contain the same rural characteristics, such as the lack of sidewalk, rolled curbs and large front yard setbacks, of the properties adjacent to the subject parcel. Additionally, although subdivisions took place to create these properties, they were done in 1959, 1963 and 1981 respectively. The subject properties location within the interior of the "Little Texas" neighborhood compared to the properties that were permitted to subdivide along the border of the tract, as well as the more than 28 years between the last approved subdivision result in staff recommending denial of Appeal No. 2009-02. 75A-7 Appeal No. 2009-02 Tentative Parcel Map No. 2009-O1 October 12, 2009 Page 6 CEQ~, Compliance In accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act, the proposed project is exempt from CEQA review per Section 21080(5). This subsection applies to projects in which the public agency disapproves of the request. Should the project ultimately be approved, further environmental review may be required. Environmental Review No. 2007-102 will be filed for this project. Matt Foulkes, LEED AP Vince Frego o, AI P Assistant Planner I Principal P anne MF: jm mf\reports\appea109-02(tpm09-O1) 1013 S Elliott Place.pc 75A-8 1 _I' 11_I~II o I 1 ¦ - R2-a'RD ~j Q C2 ~ Nt Mi $D-32 1~ 11 11 I,~ ' rSQ-49 JI If-- =11 1-- R1 Ri R2 cz I i~ ii i~ i~ J R2 ~ ~ '1 Co, i 11- Ir- Mi 0 ' I ~I -~~__~_1_~~s S2- m ~R2 ~ 1~== W 1 RI ilb ~ it R1 so-aa , 172T~R~ 11 i~== Mi__!¦ o P.E.E. 1~ ~ I_ II m r- r-1 11 1~ i~ is R2 R2 ~r-~~------=~i'~ ~ I R3 I ii it it li IE======Ji a R2 1 II I~ Ri I ~ .+I ~l ~1 I~ I I II II--------~1 -------'I 11 1 ~L=====_~_~ SP-2 IJ ii j1 R4 ill -------,:--'~--.1 i --i1-----' 1 --r-------yam R3 .R2 Ir-Ir-Ir-Ir-Ir-Ir-1 1 R2 R2 R2 ~ I 1 I 1 1 I 1 1j ' 1 li---1 I I 1 1 I I I I ~1 ===7~~~R4 R2 i --'t II 11 d II 11 II I~ - ~ - 1! -11--J: 0 ~ ~ R2 ~=Ails---1 11_~1_,1_,1_n_~1_~ 11 - i~_- i i~ i~ i~ i~ i~ ii iiSP- ~ R2 ~ R2 i I rw Al ~ ~ II II Il j1 j1 II II 2 1 - A7 ~ c"rw.[ az ~ j 11- j l-~l-~l-~l-~l-~l- ~ I I Ri A7 ff_ v. vamcrsvur R2v ~i'~% ~`!j --II sa- SP-2 SP-2 Al r ~ ~ ~--11 ~ 0 R4 ~ A7 Al At R2 RZ R2 1 1`` - ~1 11--- R2 Rl ~ R7 s ~ i__ icy, _I~ Ai At 3 At I - - - aa.v-.I ~Q him aeo. I I xo "v. I R1 a SP-2 R1 ~ 0 i~ R1 Ri wa>Fnwrt SP-2 e II saso ~ ( R1 I I R1 R1 R1 EL v nuur ~ II ,~Rr I I~ R1 IGHT rs x. R1 tIL R1 R1 Ri PROJ CT SITE ~ ~ Ri J \ ~ R1 E R1 Rt R1 ~ Ri " R1 R1 R1 ~ - NE"'"° R1 Ri ~ s R1 Ri - Y. - - Ri a CNV I Im CYST LN. i~---- w nl R1 ~ 0 R1 Ri Ri Ri SP-2 §SP-2 N Ri Rl~=-~-_ rs $ LN a ~ I nl .L ~ R1 ~ R1 R1 R1 R7 ~ R1 R1 ~ R1 ii Alir xE v _ - I R1 ai R7 , - q lI ---li -ii i 11 ii ~ ~ 1 1 4 4 g I II n Ct n, R1 Ri w I ` ~ 1, 1 u ~ o R1 Ir = ;I ~ -I lI Il I 1 3 R7 II ii i II `i I ~ r i i Z o o I -II--~1--- ~I--'L--I ~ it ~ - f - jl suz - - 11 CR 11 ~ ~ ~ II r ~ ~ ~ CMENWU ~ 1 m i m a x ,l 0 / i Al GENERAL AGRICULTURAL C-SM SOUTH MAIN STREET COMMERCIAL DISTRICT PD PLANNED DEVELOPMENT -B PARKING MODIFICATION -F FLOOR AREA RATIO PRD PLANNED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT C7 COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL GC GOVERNMENT CENTER Rt SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCE Ct-MD COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL-MUSEUM DISTRICT M1 LIGHT INDUSTRIAL R2 TWO-FAMILY RESIDENCE C2 GENERAL COMMERCIAL M2 HEAVY INDUSTRIAL R3 MULTIPLE-FAMILY RESIDENCE C3 CENTRAL BUSINESS MO MILRARY OPERATIONS R4 SUBURBAN APARTMENT C3-A CENTRAL BUSINESS-ARTISTS' VILLAGE O OPEN SPACE RE RESIDENTL4L ESTATE C4 PLANNED SHOPPING CENTER -OZ OVERLAY ZONE SD SPECIFIC DEVELOPMENT CS ARTERIAL COMMERCIAL P PROFESSIONAL SP SPECIFIC PLAN CR COMMERCIAL RESIDENTIAL PCD PLANNED COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT APPL-2009-02 t~ - TPM-09-01 Mr. Peter Pham - - =500 FEET 1`=;000FEET 1013 South Elliott Place P L A N N I N G A N D B U I L D I N G A G E N C Y VICINITY MAP / 7~IT~ SIN LE AMlLY R SIDE TIAL > J J ~ ~ ¢ ROBERTS DR. SFR ~ ~ Q ¢ E- a 2 LL 2 J ~ r H ~ Q W H W O. ~ N ~ N ~ 2 SI GLE AMILY ~ W Z J J - W W O C7~ N (7y O W Z - W lJJ RESIDENT AL W ~ sFR J s ~ Q J ? ~ KENT AV. S I G L A M I L Y R E I D N T I A L SIN L E F MILY F' SFR Z R E I D E N I A L W SCHOOL cn N J i Q ~ Z ti O SINGLE FAMILY W Z 0 J RESIDENTIAL - - Q J ~ T LL, ¢ ~ ~ ~ f- w > ~ > ~ a J J ~ ~ o. _ W Q J J W ~ J Q F- W C ¢ ¢ ~ W ~ ~ _0 ~ 2 ~ J W ~ W ~ Q J ~ y W " W _Z W ? ~ W ~ ~ ? Z ~ y APPL-2009-02 _ TPM-09-01 Mr. Peter Pham ~ 1013 South Elliott Place P L A N N I N G A N D B U I L D I N G A G E N C Y LAND USE MAP 7F~!~ APPL-2009-02 TPM-09-01 Mr. Peter Pham 1013 South Elliott Place ~~'Q7(i ~ rr I ~ ~d uAr n ~ ~ ~ coi ~ tot ~ rn. ~ r r ~ro4 Boa rMu ~ ~ ~ vy Zy t '1' . ..I t • ~ ~ t•,~,, ' • 5iR! . by y~~~ 1 Vl ~ + : ~ i~ 1013 South Elliott Place Exhibit 3 75A-11 _ j F~ : ~ ~ b n/~9R(CecpRC~ ~ 13P.oq L ~ ~ LL ?u~sn~t enrH ~ O u.,.c. ~ U ~ N BED¢DOH r:, 6EDRcoN1 t F~ ~ ~i. u 1 , ~ h . ' L : Q I ~ - r ~ ~ ~~~I ~\t__.._.. J~=F ten,, Q--,.-4_. ~_1 L I i ~ ~1 ~ ..e~ _ - r--- f r ~ r-'.iy ' 4rds~ r f---~~1. ~ I s cy-a.~e. ~/m4 Repn I... ~ _ I 8~~: ~ le¢Ln R<~n;' ~I 4 s lip ~ ~ ~ o ~ II ~ E EXHIBIT 4 75A-12 _ { O ~ ~ ~ c~ > - ~ w P.: ~ ~ ~ ' o~c 'r j(( i O co a ~ : ~ ~ - - ~ r.-; - - - r r '~a~ ~ ~ Ll -o ~ Cl c-=~ r-- ~_J ~~D 4 O - v !1 ~d~~D _ o ~ _ ~ i I~' I - } 7 5~~~IT 5 1013 Elliot -Parcel Map Address Street Name Lot Size (square feet) Street Frontaee (feet) 1021 Elliott Place (Largest) 21,411 52.36 1025 Elliott Place 19,170 172.17 1129 Elliott Place 19,124 167.17 1017 Elliott Place 17,896 164.54 1121 Elliott Place 16,680 101.81 1035 Elliott Place 14,989 89.98 1013 Elliott Place (Subject Property) 14,674 102.38 1101 Elliott Place 14,426 95.87 1124 Elliott Place 14,141 120.42 1032 Elliott Place 14,135 123.6 1114 Elliott Place 13,546 90 1110 Elliott Place 13,500 90 1010 Elliott Place 13,185 110* 1115 Elliott Place 13,066 85 1023 Elliott Place 12,937 52.36 1109 Elliott Place 12,876 85 1019 Elliott Place 12,785 52.36 1205 Elliott Place 12,648 52.36 1202 Elliott Place 12,638 120 1005 Elliott Place 12,579 89.18 1018 Elliott Place 11,826 120 1026 Elliott Place 11,394 119.97 1118 Gates Street 16,565 109.29 1119 Gates Street 16,524 133.71 1113 Gates Street 14,298 77.49 1025 Gates Street 13,243 95 1105 Gates Street 13,088 80.13 1031 Gates Street 12,000 80 1124 Gates Street 11,529 82.07 1032 Gates Street 11,250 g0 1104 Gates Street 11,250 g0 1112 Gates Street (Smallest) 10,088 80.13 4315 Regent Drive 16,176 126.22* 4413 Regent Drive 16,016 101.79 4229 Regent Drive 13,932 101.52* 4407 Regent Drive 13,359 108.93 4227 Regent Drive 12,943 110 4217 Regent Drive 12,841 120 4321 Regent Drive 11,295 93.69 Average Lot Size 14,001 100.42 * - On corner lots only one side length was used i~IT164 a ~ p.y < x t 16 h~ r ~ ~ y, ,c ~t~~ ~ ~ ~~t1 ~ ~ M ~ + c-I ~ c-i S O ~ ~ i3 ~ t O } ~ ~ t n1 of ~ ` ~ c~-1 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ a ~ ~ ~ l0 a N ~ ~ ~ O- T-n f a' d e ~ ~ ~ . ~ ir1 t ~ ~ N _ , ~ N cn ~ j ~ _ i ~ ~ N gar ~ e-i . w_ . ? ~ M ~ v+ O O CO µ ~"hrri r:. ~ ; ls7 r..1 N N ~ r + ~ 1 1 c-I S r ~ l ~ ~ t ~ ~ f • i r R£' ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 111 i~ ~ H ~ ~ N O N O O ~ : , ~a,~,.-~''~ "fir p t R... ue ~ri~ a y O I ~ .p.,,~ L O ( ' ~ H ~ ~ r fem., ~ ~ 1` ~ ~ . 0 y ~ ~ ~ c.__..._._. i j4 h`. ~ + i s ~ - R ~ 3 ~ ~ ~ 3 s. - - '-i - Parcel 1: 7,089 sq. ft - ~I:, ~ ~ : Parcel 2: 7.534 s4. ft. 1~` - - ~ ~ ~ - 1= T ~ ~ i ~ ~ ~ ~ - ~ y ~ i~~ ~ ~ _ ~ 4 ~ ~ ~ , ~ ~ ~ _ _ ~ _ - ~ ~ [ - P T~, 8 ~ ~ ~ i t ~ ~ ~ i ~ I 1 I 6 i ~ ~ f', I ryJ~ i { ,r' ~ ~ a ~ I - ,r a ~ a ~ ~ t~--° ~_-~,..1~_.. _x~._ ~3~ o ~ ,z, m. 0 • ...'tea ' . _ , - ~m Number APN Size Approximate Distance from Date subdivided (approximate) subject parcel (by street) 1 108-244-01 8,816 1,677 feet 1963 2 108-244-02 6,258 1,677 feet 3 108-244-03 7,186 1,527 feet 1963 4 108-244-04 7,055 1,527 feet 5 108-244-28 9,293 2,435 feet 6 108-244-29 7,907 2,435 feet 1981 7 108-244-27 7,310 2,435 feet 8 108-244-12 6,291 1,203 feet 1959 ZONING ADMINISTRATOR HEARING ' MINUTES SEPTEMBER 9, 2009 TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 2009-01 10:48 a.m. Mr. Sergio Klotz, Zoning Administrator, called to order the public hearing in the City Hall Ross Annex Conference Room 2001. Also in attendance were: Rami Talleh and Peter Pham, Applicants; Huy Phong Ta Thi, Nancy Martin, Vivian Stowers, Mr. Parker, and Dave Lopez, Residents; Matt Foulkes, Assistant Planner I; Karen Haluza, Planning Manager; Ben Kaufman, City Attorney; and Jocelyn Magalona, Recording Secretary. Five emails were received from Linda Becerra, Frank Rutherford, Susan Sallee, Joan Todisco and Glen & Patricia Young in support of the denial. Matt Foulkes presented the staff report and recommendation. Mr. Ta stated the project should be approved. Ms. Martin, Ms. Stowers, Mr. Parker and Mr. Lopez stated their support of the denial. Mr. Pham asked that his project request be approved. Mr. Talleh provided pictures of the neighborhood as well as a listing of properties in the area that are closer to the lot size of the proposed project. He stated the character of the neighborhood is not the lot size but the streetscape, landscaping and architecture of the homes. Mr. Talleh stated they comply with Land Use Element Policies 1.4, 3.1 and 4.1. He also suggested that water can be rerouted to minimize water draining to the streets. Mr. Klotz stated the General Plan Policies that the request was not consistent with are at issue. He also noted that the similar sized homes Mr. Talleh referred to are not located in the immediate neighborhood, and some fronted Edinger and Newhope. After further discussion, the Zoning Administrator adopted a resolution denying Tentative Parcel Map No. 2009-01. Mr. Klotz provided information on the appeal process. The hearing adjourned at 11:26 a.m. Jocelyn Magalona Recording Secretary mr\zoning administration\minutes~2009109-9-09 TPM09-01 1013 S Elliott 75A-17 75A-18 bk 10/8/09 RESOLUTION NO.2009-16 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF SANTA ANA DENYING TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 2009-01 TO SUBDIVIDE AN EXISTING PARCEL INTO TWO PARCELS IN ORDER TO CONSTRUCT TWO NEW SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCES AT 1013 SOUTH ELLIOTT PLACE (APPEAL NO. 2009-02) 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. The applicant is requesting approval of Tentative Parcel Map No. 2009-01 to subdivide a single parcel into two parcels in order to construct two new single family residences at 1013 South Elliott Place. The subject property is the Little Texas neighborhood. The subject property is a 14,674 square foot parcel located on the north side of Elliott Place between Regent Drive and Gates Street. The interior lot is rectangular in shape and has approximately 108 feet of street frontage. Currently vacant, building records indicate that a 1,607 square foot residence and garage previously existed on the property. A permit was issued and finaled in 2005 to demolish the structures. B. Tentative Parcel Map No. 2009-01 came before the Zoning Administrator of the City of Santa Ana for a public hearing on September 9, 2009. Following a presentation by staff and testimony from the public, the Zoning Administrator adopted a resolution denying Tentative Parcel Map No. 2009-01 based on findings that the proposed subdivision was not consistent with the development pattern of the neighborhood and the project conflicted with several policies of the City's General Plan. The applicant has appealed the decision of the Zoning Administrator based on his claim that the subject property is close to other lots which are comparable in size to the ones that are being proposed as part of the subdivision request. The locations of the lots that are referenced are directly to the north of the subject property and between 1,203 and 2,435 feet away from the property to the south and southwest. C. The properties to the north of the subject parcel are located within a separate subdivision tract that was developed entirely independently of the subdivision in question. The subdivision to the north is not accessible from the "Little Texas" neighborhood by vehicle or by foot and, much like the Resolution No. 2009-16 Page 1 of 9 75A-19 subdivision to the east of the neighbofiood, has an entirely separate development pattern and architectural style than the subject neighborhood. D. The other properties mentioned as part of the appeal application are located within Tract No. 1298; however, each of the four parcels that were subdivided are located along the edge of the subdivision adjacent to Edinger Avenue and Newhope Street. While technically within the tract, these properties do not contain the same rural characteristics, such as the lack of sidewalk, rolled curbs and large front yard setbacks, of the properties adjacent to the subject parcel. Additionally, although subdivisions took place to create these properties, they were done in 1959, 1963 and 1981 respectively. The subject properties location within the interior of the "Little Texas" neighbofiood compared to the properties that were permitted to subdivide along the border of the tract, as well as the more than 28 years between the last approved subdivision do not support the claim set forth in the appeal that such parcels are similarly situated to the subject property. E. On October 12, 2009, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing on Appeal No. 2009-01 (Tentative Parcel Map No. 2009-02). F. The subject property is located in the City's Little Texas Neighbofiood, which was annexed into the City. Prior to that, it was a small County island totally surrounded by the City. It is a small residential neighborhood notable for (i) large lot sizes (more than double the city average), and (ii) stables and the keeping of horses by private landowners. It is essentially the only area In the Clty where horses are still quartered in private homes. G. Although the proposed project complies with the various zoning requirements for the Single-Family Residential (R-1) zone and the density proposed is within the limits of the Low-density (LR-7) General Plan land use designation, there are critical environmental and public health impacts associated with this subdivision and the project does not comply with numerous policies of the City's General Plan Land Use and Urban Design Elements. H. The project's unique location within a neighborhood that has historically included housing for live stock, specifically stabling of horses, has resulted in the proposed subdivision resulting in an adverse impact on public health standards relating to the proximity of livestock to humans. Section 5-18 of the Santa Ana Municipal Code requires that no person shall keep livestock within 100 feet of any family residence with the exception of the home on the property. Negative health impacts including noxious odors and communicable diseases have been associated with the close proximity of humans to livestock. The approval of this subdivision request would further anon-conformity with this code requirement by reducing the lot Resolution No. 2009-16 Page 2 of 9 75A-20 size and street frontage to the point of becoming practically impossible for the proposed lots to maintain the 100-foot separation from the neighboring properties. I. Further, the proposed project would also impact public health and safety by increasing the impervious surface of the subject property substantially above the amount that would be created without the proposed subdivision. This increase in impervious surface area, including the doubling of the number of driveways, will result in a greater amount of water run-off from the property. This increase in water run-off will negatively affect public health and safety by increasing the likelihood of flooding onto the street and adjoining properties. J. In addition to the public health and safety concerns, the proposed subdivision is in conflict with several General Plan policies. Primary amongst these policies is Urban Design Element Policy 2.12, which states that development and subdivision pattems are to be compatible with existing pattems of development in and around the neighbofiood. With an average lot size of 14,000 square feet and an average street frontage of 100.42 feet, the Little Texas Neighbofiood is one of the few remaining large lot subdivisions within the City. The proposed subdivision would result in two lots that would be incompatible with the pattern of land division in the area by being approximately one-half the size and street frontage of the average lot in the neighbofiood. The protection of this unique area is further bolstered by both Urban Design Element Policy 2.8 and Land Use Element Policy 4.1, which state that the character and uniqueness of existing neighbofioods are to be protected from intrusive development. Approval of this subdivision would result in the creation of two parcels which are not in character with the existing neighbofiood by being more than 3,000 square feet smaller than the next smallest lot in the Neighbofiood and providing less than one-half the street frontage of the next smallest lot in the Neighbofiood. K. The applicant has proposed to construct two, two-story, four bedroom, three and a half bathroom residences which will both be 3,233 square feet. The floor plans for the two homes will be mirror images of each other, with each house having an attached, 724 square foot, three car garage for a total building footprint of 3,957 square feet. The second story for each residence has been oriented primarily over the residence with a second story setback provided in the rear. The exterior of the two homes will also be similar in architectural style with large cylindrical pillars on either side of a double-door entryway with a large arched window above. The exterior materials will be primarily stucco with a brick veneer accent provided along the base of the front elevation and stucco trim around each of the sliding windows. Resolution No. 2009-16 Page 3 of 9 75A-21 L. The architectural design of the proposed homes is thus also in conflict with the General Plan, specifically both Urban Design Element Policy 2.2 and Land Use Element Policy 2.10. Collectively, these policies state that new development must be consistent and harmonious in scale, bulk, pattem and architectural style with the existing neighbofiood. While there is no defining architectural style within the neighbofiood, the majority of homes in the Little Texas Neighbofiood are one-story, low pitched homes with either wood or stucco siding. This scale and pattem of development is not consistent with the large two-story homes that are being proposed. Although several larger homes have recently been built in the neighborhood that compare more closely with the proposed project in terms of scale and bulk, these larger homes are constructed on substantially larger lots with more than double the street frontage which has allowed them to more seamlessly blend in with the remaining neighbofiood. The proposed project's scale and bulk, combined with its minimal lot size and street frontage, further the project's inconsistency with the surrounding neighborhood and General Plan policies. M. The staff report dated October 12, 2009, together with all testimony public and official presented in relation to this matter, is hereby incorporated herein as though fully set forth. N. For Tentative Parcel Map No. 2006-01, the Planning Commission determines that the following findings have been established: O. The Planning Commission determines that the following findings have been established: 1. The proposed project, as conditioned, and its design and improvements are consistent with the Low Density Residential 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 consistent with the Low-Density Residential (LR-7) designation of the General Plan, but is not consistent with several General Plan Urban Design and Land Use Element Policies. Primary amongst these policies is Urban Design Element Policy 2.12 which states that development and subdivision pattems are to be compatible with existing patterns of development in and around the neighbofiood. The projects location within a large lot subdivision with an average lot size of 14,000 square feet makes this subdivision request incompatible with the existing Little Texas Neighbofiood. Additionally, the proposal is Resolution No. 2009-16 Page 4 of 9 75A-22 inconsistent with Urban Design Element Policy 2.8 and Land Use Element Policy 4.1 which state that the character and uniqueness of existing neighborhoods are to be protected from intrusive development. The neighborhood where the project is located is one of the few remaining intact large lot subdivisions in the City putting the proposal to subdivide one of these lots in direct opposition with these Policies from the General Plan. 2. 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 project, as conditioned, conforms to all provisions of the zoning code, including landscaping, setbacks, parking, lot size and street frontage. No variances are required for this project and existing infrastructure in the area is adequate to service the project. 3. The project site is physically suitable for the type and density of the proposed project. The proposed site is physically suitable for single-family residential development; however, the proposed density of development is not consistent with the large lot size and street frontage characteristics of the neighborhood. With an average lot size of 14,000 square feet and average street frontage of 100.42 the proposed lots would be approximately one-half the size of the average lot and have one-half the street frontage than average. Urban Design Element Policy 2.8 of the General Plan states that the character and uniqueness of a neighborhood should be protected from this type of intrusive development. 4. The design and improvements of the proposed project will not ~ cause substantial environmental damage or substantially and avoidable injure fish or wildlife or their habitat. The project site is located in an urbanized area, with no known fish or wildlife populations existing on the project site. Therefore, the proposed subdivision will not cause any Resolution No. 2009-16 Page 5 of 9 75A-23 substantial environmental damage or substantially and avoidably injure fish and wildlife or their habitat. 5. The design or improvements of the proposed project will not cause serious public health problems. The proposed project would have an adverse impact on public health standards relating to the proximity of livestock to humans. Section 5-18 of the Santa Ana Municipal Code requires that no person shall keep livestock within 100 feet of any family residence with the exception of the home on the property. Negative health impacts including noxious odors and communicable diseases have been associated with the close proximity of humans to livestock. The approval of this subdivision request would further a non- conformity with this code requirement by reducing the lot size and street frontage to the point of becoming practically impossible for the proposed lots to maintain the 100-foot separation from the neighboring properties. The ro sed ro'ect would als im li h o act ub c ealth and P Po P J P P safety by increasing the impervious surface of the subject property substantially above the amount that would be created without the proposed subdivision. This increase in impervious surface area will result in a greater amount of water run-off from the property. This increase in water run-off will negatively affect public health and safety by increasing the likelihood of flooding onto the street and adjoining properties as well as an increase the amount of pollutants entering storm drains and sewers. 6. The design of 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 design or improvements of the proposed project will not conflict with easements necessary for public access through or use of the property. Utility access easements have been identified on the submitted plan and are not in conflict with the proposed development. Access through or use of the property is not required by the public at large. Resolution No. 2009-16 Page 6 of 9 75A-24 Section 2. In accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the proposed project is exempt from CEQA review per Section 21080(5). This subsection applies to projects in which the public agency disapproves of the request. Should the project ultimately be approved, further environmental review may be required. Environmental Review No. 2007-102 will be filed for this project. Section 3. Application for Tentative Parcel Map No. 2009-01 must be disapproved pursuant to Government Code section 66474(a) and (b) in that the proposed map, the design or improvements are not consistent with the applicable provisions of the Santa Ana General Plan. The findings that bridge the analytical gap between this conclusion and the facts of this matter are set forth in Section 1 of this resolution. Section 4. Government Code section 65589.5(j) does not prohibit disapproval of Tentative Parcel Map No. 2009-01 because (i) the application conflicts with objective general plan policies and municipal code sections as set forth in greater detail in Section 1 to this resolution, and (ii) anything other than disapproval would cause specific, adverse impact upon the public health or safety, i.e., violation of Santa Ana Municipal Code section 5-18, and there is no feasible method to avoid this adverse impact in that the Neighborhood is distinguished by providing quarters for livestock, particularly horses. Section 5. The Planning Commission of the City of Santa Ana after conducting the public hearing and being fully informed hereby denies Tentative Parcel Map No. 2009-01 (together with Appeal No. 2009-02). This decision is based upon the evidence submitted at the above said hearing, which includes but is not limited to: the Request for Planning Commission Action dated October 12, 2009 and exhibits attached thereto; the Request for Planning Commission Action dated October 12, 2009 and exhibits attached thereto and the public testimony, all of which are incorporated herein by this reference. ADOPTED this 12th day of October , 2009 by the following vote: AYES: Commissioners: Alderete, Betancourt, Gartner, Leo, Turner (5) NOES: Commissioners: None (0) ABSENT: Commissioners: Yrarrazaval (1) ABSTENTIONS: Commissioners: None (0) Resolution No. 2009-16 Page 7 of 9 75A-25 Christopher Leo Chairman APPROVED AS TO FORM: Joseph W. Fletcher, City Attorney By: Benjamin Kaufman Chief Assistant City Attorney CERTIFICATE OF ATTESTATION AND ORIGINALITY I, Martha Ramirez, Planning Commission Secretary, do hereby attest to and certify the attached Resolution No. 2009-16 to be the original resolution adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Santa Ana on October 12, 2009 Date: Planning Commission Secretary City of Santa Ana i Resolution No. 2009-16 Page 8 of 9 75A-26 PROOF OF SERVICE (C.C.P. SECTION 1013(a), 2015.5) STATE OF CALIFORNIA. COUNTY OF ORANGE I am employed in the aforesaid county; I am over the age of eighteen and not a party to the within action; my business address is 20 Civic Center Plaza, Ross Annex 2nd Floor, Santa Ana, California 92701. I served the fore oin document described as: Resolution No. 2009-16 for 9 9 . Appeal No. 2009-02 for Tentative Parcel Map No. 2 m Is ac lon y placing a true copy thereof enclosed in sealed envelopes addressed as follows: Peter Pham Rami Talleh Huong Dong 7043 Trask Avenue 5 Rice Aisle 9573 E. Garvey Ave., #14 Westminster, CA 92683 Irvine, CA 92612 El Monte, CA 91733 [ ] I caused to be delivered by courier, such envelope by hand to the office of the addressee(s). [X] BY MAIL I am readily familiar with my employer's practice of collection and processing correspondence for mailing. Under that practice it would be deposited with U.S. Postal Service on that same day with postage thereon fully prepaid at Santa Ana, California in the ordinary course of business. I am aware that on motion of the party served, service is presumed invalid if postal cancellation date or postage meter date is more than one day after date of deposit for mailing in affidavit. [ ]The document was transmitted by facsimile transmission and was reported as complete and without error. I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on [date] at Santa Ana, California. MARTHA RAMIREZ Resolution No. 2009-16 Page 9 of 9 75A-27 75A-28 bk 11 /09/09 RESOLUTION NO. 2009-XX A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA ANA DENYING TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 2009-01 TO SUBDIVIDE AN EXISTING PARCEL INTO TWO PARCELS IN ORDER TO CONSTRUCT TWO NEW SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCES AT 1013 SOUTH ELLIOTT PLACE (APPEAL NO. 2009-05) BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA ANA AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. The City Council of the City of Santa Ana hereby finds, determines and declares as follows: A. The applicant is requesting approval of Tentative Parcel Map No. 2009-01 to subdivide a single parcel into two parcels in order to construct two new single family residences at 1013 South Elliott Place. The subject property is the Little Texas neighborhood. The subject property is a 14,674 square foot parcel located on the north side of Elliott Place between Regent Drive and Gates Street. The interior lot is rectangular in shape and has approximately 108 feet of street frontage. Currently vacant, building records indicate that a 1,607 square foot residence and garage previously existed on the property. A permit was issued and finaled in 2005 to demolish the structures. B. Tentative Parcel Map No. 2009-01 came before the Zoning Administrator of the City of Santa Ana for a public hearing on September 9, 2009. Following a presentation by staff and testimony from the public, the Zoning Administrator adopted a resolution denying Tentative Parcel Map No. 2009-01 based on findings that the proposed subdivision was not consistent with the development pattern of the neighborhood and the project conflicted with several policies of the City's General Plan. C. The applicant appealed the adverse decision of the Zoning Administrator and subsequently appealed the adverse decision of the Planning Commission. The only objection ever made by applicant was his claim that the subject property is close to other lots which are comparable in size to the ones that are being proposed as part of the subdivision request. The locations of the lots that are referenced are directly to the north of the subject property and between 1,203 and 2,435 feet away from the property to the south and southwest. On October 12, 2009, the Planning Commission denied the applicant's appeal (No. 2009-02) and the tentative parcel map by a 5-0 vote (Yrarrazaval absent). Resolution No. 2009-XX Page 1 of 8 75A-29 D. The applicant has appealed the decision of the Planning Commission to the City Council. E. The properties to the north of the subject parcel are located within a separate subdivision tract that was developed entirely independently of the subdivision in question. The subdivision to the north is not accessible from the "Little Texas" neighborhood by vehicle or by foot and, much like the subdivision to the east of the neighborhood, has an entirely separate development pattern and architectural style than the subject neighborhood. F. The other properties mentioned as part of the appeal application are located within Tract No. 1298; however, each of the four parcels that were subdivided are located along the edge of the subdivision adjacent to Edinger Avenue and Newhope Street. While technically within the tract, these properties do not contain the same rural characteristics, such as the lack of sidewalk, rolled curbs and large front yard setbacks, of the properties adjacent to the subject parcel. Additionally, although subdivisions took place to create these properties, they were done in 1959, 1963 and 1981 respectively. The subject properties location within the interior of the "Little Texas" neighborhood compared to the properties that were permitted to subdivide along the border of the tract, as well as the more than 28 years between the last approved subdivision do not support the claim set forth in the appeal that such parcels are similarly situated to the subject property. G. The subject property is located in the City's Little Texas Neighborhood, which was annexed into the City. Prior to that, it was a small County island totally surrounded by the City. It is a small residential neighborhood notable for (i) large lot sizes (more than double the city average), and (ii) stables and the keeping of horses by private landowners. It is essentially the only area in the City where horses are still quartered in the same parcel as a private home. H. Although the proposed project complies with the various zoning requirements for the Single-Family Residential (R-1) zone and the density proposed is within the limits of the Low-density (LR-7) General Plan land use designation, there are critical environmental and public health impacts associated with this subdivision and the project does not comply with numerous policies of the City's General Plan Land Use and Urban Design Elements. I. The project's unique location within a neighborhood that has historically included housing for live stock, specifically stabling of horses, has resulted in the proposed subdivision resulting in an adverse impact on public health standards relating to the proximity of livestock to humans. Section 5-18 of Resolution No. 2009-XX Page 2 of 8 75A-30 the Santa Ana Municipal Code requires that no person shall keep livestock within 100 feet of any family residence with the exception of the home on the property. Negative health impacts including noxious odors and communicable diseases have been associated with the close proximity of humans to livestock. The approval of this subdivision request would further anon-conformity with this code requirement by reducing the lot size and street frontage to the point of becoming practically impossible for the proposed lots to maintain the 100-foot separation from the neighboring properties. J. Further, the proposed project would also impact public health and safety by increasing the impervious surface of the subject property substantially above the amount that would be created without the proposed subdivision. This increase in impervious surface area, including the doubling of the number of driveways, will result in a greater amount of water run-off from the property. This increase in water run-off will negatively affect public health and safety by increasing the likelihood of flooding onto the street and adjoining properties. K. In addition to the public health and safety concerns, the proposed subdivision is in conflict with several General Plan policies. Primary amongst these policies is Urban Design Element Policy 2.12, which states that development and subdivision patterns are to be compatible with existing patterns of development in and around the neighborhood. With an average lot size of 14,000 square feet and an average street frontage of 100.42 feet, the Little Texas Neighborhood is one of the few remaining large lot subdivisions within the City. The proposed subdivision would result in two lots that would be incompatible with the pattern of land division in the area by being approximately one-half the size and street frontage of the average lot in the neighborhood. The protection of this unique area is further bolstered by both Urban Design Element Policy 2.8 and Land Use Element Policy 4.1, which state that the character and uniqueness of existing neighborhoods are to be protected from intrusive development. Approval of this subdivision would result in the creation of two parcels which are not in character with the existing neighborhood by being more than 3,000 square feet smaller than the next smallest lot in the Neighborhood and providing less than one-half the street frontage of the next smallest lot in the Neighborhood. L. The applicant has proposed to construct two, two-story, four bedroom, three and a half bathroom residences which will both be 3,233 square feet. The floor plans for the two homes will be mirror images of each other, with each house having an attached, 724 square foot, three car garage for a total building footprint of 3,957 square feet. The second story for each residence has been oriented primarily over the residence with a second story setback provided in the rear. The exterior of the two homes will also be similar in Resolution No. 2009-XX 75A-31 Page 3 of 8 architectural style with large cylindrical pillars on either side of a double-door entryway with a large arched window above. The exterior materials will be primarily stucco with a brick veneer accent provided along the base of the front elevation and stucco trim around each of the sliding windows. M. The architectural design of the proposed homes is thus also in conflict with the General Plan, specifically both Urban Design Element Policy 2.2 and Land Use Element Policy 2.10. Collectively, these policies state that new development must be consistent and harmonious in scale, bulk, pattern and architectural style with the existing neighborhood. While there is no defining architectural style within the neighborhood, the majority of homes in the Little Texas Neighborhood are one-story, low pitched homes with either wood or stucco siding. This scale and pattern of development is not consistent with the large two-story homes that are being proposed. Although several larger homes have recently been built in the neighborhood that compare more closely with the proposed project in terms of scale and bulk, these larger homes are constructed on substantially larger lots with more than double the street frontage which has allowed them to more seamlessly blend in with the remaining neighborhood. The proposed project's scale and bulk, combined with its minimal lot size and street frontage, further the project's inconsistency with the surrounding neighborhood and General Plan policies. N. The staff report dated November 16, 2009, together with all testimony public and official presented in relation to this matter, is hereby incorporated herein as though fully set forth. O. The City Council determines that the following findings have been established: 1. The proposed project, as conditioned, and its design and improvements are consistent with the Low Density Residential 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 consistent with the Low-Density Residential (LR-7) designation of the General Plan, but is not consistent with several General Plan Urban Design and Land Use Element Policies. Primary amongst these policies is Urban Design Element Policy 2.12 which states that development and subdivision patterns are to be compatible with existing patterns of development in and around the neighborhood. The projects location within a large lot Resolution No. 2009-XX Page 4 of 8 75A-32 subdivision with an average lot size of 14,000 square feet makes this subdivision request incompatible with the existing Little Texas Neighborhood. Additionally, the proposal is inconsistent with Urban Design Element Policy 2.8 and Land Use Element Policy 4.1 which state that the character and uniqueness of existing neighborhoods are to be protected from intrusive development. The neighborhood where the project is located. is one of the few remaining intact large lot subdivisions in the City putting the proposal to subdivide one of these lots in direct opposition with these Policies from the General Plan. 2. 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 project, as conditioned, conforms to all provisions of the zoning code, including landscaping, setbacks, parking, lot size and street frontage. No variances are required for this project and existing infrastructure in the area is adequate to service the project. 3. The project site is physically suitable for the type and density of the proposed project. The proposed site is physically suitable for single-family residential development; however, the proposed density of development is not consistent with the large lot size and street frontage characteristics of the neighborhood. With an average lot size of 14,000 square feet and average street frontage of 100.42 the proposed lots would be approximately one-half the size of the average lot and have one-half the street frontage than average. Urban Design Element Policy 2.8 of the General Plan states that the character and uniqueness of a neighborhood should be protected from this type of intrusive development. 4. The design and improvements of the proposed project will not cause substantial environmental damage or substantially and avoidable injure fish or wildlife or their habitat. Resolution No. 2009-XX Page 5 of 8 75A-33 The project site is located in an urbanized area, with 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. 5. The design or improvements of the proposed project will not cause serious public health problems. The proposed project would have an adverse impact on public health standards relating to the proximity of livestock to humans. Section 5-18 of the Santa Ana Municipal Code requires that no person shall keep livestock within 100 feet of any family residence with the exception of the home on the property. Negative health impacts including noxious odors and communicable diseases have been associated with the close proximity of humans to livestock. The approval of this subdivision request would further a non- conformity with this code requirement by reducing the lot size and street frontage to the point of becoming practically impossible for the proposed lots to maintain the 100-foot separation from the neighboring properties. The proposed project would also impact public health and safety by increasing the impervious surface of the subject property substantially above the amount that would be created without the proposed subdivision. This increase in impervious surface area will result in a greater amount of water run-off from the property. This increase in water run-off will negatively affect public health and safety by increasing the likelihood of flooding onto the street and adjoining properties as well as an increase the amount of pollutants entering storm drains and sewers. 6. The design of 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 design or improvements of the proposed project will not conflict with easements necessary for public access through or use of the property. Utility access easements have been identified on the submitted plan and are not in conflict with the Resolution No. 2009-XX Page 6 of 8 75A-34 proposed development. Access through or use of the property is not required by the public at large. Section 2. In accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the proposed project is exempt from CEQA review per Section 21080(5). This subsection applies to projects in which the public agency disapproves of the request. Should the project ultimately be approved, further environmental review may be required. Environmental Review No. 2007-102 will be filed for this project. Section 3. Application for Tentative Parcel Map No. 2009-01 must be disapproved pursuant to Government Code section 66474(a) and (b) in that the proposed map, the design or improvements are not consistent with the applicable provisions of the Santa Ana General Plan. The findings that bridge the analytical gap between this conclusion and the facts of this matter are set forth in Section 1 of this resolution. Section 4. Government Code section 65589.5Q) does not prohibit disapproval of Tentative Parcel Map No. 2009-01 because (i) the application conflicts with objective general plan policies and municipal code sections as set forth in greater detail in Section 1 to this resolution, and (ii) anything other than disapproval would cause specific, adverse impact upon the public health or safety, i.e., violation of Santa Ana Municipal Code section 5-18, and there is no feasible method to avoid this adverse impact in that the Neighborhood is distinguished by providing quarters for livestock, particularly horses. Section 5. The City Council of the City of Santa Ana after conducting the public hearing and being fully informed hereby denies Tentative Parcel Map No. 2009-01 (together with Appeal No. 2009-05). This decision is based upon the evidence submitted at the above said hearing, which includes but is not limited to: the Request for Council Action dated November 16, 2009 and exhibits attached thereto; and the public testimony, all of which are incorporated herein by this reference. Section 6. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase or portion of this resolution is for any reason held to be invalid or unconstitutional by the decision of any court of competent jurisdiction, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this resolution. The City Council of the City of Santa Ana hereby declares that it would have adopted this resolution and each section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase or portion thereof irrespective of the fact that any one or more sections, subsections, sentences, clauses, phrases, or portions be declared invalid or unconstitutional. Resolution No. 2009-XX Page 7 of 8 75A-35 Section 7. This Resolution shall take effect immediately upon its adoption by the City Council, and the Clerk of the Council shall attest to and certify the vote adopting this Resolution. ADOPTED this day of , 2009. Miguel A. Pulido Mayor APPROVED AS TO FORM: Joseph W. Fletcher, City Attorney By: Benjamin Kaufman Chief Assistant City Attorney AYES: Councilmembers: NOES: Councilmembers: ABSTAIN: Councilmembers: NOT PRESENT: Councilmembers: CERTIFICATION OF ATTESTATION AND ORIGINALITY I, MARIA D. HUIZAR, Clerk of Council, do hereby attest to and certify the attached Resolution No. to be the original resolution adopted by the City Council of the City of Santa Ana on Date: Clerk of Council City of Santa Ana Resolution No. 2009-XX Page 8 of 8 75A-36