Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout FULL PACKET_2009-11-16 MINUTES OF THE CLOSED AND REGULAR MEETINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA ANA, CALIFORNIA NOVEMBER 2, 2009 CLOSED SESSION MEETING CALLED TO ORDER CITY HALL 20 CIVIC CENTER PLAZA, 8T" FLOOR 5:32 P.M. ATTENDANCE COUNCILMEMBERS Present: MIGUEL PULIDO, Mayor CLAUDIA ALVAREZ, Mayor Pro Tem P. DAVID BENAVIDES CARLOS BUSTAMANTE MICHELE MARTINEZ VINCENT F. SARMIENTO SAL TINAJERO STAFF Present: DAVID N. REAM, City Manager JOSEPH FLETCHER, City Attorney MARIA D. HUIZAR, Clerk of the Council PUBLIC COMMENTS -None CLOSED SESSION CALENDAR 1A CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL--EXISTING LITIGATION pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9(a) William Rosen vs City of Santa Ana, Case Nos. ADJ1969924 and ADJ2301171 1 B LIABILITY CLAIMS pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.95 Claimant: Ann Christoph Claimant: Erika Martinez Claimant: Chevron Corporation CITY COUNCIL MINUTES 257 NOVEMBER 2, 2009 10A-1 1 C CONFERENCE WITH LABOR NEGOTIATOR pursuant to Government Code Section 54957.6 Agency Negotiators: Personnel Services Executive Director, Kathie Gonzalez Employee Organizations: Santa Ana Service Employees International Union (SEIU), Santa Ana Police Officers Association, Santa Ana Firemen's Benevolent Association. ADJOURNED 6:10 P.M. REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING CALLED TO ORDER COUNCIL CHAMBER 22 CIVIC CENTER PLAZA 6:18 P.M. ATTENDANCE COUNCILMEMBERS Present: MIGUEL PULIDO, Mayor CLAUDIA ALVAREZ, Mayor Pro Tem P. DAVID BENAVIDES (6:32 P.M.) CARLOS BUSTAMANTE MICHELE MARTINEZ VINCENT F. SARMIENTO SAL TINAJERO (6:21 P.M.) STAFF Present: DAVID N. REAM, City Manager JOSEPH FLETCHER, City Attorney MARIA D. HUIZAR, Clerk of the Council INVOCATION Gary Tucker, Police Chaplain PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Benjamin Jesus Sanchez, Boy Scout Troop 804 PRESENTATIONS CERTIFICATES OF RECOGNITION AND CITY TILES* presented by MAYOR PULIDO recognizing the following Board and Commission members for their service on the now dissolved Early Prevention & Intervention (EPIC) Commission, Human Relations Commission, and Library Board: CITY COUNCIL MINUTES 258 NOVEMBER 2, 2009 10A-2 Early Prevention & Intervention Human Relations Library Board Commission (EPIC) Commission Valerie Amezcua **Cecilia Aguinaga* Patricia M. Lenahan **Rosemarie "Rosie" Avila Valerie Amezcua **Anne Menaldo Jose S. Chavez Albert B. Castillo* Deana Mulkerin* **Albert Garcia Norma C. Gonzalez **Michael Nguyen Thomas Linnert Don Han* Nam M. Pham* Art Lomeli **Daniel Hernandez Jose Rea John Marsh **Nhan T. Hoa* **Rebecca Plascencia Rafael Solorzano **Carah Reed Myriam Tinajero Irma Salazar-Allen Ava Steaffens * Member has served at least 4 years and will receive a City Tile for service. Member present PROCLAMATION and CERTIFICATES OF RECOGNITION presented by MAYOR PULIDO to the Santa Ana Police Foundation for providing the business community with assistance in continuing business operations should a disaster occur in our City. PROCLAMATION presented by MAYOR PULIDO to Hazel Newhouse in recognition of Arbor Day. PROCLAMATION presented by MAYOR PULIDO to Ruben Martinez recognizing November 2009 as National Scholarship Month. CERTIFICATES OF RECOGNITION presented by MAYOR PULIDO to the participants and organizers of the 2009 Fiestas Patrias Parade including all 32 Mexican States and the Fiestas Patrias Committee. CERTIFICATE OF RECOGNITION presented by COUNCILMEMBER MARTINEZ to Phalen Lim for receiving the 2009 California Peace Prize from the California Wellness Foundation. PROCLAMATION presented by COUNCILMEMBER SARMIENTO to Pan American Bank in recognition of its 45t" Anniversary and 40 years in Santa Ana. CLOSED SESSION REPORT -City Attorney Fletcher provided report, refer to Consent Calendar Item 19A. PUBLIC COMMENT ON AGENDA ITEMS • Roberta Rogers requested assistance regarding an issue related to the American Disabilities Act. City Attorney to review the matter. • Connie Hamilton invited the City Council to attend the upcoming Connect-to-Council event being held on November 19, 2009. CITY COUNCIL MINUTES 259 NOVEMBER 2, 2009 10A-3 • Jeff Dickman, Ben Grabiel, Mike Tardif, Alison Young, Colleen Williams, and Ezequiel Gutierrez spoke in opposition to Item 3 on the Community Redevelopment Agency agenda. • Sean Coolidge asked the City Council to consider the need for open space, light retail, and pocket parks in the Station District area. • Zeke Hernandez and Arturo Saucedo thanked Council for their support on Item 31 A. • Karen Finn commented on issues related to employee benefits. CONSENT CALENDAR MOTION: Approve staff recommendations on Consent Calendar Items 10A through 31A with the following modifications: • Mayor Pro Tem Alvarez recorded a "no" vote on Item 19C and pulled items 20B, 23A, 23B, 251 and 25J for separate discussion • Councilmember Sarmiento pulled item 31A for separate discussion MOTION: Tinajero SECOND: Benavides VOTE: AYES: Alvarez, Benavides, Bustamante, Martinez, Sarmiento, Tinajero, Pulido (7) NOES: None (0) ABSTAIN: None (0) ABSENT: None (0) Items removed for separate action or modified are highlighted. Separate actions show the actual vote. Items without votes are adopted as part of the consent Motion. ADMINISTRATIVE MATTERS MINUTES 10A MINUTES OF THE CLOSED SESSION AND REGULAR MEETING OF OCTOBER 19, 2009 -Clerk of the Council Office MOTION: Approve Minutes. NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARINGS 12A APPEAL NO. 2009-05 FOR TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 2009-01 - 1013SOUTH ELLIOTT PLACE -Planning and Building Agency CITY COUNCIL MINUTES 260 NOVEMBER 2, 2009 10A-4 Filed by Peter Pham appealing the Zoning Administrator's action denying a request to subdivide a residential property into two separate parcels at 1013 South Elliot Place located in the Single Family Residential (R1) zoning district. MOTION: Set Appeal No. 2009-05 (Tentative Parcel Map No. 2009-01) as a public hearing item on the next regularly scheduled City Council meeting. BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS 13A APPOINTMENT MOTION: Appoint. Appoint Erick A/onso Plascencia to the Community Redevelopment and Housing Commission; nominated by Councilmember Tinajero as the Ward 6 representative for a term expiring December 14, 2010. MISCELLANEOUS ADMINISTRATION 19A CLOSED SESSION REPORT MOTION: Approve settlements. ¦ William Rosen vs City of Santa Ana, Case Nos. ADJ1969924 and ADJ2301171; Compromise and Release in the amount of $45,000. ¦ Claimant: Ann Christoph -Settlement in the amount of $13,340.12. ¦ Claimant: Erika Martinez -Settlement in the amount of $8,673.00. ¦ Claimant: Chevron Corporation - Settlement in the amount of $31,719.16. 19B EXCUSED ABSENCES -None 19C DESTRUCTION OF OBSOLETE CITY RECORDS - (CITY MANAGER'S OFFICE AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AGENCY) -Clerk of the Council Office MOTION: Approve the requests for the destruction of obsolete records from various City departments in accordance with the retention schedule outlined in City Council Resolution 2006-045. *Mayor Pro Tem Alvarez recorded a "no" vote on Item 19C CITY COUNCIL MINUTES 261 NOVEMBER 2, 2009 10A-5 19D INVESTMENTS REPORT -QUARTERLY REPORT OF INVESTMENTS AS OF SEPTEMBER 30, 2009 -Finance & Management Services MOTION: Receive and file. 19E AMENDMENT TO THE FEDERAL CITIZEN PARTICIPATION PLAN - Community Development Agency MOTION: Approve the amendment to the Citizen Participation Plan and authorize the submittal to the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. BUDGETARY MATTERS APPROPRIATION ADJUSTMENTS 20A APPROPRIATION ADJUSTMENT -ACCEPT THE 2010 CLICK-IT OR TICKET MINI-GRANT AWARD -Police Department MOTION: Approve an appropriation adjustment. (Requires five affirmative votes) APPROPRIATION ADJUSTMENT NO. 10-032 -Accepting the 2010 Click-It or Ticket Mini-Grant award in the amount of $27,000 into the revenue account and appropriate same into the 2010 Click-It or Ticket Mini-Grant Overtime expenditure account. 20B APPROPRIATION ADJUSTMENT -ACCEPT FY 2009 DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE/NIJ COLD CASE PROGRAM FUNDS -Police Department MOTION: 1. Approve an appropriation adjustment. (Requires five affirmative votes) APPROPRIATION ADJUSTMENT NO. 10-031- Recognizing the FY 2009 United States Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice Cold Case DNA Program in the amount of $300,740 in revenue account and appropriate same in the FY 2009 DOJ/NIJ Cold Case DNA Program expenditure accounts. 2. Authorize the City Manager and Clerk of the Council to execute an agreement subject to non-substantive changes approved by the City Manager and City Attorney. CITY COUNCIL MINUTES 262 NOVEMBER 2, 2009 10A-6 AGMT NO. 2009-173 -Cooperative Agreement -With the United States Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice for the terms and conditions set forth in this funding program. MOTION: Alvarez SECOND: Martinez VOTE: AYES: Alvarez, Bustamante, Martinez, Sarmiento, Tinajero, Pulido (6) NOES: None (0) ABSTAIN: None (0) ABSENT: Benavides (1) SPECIFICATIONS -PURCHASE OF EQUIPMENT AND SERVICES MOTION: Award in accordance with Request for Council Action. (Items 22A through 22E) 22A SPEC. NO. 09-047 -SERVERS - Award a contract to Govplace in an amount not to exceed $39,651 -Police Department 22B SPEC. NO. 09-052 -MICRO-WAVE BASED NETWORK SYSTEM - Award a contract to Pacific Services in an amount not to exceed $47,000 - Finance & Management Services 22C SPEC. NO. 07-086 -VEHICLE BODY REPAIR -Renew the contract with Kelly's Body Shop Inc. for cone-year period in an annual amount not to exceed $85,000 -Finance & Management Services 22D SPEC. NO. 09-044 -MOTOR CONTROL CENTER UPGRADE AT WELL 34 - Award a contract to Digital Control Services, Inc. in the amount of $231,400 -Public Works Agency 22E SPEC. NO. 09-050 - WEB-BASED INFORMATION SHARING SOFTWARE - AWARD A CONTRACT TO MINDTOUCH, INC. IN AN AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $49,995 -Police Department PROJECTS/CHANGE ORDERS 23A CONTRACT AWARD FOR MCFADDEN AVENUE AND CIVIC CENTER DRIVE REHABILITATION (PROJECT NOS. 091753, 091757 AND 091756) -Public Works Agency MOTION: CITY COUNCIL MINUTES 263 NOVEMBER 2, 2009 10A-7 1. Award a contract to All American Asphalt, the lowest responsible bidder, in accordance with unit bid prices in the estimated amount of $1,892,000 for construction of McFadden Avenue and Civic Center Drive Rehabilitation. 2. Approve a Funding Analysis with a total estimated construction cost of $2,365,000. MOTION: Alvarez SECOND: Sarmiento VOTE: AYES: Alvarez, Bustamante, Martinez, Sarmiento, Tinajero, Pulido (6) NOES: None (0) ABSTAIN: None (0) ABSENT: Benavides (1) 23B CONTRACT AWARD FOR FIFTH STREET REHABILITATION BETWEEN JACKSON AND SULLIVAN STREETS (PROJECT N0.091742) -Public Works Agency MOTION: 1. Award a contract to All American Asphalt, the lowest responsible bidder, in accordance with unit bid prices for the base bid in the estimated amount of $833,501.50 for construction of Fifth Street Rehabilitation between Jackson and Sullivan Streets. 2. Approve a Funding Analysis with a total estimated construction cost of $1,041,900. MOTION: Alvarez SECOND: Sarmiento VOTE: AYES: Alvarez, Bustamante, Martinez, Sarmiento, Tinajero, Pulido (6) NOES: None (0) ABSTAIN: None (0) ABSENT: Benavides (1) 23C CONTRACT AWARD FOR 2009-2010 OMNIBUS CONCRETE IMPROVEMENTS (PROJECT N0.106716) -Public Works Agency CITY COUNCIL MINUTES 264 NOVEMBER 2, 2009 10A-8 MOTION: 1. Award a contract to C.J. Construction, Inc., the lowest responsible bidder, in accordance with unit bid prices in the estimated amount of $212,562.50 for construction of Omnibus Improvements. 2. Approve a Funding Analysis with a total estimated construction cost of $245,000. AGREEMENTS MOTION: Authorize the City Manager and Clerk of the Council to execute the following agreements, subject to non-substantive changes approved by the City Manager and City Attorney. (Item 25A through 25H, and 25K through 25S) 25A AGMT NO. 2009-174 - GEOFILE DATASET MAINTENANCE AND ENHANCEMENTS -Execute an amendment with GIS Data Resources, Inc. in an additional amount not to exceed $10,000 -Fire Department 25B AGMT NO. 2009-175 - HISTORIC PRESERVATION PROPERTY AGREEMENT NO. 2008-30 -With Carin C. and Bertram M. Kager for the structure at 222 South Birch Street (Stein House) -Planning and Building Agency 25C AGMT NO. 2009-176 - HISTORIC PRESERVATION PROPERTY AGREEMENT NO. 2009-01 -With Richard and Mary Coleman for the structure at 2360 N. North Park Boulevard (Horton House) -Planning and Building Agency 25D AGMT NO. 2009-177 - HISTORIC PROPERTY PRESERVATION AGREEMENT NO. 2009-02 -With Carole W. Lankford for the structure at 1914 North Victoria Drive (Segerstrom House) -Planning and Building Agency 25E AGMT NO. 2009-178 - HISTORIC PROPERTY PRESERVATION AGREEMENT NO. 2009-03 -With John and Patricia Bretza for the structure located at 1917 North Victoria Drive (Hoiles House) -Planning and Building Agency 25F AGMT NO. 2009-179 - HISTORIC PROPERTY PRESERVATION AGREEMENT NO. 2009-04 -With Noel and Clare Bonn for the structure located at 1541 East Fourth Street (Safely House) -Planning and Building Agency 25G AGMT NO. 2009-180 - HISTORIC PROPERTY PRESERVATION AGREEMENT NO. 2009-05 -With William C. and Carmen E. McEwen for CITY COUNCIL MINUTES 265 NOVEMBER 2, 2009 10A-9 the structure located at 2033 North Flower Street (Meyers-Tubbs House) - Planning and Building Agency 25H AGMT NO. 2009-181 - HISTORIC PROPERTY PRESERVATION AGREEMENT NO. 2009-06 -With Dean A. and Ruth A. Reynolds for the structure located at 2204 North Greenleaf Street (Alice Peterson House) - Planning and Building Agency 251 AGMT NO. 2009-182 -DEVELOPMENT AND IMPLEMENTATION OF A SCHOOL BASED MENTORING PROGRAM AT CARR INTERMEDIATE SCHOOL -Police Department MOTION: Authorize the City Manager and Clerk of the Council to execute the following agreement, subject to non-substantive changes approved by the City Manager and City Attorney -With Big Brothers Big Sisters of Orange County in an amount not to exceed $48,000. MOTION: Alvarez SECOND: Martinez VOTE: AYES: Alvarez, Benavides, Bustamante, Martinez, Sarmiento, Tinajero, Pulido (7) NOES: None (0) ABSTAIN: None (0) ABSENT: None (0) 25J AGMT NO. 2009-183 - IMPLEMENT AND SUPPORT A LEARNING CENTER AND ARTS & LITERACY PROGRAM AT THE SANTA ANA POLICE ATHLETIC AND ACTIVITIES CENTER (SAPAAL) - Police Department MOTION: Authorize the City Manager and Clerk of the Council to execute the following agreement, subject to non-substantive changes approved by the City Manager and City Attorney -With the Orange County Children's Therapeutic Arts Center in an amount not to exceed $39,000. MOTION: Alvarez SECOND: Martinez VOTE: AYES: Alvarez, Benavides, Bustamante, Martinez, Sarmiento, Tinajero, Pulido (7) NOES: None (0) CITY COUNCIL MINUTES 266 NOVEMBER 2, 2009 10A-10 ABSTAIN: None (0) ABSENT: None (0) 25K AGMT NO. 2009-184 - HAZARDOUS MATERIAL EMERGENCY RESPONSE SERVICES -Execute an amendment with Allied International Emergency, LLC., to increase the compensation by an amount not to exceed $60,000 -Police Department 25L AGMT NO. 2009-185 -SOFTWARE MAINTENANCE AND TECHNICAL SUPPORT -Execute an amendment with Bentley Systems, Inc. in an amount not exceed $39,900 per year -Public Works Agency 25M AGMT NO. 2009-186 -SECURITY GUARD SERVICES -Execute an amendment with Securitas Security Services USA, Inc. for a term of one year in an amount not to exceed $415,410 -Public Works Agency 25N AGMT NO. 2009-187 -VIDEO SURVEILLANCE SYSTEM AT SANTA ANA REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION CENTER (SARTC) -With the Orange County Transportation Authority to allow for the design, installation and acceptance of a video surveillance system (VSS) -Public Works Agency 250 AGMT NO. 2009-188 - PARKING MANAGEMENT SERVICES FOR FOUR MULTI-LEVEL PARKING FACILITIES -With Parking Concepts, Inc. of Los Agencies in an amount not to exceed $28,800 for cone-year term -Community Development Agency 25P AGMT NO. 2009-189 -HOUSING OPPORTUNITY FOR PERSONS WITH AIDS (HOPWA) PROGRAM -Execute an amendment with the County of Orange Health Care Agency adding an additional $262,000 for a total of $1,237,043- Community Development Agency 25Q AGMT NO. 2009-190 -MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING -With the Office of the Governor and Orange County United Way for the Bank on Santa Ana initiative -Community Development Agency 25R AGMT NO. 2009-191 -INTEGRATED SERVICE DELIVERY MODEL AT SANTA ANA WORK CENTER -With O'Reilly & Associates in an amount of $38,000 for cone-year term -Community Development Agency 25S AGMT NO. 2009-192 -MAINTENANCE, SERVICE AND REPAIR OF AIR CONDITIONING UNITS -Execute an amendment with TRANE, Inc. in the amount of $28,500 for a total amount not to exceed $53,500 -Community Development Agency MISCELLANEOUS -BUDGET CITY COUNCIL MINUTES 267 NOVEMBER 2, 2009 10A-11 29A TARGET STORES DONATION FOR GRAFFITI ENFORCEMENT -Police Department MOTION: 1. Authorize the acceptance of a donation in the amount of $2,000 from the Target Stores, to be used by the Police Department Graffiti Task Force Unit. 2. Approve an appropriation adjustment. (Requires five affirmative votes) APPROPRIATION ADJUSTMENT NO. 10-034 - Recognizing the donation in the amount of $2,000 into the Police Special Revenue Fund, Gifts and Donations revenue account and appropriate same into the Police Special revenue fund, Operating Materials and Supplies expenditure account. LAND USE MATTERS CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT /VARIANCES 31A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2009-18 TO ALLOW AN INDOOR SPORTS FACILITY - 1501 EAST MCFADDEN AVENUE -Planning and Building Agency Recommended Action approved by the Planning Commission on October 12, 2009 by a 5-0 vote (Yrarrazaval absent) Applicant: Arturo Saucedo. MOTION: Receive and file the staff report approving Conditional Use Permit No 2009-18 as conditioned. MOTION: Sarmiento SECOND: Martinez VOTE: AYES: Alvarez, Benavides, Bustamante, Martinez, Sarmiento, Tinajero, Pulido (7) NOES: None (0) ABSTAIN: None (0) ABSENT: None (0) CITY COUNCIL MINUTES 268 NOVEMBER 2, 2009 10A-12 **END OF CONSENT CALENDAR** BUSINESS CALENDAR RESOLUTIONS 55A AUTHORIZE THE EXECUTION OF A PURCHASE AND SALE AGREEMENT FOR THE CITY OF SANTA ANA PROPOSITION 1A SECURITIZATION PROGRAM -Finance & Management Services MOTION: Adopt a resolution. RESOLUTION NO. 2009-053 - A resolution of the City Council of the City of Santa Ana approving the form of and authorizing the execution and delivery of a purchase and sale agreement and related documents with respect to the sale of the seller's Proposition 1 A Receivable from the State; and directing and authorizing certain other actions in connection therewith MOTION: Alvarez SECOND: Sarmiento VOTE: AYES: Alvarez, Benavides, Bustamante, Martinez, Sarmiento, Tinajero, Pulido (7) NOES: None (0) ABSTAIN: None (0) ABSENT: None (0) 55B ACCEPT ADDITIONAL FY 2007 PUBLIC SAFETY INTEROPERABLE COMMUNICATIONS GRANT FUNDS (PSIC) -Police Department MOTION: 1. Adopt a resolution. RESOLUTION NO. 2009-054 - A resolution of the City Council of the City of Santa Ana accepting additional Grant Award Funds and Authorizing the City Manager or the Chief of Police to approve an appropriation adjustment for the Public Safety Interoperable Communications Grant Program 2. Approve an appropriation adjustment. (Requires five affirmative votes) CITY COUNCIL MINUTES 269 NOVEMBER 2, 2009 10A-13 APPROPRIATION ADJUSTMENT NO. 10-033 - Recognizing the additional FY 2007 Public Safety Interoperable Communications Grant Funds in the amount of $196,774 in revenue account and appropriate same in the FY 2007 Public Safety Interoperable Communications Grant expenditure accounts. MOTION: Martinez SECOND: Alvarez VOTE: AYES: Alvarez, Benavides, Bustamante, Martinez, Sarmiento, Tinajero, Pulido (7) NOES: None (0) ABSTAIN: None (0) ABSENT: None (0) 55C AUTHORIZE MEMBERSHIP PAYMENT TO INTEGRATED LAW AND JUSTICE AGENCY FOR ORANGE COUNTY (ILJAOC) - Police Department MOTION: Adopt a resolution. RESOLUTION NO. 2009-055 - A resolution of the City Council of the City of Santa Ana authorizing the City of Santa Ana Police Department to authorize the expenditure of funds for services provided as part of the City of Santa Ana's membership in the integrated Law and Justice Agency for Orange County for the 2009-2010 Fiscal Year MOTION: Bustamante SECOND: Martinez VOTE: AYES: Alvarez, Benavides, Bustamante, Martinez, Sarmiento, Tinajero, Pulido (7) NOES: None (0) ABSTAIN: None (0) ABSENT: None (0) 55D ADOPT A CITY OF SANTA ANA BIKEWAYS STRATEGIC PLAN AND AUTHORIZE SUBMISSION OF THE BICYCLE TRANSPORTATION ACCOUNT PROJECT APPLICATION -Public Works Agency MOTION: 1. Adopt a resolution. CITY COUNCIL MINUTES 270 NOVEMBER 2, 2009 10A-14 RESOLUTION NO. 2009-056 - A resolution of the City Council of the City of Santa Ana adopting the Bikeways Strategic Plan and authorizing the submission of a project for funding under the submission of a project for funding under the Bicycle Transportation Account 2. Authorize the Executive Director of the Parks, Recreation and Community Services Agency and/or the Executive Director of Public Works Agency to submit the Flower Street bike trail extension project for funding consideration under the Bicycle Transportation Account. MOTION: Alvarez SECOND: Martinez VOTE: AYES: Alvarez, Benavides, Bustamante, Martinez, Sarmiento, Tinajero, Pulido (7) NOES: None (0) ABSTAIN: None (0) ABSENT: None (0) 55E CONTINUATION OF ADDITIONAL PARTIALLY-PAID TEMPORARY MILITARY LEAVE OF ABSENCE FOR CITY EMPLOYEES CALLED TO ACTIVE DUTY -Personnel Services Agency MOTION: Adopt a resolution. RESOLUTION NO. 2009-057 - A resolution of the City Council of the City of Santa Ana amending Resolution No. 2001-065 to provide for continuation of additional partially-paid temporary military leave of absence for city employees called to active duty with the Armed Forces and continuation of benefits for their dependents. MOTION: Alvarez SECOND: Tinajero VOTE: AYES: Alvarez, Benavides, Bustamante, Martinez, Sarmiento, Tinajero, Pulido (7) NOES: None (0) ABSTAIN: None (0) ABSENT: None (0) CITY COUNCIL MINUTES 271 NOVEMBER 2, 2009 10A-15 PUBLIC HEARINGS 75A PUBLIC HEARING -ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT NO. 2009-05 TO AMEND ALLOWED USES WITHIN THE BROADWAY CORRIDOR DISTRICT OF THE MIDTOWN SPECIFIC PLAN (SP-3) -Planning and Building Agency Recommended Action approved by the Planning Commission on August 24, 2009 by a 7-0 vote. Legal Notice published in the O.C. Reporter on August 28, 2009. Continued from the September 8, 2009, October 5, 2009, and the October 19, 2009 City Council Meetings by a vote of 7-0. Applicant: City of Santa Ana Staff presentation given by Jay Trevino, Executive Director of the Planning and Building Agency. The Mayor opened the Public Hearing. Dr. Audrey Yamagata-Noji representing the Santa Ana Unified School District spoke in support of item; there was no written communication received, and the Mayor closed the Hearing. MOTION: Place ordinance on first reading and authorize publication of title. ORDINANCE NO. NS-2797 - An ordinance of the City Council of the City of Santa Ana amending the Midtown Specific Plan to amend the allowed uses in the Broadway Corridor District MOTION: Benavides SECOND: Alvarez VOTE: AYES: Alvarez, Benavides, Bustamante, Martinez, Sarmiento, Tinajero, Pulido (7) NOES: None (0) ABSTAIN: None (0) ABSENT: None (0) 75B PUBLIC HEARING -ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT NO. 2009-06 TO EXPAND EXISTING STANDARDS FOR GRAFFITI ABATEMENT AND TO AMEND THE CITYWIDE DESIGN GUIDELINES -Planning and Building Agency CITY COUNCIL MINUTES 272 NOVEMBER 2, 2009 10A-16 Recommended Action approved by the Planning Commission on September 14, 2009 by a 5-0 vote (Leo absent) Legal Notice published in the O.C. Reporter on October 23, 2009. Applicant: City of Santa Ana Staff presentation given by Jay Trevino, Executive Director of the Planning and Building Agency. The Mayor opened the Public Hearing; there was no written communication received, nor public speakers; and closed the Hearing. MOTION: 1. Place ordinance on first reading and authorize publication of title. ORDINANCE NO. NS-2798 - An ordinance of the City Council of the City of Santa Ana amending the Santa Ana Municipal Code to the update the City's regulation of graffiti 2. Receive and file amendments to the Citywide Design Guidelines. MOTION: Benavides SECOND: Alvarez VOTE: AYES: Alvarez, Benavides, Bustamante, Martinez, Sarmiento, Tinajero, Pulido (7) NOES: None (0) ABSTAIN: None (0) ABSENT: None (0) 75C PUBLIC HEARING - ORDINANCE AMENDMENT NO. 2009-02 TO AMEND CHAPTER 30 OF THE SANTA ANA MUNICIPAL CODE TO ESTABLISH A NEW APPLICATION FEE FOR THE PRIVATE PARTY NOMINATION OF PROPERTIES OF THE SANTA ANA REGISTER OF HISTORICAL PROPERTIES -Planning and Building Agency Legal Notice published in the O.C. Reporter on October 23, 2009 and October 28, 2009. MOTION: Continue the matter to the January 4, 2010 City Council Meeting, per staff's request. MOTION: Tinajero SECOND: Martinez CITY COUNCIL MINUTES 273 NOVEMBER 2, 2009 10A-17 VOTE: AYES: Alvarez, Benavides, Bustamante, Martinez, Sarmiento, Tinajero, Pulido (7) NOES: None (0) ABSTAIN: None (0) ABSENT: None (0) 75D PUBLIC HEARING -APPEAL NO. 2009-04 FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2006-20 AND VARIANCE NO. 2006-13 - 202 EAST SEVENTEENTH STREET -Planning and Building Agency Recommended Action approved by the Planning Commission on September 14, 2009 by a 3-1 vote (Gartner opposed, Betancourt abstained, Leo absent) Legal Notice published in the O.C. Reporter on October 23, 2009, and notices mailed. Applicant: Caribou Industries Councilmember Bustamante noted that he would abstain from voting on this item due to proximity to a business partnership, for which he serves as a Board Member and left the dais. Staff presentation given by Jay Trevino, Executive Director of the Planning and Building Agency. The Mayor opened the Public Hearing; there was no written communication received, nor public speakers; and closed the Hearing. MOTION: Continue the matter for 30 days. MOTION: Benavides SECOND: Alvarez VOTE: AYES: Alvarez, Benavides, Martinez, Sarmiento, Tinajero, Pulido (6) NOES: None (0) ABSTAIN: Bustamante (1) ABSENT: None (0) * Councilmember Bustamante returned to the dais. CITY COUNCIL MINUTES 274 NOVEMBER 2, 2009 10A-18 75E PUBLIC HEARING - AMENDMENT APPLICATION NO. 2009-02, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2009-20 AND VARIANCE NO. 2009- 08 TO ALLOW A MIXED USE OFFICE AND THREE-UNIT RESIDENTIAL PROJECT WITH SURFACE PARKING LOT - 1331 WEST FIRST STREET -Planning and Building Agency Recommended Action approved by the Planning Commission on October 12, 2009 by a 5-0 vote (Yrarrazaval absent) Legal Notice published in the O.C. Reporter on October 23, 2009, and notices mailed. Applicant: Global Empire LLC The Mayor opened the Public Hearing; there was no written communication received, nor public speakers; and closed the Hearing. MOTION: 1. Place ordinance on first reading and authorize publication of title. ORDINANCE NO. NS-2799 - An ordinance of the City Council of the City of Santa Ana Rezoning the property located at 107 North Hesperian Street from Two-Family Residence (R2) to Two-Family Residence with "B" suffix (RB-B) (AA No. 2009-02) 2. Adopt a resolution. RESOLUTION NO. 2009-058 - A resolution of the City Council of the City of Santa Ana approving granting Conditional Use Permit No. 2009-20 as conditioned to permit "B" suffix Parking and Variance Nos. 2009-08 and 2009-08 as conditioned to allow a reduction in minimum lot size for the property located at 1331 West First Street MOTION: Alvarez SECOND: Benavides VOTE: AYES: Alvarez, Benavides, Bustamante, Martinez, Sarmiento, Tinajero, Pulido (7) NOES: None (0) ABSTAIN: None (0) ABSENT: None (0) CITY COUNCIL MINUTES 275 NOVEMBER 2, 2009 10A-19 COUNCIL RECESSED TO THE COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY MEETING AT 8:00 P.M. FOLLOWED BY THE HOUSING AUTHORITY MEETING AND RECONVENED AT 8:25 P.M. WITH SAME MEMBERS PRESENT CITY MANAGER AND COUNCIL COMMENTS 90A CITY MANAGER'S COMMENTS -None 90B CITY COUNCILMEMBER COMMENTS Councilmember Sarmiento • Commented on the need for open space throughout City; specifically mentioned a pocket park on the corner of McFadden and Bishop being developed in coordination with private land owner and non-profit organization; suggested other similar parks be developed in empty lots; City to also partner with school district on joint use agreements; State lobbyist to research grant funds available for such projects. Councilmember Martinez: • Thanked Councilmember Sarmiento for facilitating discussion among pocket park developers; • Invited all to attend upcoming `Noches de Altares' at the Fiesta Marketplace, and `Dia de los Muertos' events at Bowers Museum and Bowers Kidseum on Saturday, November 7tn; • Commented on the improvements made at Valley High School through Measure G funds and urged the expansion of joint-use agreements to provide for additional open space/sports program and keep Santa Ana youth healthy; and • Welcomed Raul Godinez III, newly appointed Executive Director of the Public Works Agency to the City of Santa Ana. Councilmember Bustamante: • Wished all a Happy Veterans Day; and • Welcomed newly appointed Public Works Director, Mr. Godinez to the City. Councilmember Tinaiero: • Congratulated local high school football programs on a successful season, some schools in playoffs; Segerstrom High School defeated Orange and playing for Golden West Championship; • Presented his (National Forensic League's Speech and Debate Championship) ring recently received for national speech competition; and • Requested that the Council adjourn the meeting in honor of close friend, Lawrence Gregory Howard. CITY COUNCIL MINUTES 276 NOVEMBER 2, 2009 10A-20 Councilmember Benavides • Congratulated staff on the Bikeways Strategic Plan approved at tonight's Council Meeting and urged staff to explore further transportation alternatives; • Attended community meeting in the Station District and requested staff engage area residents and hold regular project status meetings; • Welcomed newly appointed Executive Director of Public Works, Mr. Godinez. Mayor Pro Tem Alvarez: • Welcomed Mr. Godinez to the City of Santa Ana and looks forward to working with him; • Thanked outgoing City commissioners on their dedication to the City and their efforts to create a better Santa Ana; • Congratulated Councilmember Tinajero on being awarded the prestigious California Golden Bell Award; • Commented on significance of `Dia de Los Muertos' and wished the community a Happy Thanksgiving. Mayor Pulido • Commented on `Dia de los Muertos' and `All Saints Day'. ADJOURNED 8:40 P.M. -The next regular meeting of the City Council is scheduled for Monday, November 16, 2009 at 5:30 p.m. for the Closed Session Meeting, immediately followed to the Regular Business Meeting in the Police Community Room, 60 Civic Center Plaza, Santa Ana, California. In Memory of Lawrence Gregory Howard Maria D. Huizar Clerk of the Council CITY COUNCIL MINUTES 277 NOVEMBER 2, 2009 10A-21 10A-22 ORDINANCE NO. NS-X~CX AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA ANA AMENDING THE MIDTOWN SPECIFIC PLAN TO AMEND THE ALLOWED USES IN THE BROADWAY CORRIDOR DISTRICT THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA ANA DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. The City Council of the City of Santa Ana does hereby find, determine and declare as follows: A. The Midtown Specific Plan was presented to the City Council at its meeting of November 18, 1996, and approved and adopted by Ordinance No. NS-2308 on or about December 2, 1996. B. In the almost 13 years since adoption of the Midtown Specific Plan it has been amended several times. C. Staff has recommended amending the uses permitted in the Broadway Corridor District of the Midtown Specific Plan to add the following uses: "Museums, libraries, galleries, theater and cinema, except those that require a conditional use permit." These uses are permitted in other Districts that make up the Plan, but are not currently permitted in the Broadway Corridor District. Section 2. Page 71 of Chapter 7 of the Midtown Specific Plan, delineating permitted uses in the Broadway Corridor is hereby amended as set forth in Exhibit 1 to this Ordinance to add the following permitted uses as a new paragraph no. 5: 5. Museums, libraries, galleries, theater and cinema except those that require a conditional use permit Section 3. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase or portion of this ordinance 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 ordinance. The City Council of the City of Santa Ana hereby declares that it would have adopted this ordinance 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. 11 A-1 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 CERTIFICATE OF ATTESTATION AND ORIGINALITY I, MARIA D. HUIZAR, Clerk of the Council, do hereby attest to and certify the attached Ordinance No. NS- to be the original ordinance adopted by the City Council of the City of Santa Ana on ,and that said ordinance was published in ~ accordance with the Charter of the City of Santa Ana. Date: Clerk of the Council City of Santa Ana 11 A-2 Midfown Specific Plan EXHIBIT 1 DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS Also shown for reference are major features of the concept plan, including major open spaces, planned parking facilities and pedestrian access ways. Permitted and Conditionally Permitted Uses Permitted Uses Building Height Permitted uses in the Broadway Corridor district shall be as follows. Height is specified by number of stories and feet as measured from 1. Multiple family dwellings in buildings used for this purpose at the the pedestrian ground plane of the site. time of adoption of this specific plan. The maximum height for all buildings is 35 feet, or three stories, 2. Professional, business and administrative offices, including whichever is less. government, nonprofit, and similar office uses. Bail bonds are not permitted. Setbacks 3. Medical and dental clinics, except psychology and counseling. Setbacks at ground level are established to enhance pedestrian 4. Day care facilities. space throughout the district, create compatible relationships between existing and future building street elevations and recognize 5. Museums, libraries, galleries. theaterand cinema. except opportunities to create new open space resources, such as plazas, those thaf require a conditional use permit (Uses added pedestrian ways and landscaped areas. Conditionally Permitted Uses The major setback conditions are discussed below by street: The following uses may be permitted subject to the issuance of a Broadway. A twenty foot setback is required throughout the district. Conditional Use Permit pursuant to the Santa Ana Municipal Code. The majority of existing structures meet this standard. A twenty 1. Places of worship provided they are located in freestanding foot setback is required throughout the district.. The generous buildings only. front yards is one of the most important characteristics of 2. Congregate care facilities, including convalescent homes, Broadway, and maintenance of these landscaped open spaces nursing homes, rest homes and extended care facilities. is crucial to preserving the streetscape. 3. Counseling and psychology offices. Sycamore Street. A 30 foot setback is required from Tenth Street to 4. Live-work studios with galleries. Washington. The long range land use policy is passive open space centrally located to the Midtown District. A 10 foot 5. Cafes, restaurants or coffee houses, not exceeding 2,500 setback is required from Washington to Fifteenth Street. square feet. For the block from Washington to Fifteenth Street, a ten foot setback i is required for new development. Several existing buildings likely to Building Envelopes remain have lesser setbacks. The parcels at the Washington Street corner are designated as open space. General The permitted building envelopes in the Broadway Corridor District Floor Area Ratio are defined by height and front yard setback requirements established for each block. Their primary purpose is to establish the The General Plan designates a 0.5 to 2.0 FAR for the Broadway relationship between public and private pedestrian space and the Corridor, while most small lot development, typical for the corridor, building wall which forms its edge. Setbacks define pedestrian space would not exceed 0.5 FAR. at the ground level and show where higher buildings (greater than 35 feet) can be sited. Exhibit 38, Broadway Corridor Height and Setbacks, defines the Parcel Size setback dimensions from property lines and other benchmarks throughout the district, and height limits and setbacks for buildings The minimum parcel area is 6,000 square feet with a minimum higher than 35 feet. Reference information on the exhibit shows frontage of 50 feet. existing buildings that are likely to remain, thereby indicating relationships between existing buildings an potential new development or revitalization. ....u~.,.,,. L1V{AUVV(A~ ..~..~u~.._..~~~~~~ 11A-3 71 Chapter 7: Broadway Corridor District 1'~ A-4 ORDINANCE NO. NS-XXX AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA ANA AMENDING THE SANTA ANA MUNICPAL CODE TO UPDATE THE CITY'S REGULATION OF GRAFFITI THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA ANA DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. The City Council of the City of Santa Ana hereby finds, determines and declares as follows: A. The Council finds and determines that the spread of graffiti on public and private buildings, walls, signs and other structures or places or other surfaces causes blight within the City, resulting in a genuine threat to life, incalculable economic losses to businesses in terms of physical property, profits and goodwill, and the general deterioration of property and business values for adjacent and surrounding properties. B. The Council further finds and determines that the impacts of graffiti are far beyond the cost of cleanup or removal. Not only is graffiti a property crime, but a social crime on the quality of life and freedom from intimidation citizens desire within their neighborhoods. C. The City Council intends, through the adoption of this Ordinance, to expand existing standards for Graffiti Abatement and to amend the Citywide Design Guidelines. In addition, this Ordinance adopts recommendations for the abatement of graffiti placed on above ground utility fixtures, including additional tools to require standardized colors for above ground fixtures, application of anti-graffiti coating to newly installed fixtures, and removal of, or painting over, graffiti in a timely manner. D. The City Council is authorized to enact this Ordinance pursuant to its police powers as specified in Section 200 of the City Charter, as well as various provision of State Law including Sections 1714, et seq. of the California Civil Code and Sections 38772, et seq. of the California Government Code. E. All provisions of the Santa Ana Municipal Code which are repeated herein are repeated solely in order to comply with the provisions of Section 418 of the City Charter. Any such restatement of existing provisions of the Code is not intended, nor shall it be interpreted, as constituting a new action or decision of the City Council, but rather such provisions are repeated for tracking purposes only in conformance with the Charter. Ordinance No. NS-XXX 11 B ~ 1 Page 1 of 5 F. On August 17, 2009, the City Council adopted Ordinance No. NS-2791 amending the Santa Ana Municipal Code to update the City's regulation of graffiti. The planning and public works issues related to the instant Ordinance were separated from the previous ordinance in order to allow the Planning Commission and staff an opportunity to review the material. G. On September 14, 2009, the Planning Commission recommended that the City Council adopt an ordinance approving Zoning Ordinance Amendment No. 2009-06, and receive and file amendments to the Citywide Design Guidelines by a vote of 5:0. H. Staff also met with the utility companies serving the City to discuss the amendments, and the utility companies have no objections to the ordinance. Section 2. In accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act, the proposed project is exempt from further review. Categorical Exemption ER 2009-107 will be filed for the project. Pursuant to Title XIV, California Code of Regulations ("CCR") § 735.5(c)(1), the City Council has determined that, after considering the record as a whole, there is no evidence that the proposed project will have the potential for any adverse effect on wildlife resources or the ecological habitat upon which wildlife resources depend. Therefore, pursuant to Fish and Game Code § 711.2 and Title XIV, CCR § 735.5(a)(3), the payment of Fish and Game Department filing fees is not required in conjunction with this project. Section 3. Section 33-32.20 is added to Chapter 33 of the Santa Ana Municipal Code to read in full as follows: Sec. 33-32.20. Standards for graffiti abatement. (a) Common Utility Colors and Paint-Type. Any gas, electric, telephone, water, sewer, cable, telephone and other utility operating in the City shall paint its above-surface fixtures with a uniform paint type, specific to each company, and color that meets with the approval of the Director of Public Works, or the designee of the Director of Public Works. (b) Condition Encroachment Permits. All encroachment permits issued by the City shall, among such other things, be conditioned: i. The permittee's application of an anti-graffiti material to the encroaching object of a type and nature that is acceptable to the Director of Public Works, or the designee of the Director of Public Works; Ordinance No. NS-XXX Page 2 of 6 11 B-2 ii. The permittee's removal of any graffiti within 48 hours, excluding weekends or holidays, after notification; iii. The City's right to remove graffiti or to paint the encroaching object upon the permittee's failure to remove the graffiti within 48 hours, excluding weekends or holidays, after notification; or iv. The permittee's providing the City with sufficient matching paint and/or anti-graffiti material on demand for use in the painting of the encroaching object containing graffiti. Section 4. Section 41-638.2 of the Santa Ana Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as follows: Sec. 41-638.2. Standards for graffiti abatement. (a) Condition Tentative Maps. In approving tentative or parcel maps, conditional use permits, variances, or other similar land use entitlements, the city shall consider imposing any or all of the following conditions, or other similar or related conditions, at the public hearing required by law for approval of the tentative or parcel map, conditional use permit, variance or other similar land use entitlement: i. Use of anti-graffiti material. Developer shall apply an anti-graffiti material of a type and nature that is acceptable to the Executive Director of Planning and Building or designee, to the publicly- viewable surfaces on the improvements to be constructed at the site deemed by the Executive Director of Planning and Building, or designee, to be likely to attract graffiti; ii. Right of access to remove graffiti. Developer shall grant, prior to resale of any of the parcels that are within the territory of the map, the right-of-entry over and access to such parcels, upon forty-eight (48) hours posting of notice by authorized city employees or agents, to the city for the purpose of removing or "painting over" graffiti; iii. Supply City with Graffiti-Removal Material. Developer shall, for a period of two (2) years after the resale of the final lot, provide the City with sufficient matching paint and/or anti-graffiti material on demand for use in the painting over or removal of graffiti; or iv. Owner to immediately remove graffiti. Developer shall, either as part of the general conditions, covenants and restrictions, or separate covenants recorded against individual lots, prior to resale of any of the parcels, covenant in a form satisfactory to the city that Ordinance No. NS-XXX 11 B-3 Page 3 of 5 the owner of the lots shall immediately remove any graffiti placed thereon. (b) Design of Potential Graffiti-Attracting Surfaces. Any applicant for design review approval, conditional use permit, special use permit, development agreement, or other form of development or building permit shall, to the extent deemed feasible by the Executive Director of Planning and Building or designee, have designed any building structures visible from any public or quasi-public place is such a manner to consider prevention of graffiti, including, but not limited to the following: i. Use of a protective coating to provide for the prevention of or the effective and expeditious removal of graffiti ii. Use of additional lighting as a means of deterrence iii. Use of non-solid fencing iv. Use of landscaping designed to cover large expansive walls such as ivy or similar clinging vegetation; v. Use of architectural design to break up long, continuous walls or solid areas; or vi. Use of a water projection system activated by a motion sensor. (c) Retro-Fit Existing Graffiti-Attracting Surfaces: Non-Residential Structures. The following provisions may be incorporated in a graffiti eradication order issued pursuant to Article VII of Chapter 17 of this Code, at the discretion of the City and/or hearing officer. i. At Owner's Expense. Any surface of a structure on a parcel of land used for non-residential purposes that has been defaced with graffiti more than five (5) times in a twelve (12) month period shall be declared a public nuisance and required to be retrofitted, at the cost of the property owner, with features or qualities as may be established by the City as necessary to reduce the attractiveness of the surface for graffiti, or as necessary to permit more convenient or efficient removal of graffiti. In exercising the authority hereunder, the City may not impose a cost on the property owner of an amount greater than that established or approved by City Council. ii. At City's Cost. The owner of property used for non-residential purposes on which is located a surface of a structure that has been defaced with graffiti more than five (5) times in a twelve (12) month period shall permit the City to enter the property and, at the City's cost, make modifications as necessary to reduce the attractiveness Ordinance No. NS-XXX Page 4 of 6 11 B-4 of the surface for graffiti, or as necessary to permit more convenient or efficient removal of graffiti. Section 5. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase or portion of this ordinance 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 ordinance. The City Council of the City of Santa Ana hereby declares that it would have adopted this ordinance 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. ADOPTED this day of , 2009 Miguel A. Pulido Mayor APPROVED AS TO FORM: Joseph W. Fletcher, City Attorney Ryan O. Hodge Deputy City Attorney AYES: Councilmembers NOES: Councilmembers ABSTAIN: Councilmembers NOT PRESENT: Councilmembers CERTIFICATE OF ATTESTATION AND ORIGINALITY I, Maria D. Huizar, Clerk of the Council, do hereby attest to and certify that the attached Ordinance No. NS-XXX to be the original ordinance adopted by the City Council of the City of Santa Ana on ,and that said ordinance was published in accordance with the Charter of the City of Santa Ana. Date: Clerk of the Council City of Santa Ana Ordinance No. NS-XXX 11 B-5 Page 5 of 5 11 B-6 ORDINANCE NO. NS-XXXX AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA ANA REZONING THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 107 NORTH HESPERIAN STREET FROM TWO-FAMILY RESIDENCE (R2) TO TWO-FAMILY RESIDENCE WITH "B" SUFFIX (R2-B) (AA NO. 2009-02) THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA ANA DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. The City Council of the City of Santa Ana does hereby find, determine and declare as follows: A. Applicant is requesting approval of Amendment Application No. 2009-02 to change the zoning designation of the parcel located at 107 North Hesperian Street Avenue from Two-Family Residence (R2) to Two-Family Residence with "B" Suffix (R2-B), which would allow use of the parcel as parking to support development on the remaining properly which is part of this project. B. On October 12, 2009, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing and voted to recommend that the City Council: 1. Adopt an ordinance approving Amendment Application No. 2009-02 for the property located at located at 107 North Hesperian Street. 2. Approve a conditional use permit as conditioned (No. 2009-20) and variance as conditioned (No. 2009-08), to permit development of a new two-story mixed use office and three-unit residential building at 1331 West First Street. C. The zoning designation of Two-Family Residential, B Suffix (R2-B) will allow the parcel on Hesperian Street to be devoted to parking for the project. D. The City Council has weighed and balanced the general plan's policies and has determined that based upon this balancing that this proposed project is consistent with the purpose of the general plan. E. The City Council also adopts as findings all facts presented in the Requests for Council Action dated November 2, 2009 accompanying this matter. For these reasons, and each of them, Amendment Application No. 2009-02 is hereby found and determined to be consistent with the General Plan of the City of Santa Ana and otherwise justified by the public necessity, convenience, and general welfare. 11C-1 F. In accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations, Section 15303), the recommended action is exempt from further review. The Class 3 exemption allows for construction and location of new limited structures in urbanized areas. Categorical Exemption Environmental Review No. 2009-83 will be filed for this project. Section 2. The real property located at located at 107 North Hesperian Street Avenue is hereby rezoned from Two-Family Residence (R2) to Two-Family Residence with "B" Suffix (R2-B),. (AA No. 2009-02) Amended Sectional District Map number 11-15-10 showing the above described change in use district designation, is hereby approved and attached hereto as Exhibit "1" and incorporated by this reference as though fully set forth herein. Section 3. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase or portion of this ordinance 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 ordinance. The City Council of the City of Santa Ana hereby declares that it would have adopted this ordinance 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. 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 11 C-2 CERTIFICATE OF ATTESTATION AND ORIGINALITY I, MARIA D. HUIZAR, Clerk of the Council, do hereby attest to and certify the attached Ordinance No. NS- to be the original ordinance adopted by the City Council of the City of Santa Ana on ,and that said ordinance was published in accordance with the Charter of the City of Santa Ana. Date: Clerk of the Council City of Santa Ana 11 C-3 WESTMINSTER ,,,T,: sT.. AVE. J l" ~ i I I I L u l - 4 q3' a. Q~ R2 F FI R1 ' Rt ~PP/ - D_ kc nl.. .r~ y R. T: Ft al R2 rl-„ F.I_',~ R1 ~ 31 1_~.~Y - R1 FI - R1 P.' ri7 Rt n1 :cl -R_ . R1 a, r R2 R1 R1 RI R? R1 iRl F, ' Rt R• r C. .f p. V R1 R' ~3 F Q,~ R2 ~ R1 R~ Q~~~'~~ Q~ M1 RI' - R1 R2 R2 R? 0 R•, Rt . 1 H[ ~ R? R7 R2 R2 R2 ` SC 82 L t. u.., M1 Mt M1 R1 R1 it• e' ~ ra CI MI A11 -Nt R'-- 1 C ct µR ~,~~rR _ \".1. a~, F2 Ri R2 R2 F2 Lm - Mt M• CZ ~=j.~-1 _ R2 FIRST ST. F, i T ..A I NF FI A= , ~,r - c~ 111'iIMCMrIIJNTA~C A' i;LNL!A_A(::'.Ii: L'_I ll'~:'L _._~F.• ~pll -AIrtIN tilliLLl kiM_ ::IA' C:I~IHII,: I'p t`~,ANNLU ULV_.:i~'61LN1 ~'..rn_ +.a NLM~M i:rru2n 'ARK t, !'()IiIFI A.I.)N'F F t:N An=A,A"i::' 1'HU ~'LANNEII HFSLi_N'AL '.itVtLC;1'MF.N ::.1 -.f;MM ;NIIY;::IMMiN':IAI I,.. ,';V•-1N,MCN?r. i \-~R ~ S*fr F-FAA^IYHF )rN~'. r' - .r. ..n:. t,{;; :.(~MM~.:NIIY;:;iMA1LN;:InL IdU.:~UA1 v'.: Illir; A•' _li:'-'INUU~I NIAL H:> TuVi)~AMI:v -f'RIDfNf,C F, '.y. _ ilt NF A~f:f ;M1,tMt 41, A- M't I HFAYV INL:J<FHIA;, i ICl h'.Jl.: il`LL ~AMILV IiL4'vL V(:' ' ::~Y"RAi (:::.~INFtii M1: iblil liFHv (;pFRA'. I:'M1.S H.1 ti.,HUHNAN AI'AkI MtM1I .s ro - i_.r.- ~ A f 'V fA' fi;i~INCS- 4RTIS'S VII I Alf cl ;~I.N ~='Af;E. : f!f Rf.~InCNT'A. ~R~A'f ~'_ANNL ~tifl(:f'~ly"CcNIL-+ lL '~JL`Y~AY LCNL SU S L II UCVL_:Ji'MLNI ~~U ' y AHtf A (:(:MMhWAi F '~F'nl F-ti4l:NAl ~I' tir..:IFIC: I'LAh '-'r -r+~ r e. ~ - li i:Ml iF ~~f'. A ~ ~ ~If,f ".I IP.I P~ I'I 1N. . U ''/.;h•M I,N. I'~ :C'?I I f:F'IJ'ti' . l - - F At.: A .AA",-_ A.:.:x.. AA-•. Ap.: _,h I - r 1 I I - I7 -T r - S.~+e' S VS.i N IS M1 .;N 14h lA - _ t.,~ rF•r .--:r- s.~ r.1 ~ e! In.e', ..c e~~ .~~..:.er a I T TI • • , • • • , PHEPAHEU E3Y TIIE PLANNING DIVISION CITY OF SANTA ANA. CALIFORNIA .+p vrsc;; _~+av tir EXHIBIT 1 11 C-4 REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION ~au~aanlsr CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: CLERK OF COUNCIL USE ONLY: NOVEL~ER 16, 2009 TITLE: APPROVED ? As Recommended BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS BIANNUAL ? As Amended ATTENDANCE REPORT APRIL THROUGH ? Ordinance on 151 Reading ? Ordinance on 2"d Reading SEPTEMBER 2009 ? Implementing Resolution ? Set Public Hearing For CONTINUED TO FILE NUMBER CITY MANAGER RECOMMENDED ACTION Receive and file Boards and Commissions Biannual Attendance Report. DISCUSSION The Boards and Commissions Attendance Report is prepared biannually to inform the Council regarding member attendance at Board or Commission meetings. Pursuant to Council policy, the City Council may remove board or commission members who incur four unexcused absences within the six- month reporting period. Additionally, City Charter Section 901 provides that three consecutive unexcused absences would result in the vacation of a board or commission position. Examination of the attendance reports revealed that no current members have exceeded the limits for permitted absences. Therefore, the only action required is to receive and file the report. FISCAL IMPACT There is no fiscal impact associated with this action. G~'1'1~= - Maria D. Huizar, Clerk of the Council 13A-1 W N ~ ~ ~ Z~' i i i i i W ~ ~ H ~ W ~ d. ~ p ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ cng ~zg c~i~ o °r° X X X X X O c ~w J V ~ Z ~ a 0 ~ V ~ J~ N Z i i i i i = C V C L d r ~ V D O ~ Z~ i i i i i Q ~O U ~ Q~N ~ d Z L ~ v ~ c~i Q~~ Z ~ ~z°g ~ ~ ~ ~ d Q ~ ~ o ~ _ ~ ~ ZW Q ~ ~ N w X X X X ~ Q ~ ~ N N c a~ lL V ~ ~ ~ c O O Q ~ON j ~ ~ ~ VW'~ ~ ~ "'z~ ~ ~ ~ v ~Q ~ w u Q " = w J ~ ar r Q E ~o N X X X X X d 0 ~ ~ C Z Q = ~ Z ~ Q ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ II Q Z~ i i i i i X m W Q L O W _ y.+ ~ ~ r.+ ~ •(n fn Z J ~ ~ ~ Y ~ ~ J ti: W m ~ ~ ~ ~ U V W m ~ ~ = i~ Q ~ ~ ~ ~ .L ~ ~ = W m > ~ Q 13A-2 ~ ~ w °7 N qp ° o ~ N ~ v (~6 w~ ~ a o ~o c~ ~w J a _ d ~ Z ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~o } .y ~ ~ V o~ E ~ ~ ~ N ~ O ~ V Q ~ Q~N ~ v a, Z _ ~ y ~ Q~ ~ 'cn wo ~ ~ z ~ a _ ~ t, c ~~m o ~ _ ~ ~ c AWN d ~ c o U £ ~ N 0 Zo o H 0 N > a~ C)Z- ~ ~ W ~ ~ x ~ d ~ w Q Q w c J 3 w v ~ E ~o ~ Z o a = ~ Z V Q ~ Q Q ~ u X m W a z z w O ~ can z w Y ~ ~ w w ~ ~ 00 Z U ~ W 0 Z ~ v ~ z ~ Q E ~ ~ ~ m Q U Z 13A-3 N N N m ~ O We ~ W d N d ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ r J a _ d U Z ~ d 0 U ~ ~ Q~ U ~ U ~ a, 0 Q~N w Q~~ Z° Q~E Z W Q. U g NON o LLU ~ OZ° ~ 0 ~Qo ~ a~ HEN ~ VZ_ ~ ~ d W ~ ~ QQ ~ ~ N a a" J R ~ o Z ~ a c Z w a ' Q ~ m w a z z z W g ~ ~ W N ~ ~ a ~ ~ W a~ N a ~ ~ vi a ~ z a ~ ~ vz ~ ~ a = z ° a a ~ W ~ W 2 W V a W J U Z J ~ o ~ w i ~ wQ ~ as o ~ ~ = a ~ ~ m > v ~a J ai Q ~ ~ O ~ O a a ~ ° N a ~ r m 13A-4 W ~ N m Q O N ~ C1 N W ~ 0 ~ (L N ~ N ~ ~ D N ~L ~ ~ ~ s J a d a~ U ~ ~ Z 3 N N p ~ ~o c m V a ~ a~ a> d } w ~ E ~ o ~ ~ o ~ -aa V ~ ~ ~ Z o ~Q~N ~ ~ ~ ~ m L ~ r ~a~ ~ v wo ~ N ~ .Q z ~ c d T i ~ a ZW z g u ~ ~ NWN ~ a ~ W c, a~ ~}Qo a a ~ ~ o ~ ~(,ZcV O_ a~i 3 X W ~L H ~ K W F" Q. Z W ~ II Q ; II N W Q ~ W W ~ -a J a r .a A ~ ~ ~ d Q Z W a r.+ a o II Z d u N x Q ~ x 3 m w ~ _ a o Z ~W Z W N O g Y ~ Z Y ~ w ~ ~ w w U Z O ~ 00 z ~ U a ~ ~ a z a IZ ~ U ~ W ~ W ~ a ~ ~ ~ s a m I° a ~ ~ 13A-5 L'\ ^J m Q V V U U V V V ~ ~ a w v v U v v v v W ® ~ ~ ~g V V U V V U U p 'J W ~ U V U V V V V F- a U1 p V V U U V V V ~ ~ am ~ V ~ U V U V U V V Z ~ O } Q U V U V V U V V J ~ m iv } V U U U U U V ~ `y cd m V V U U V V V p ~ Q 3 po ~ N a w J rn QH ` ~ V v U V V V v ~ in Q~~ z~ ~ ~ `0 QDE ~c ~ v v U ~ ~ v > ~ ~ n t~ c Z W ~ v ~ U ~ U v v ~ Q~ m m \ a LLUN ~ V V U V V U V ~ ~ZO~ ~ ~ D }QD Q ~ ~ HON V V U V U V ~ t~Z- m ~ W ~ x FQ ~ v v ~ ~ ~ ~ W u Q w J ~ V U U V U V U ~ Q _ ~ J ~ ~ ~ Cf m Z w Q~ V V U V V U V Q Z m Q ~ x m W V V U U U V V a z Z W v O g Q O m ~ Z 'fl o o Y c ~ t ~ ~ ~ W d ~ ~ F., m w v v ~ c ~ ~ m G LL Z ~ c a Z ~ ~ ,°Q- c m ~ Z W m a ~ ~ ~ - ~ m ; W ~ ~ om ci c~ ~ o oc ~ o Q V U m 13A-6 ~ m W ~ m G F C M V1 N fn fn ~ fn fn fn - O W m .c I N g 'o a? U Ip ~ V 0 N D .Q ~ ~ co N ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ d ~ 'C J am m V g a H Z N ' ~ d 11 0 y U ~ C N N N fn (n (n fn fn (n '7 g, 41 ~ V ~ ~ m N ~ N ~ ~ io Q F' s. ~ m Z~ ~ WO ~ -o a O ~ ~ C ~ N N ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Z d z ' ~ ~ w a o ~ ~ AWN ~ v aai V ~ ~ o o ~ O Q p ~ a a cn cn cn cn cn cn cn ~ ~~N W m UZ~ U ~ a H .a O ~ W QQ W II `'i ~y~i W fs, ~ a o o Z ~ Q C N N fA !n fA fn fA fn fn ~ Q Q ~ II X m 111 Z Z ~ Z W ~ Q ~ W ~ ~ H Z Q~ Z C7 W W ~ ~ ~ ~ U= Q g ~ ~ Y U Q I- ~ ~ W ~Q d ~w ~ U 0 ~ V O ~ Q~ LLv w O Q ac? Iz ~ ~ W ~ _ ~ Z J Z Z ~ v ~ m a Q O = O ~ ~ Qo c g o a ~ o 00 u. Q U 13A-7 ~ N w O N m 0 O W = ~ a~ ~ w~ ~ y d H ~ ~ Q ~ ~ ~ :i+ J a _ m U ~ Z o • ~ 0 U ~ V U ~ w d ~ fA ~ ~ ~ Uo o a O -a a y Q~~ ~ Z° ~ ~ ~ d u ~d~ ~ ZWQ x ~ ~ Q~~ N W N v ~U ~ ~Zo~ }o ~ ~Qo a ~ a I_-~N a~i UZ- W ~ ~ F- Q w Qa w to Q J ~ ~ ~ ~ C Z Q = d Z ~ a Q ~ I I X m W a Z V Z w m p ~ ~ m m m m ~ E cii Z V j ~ o O ea ~ ~ Y D = ~ m ~ ~ C ~ c d Z ~ ~ U U W ~3 d N N ~ O O a ~ ~ rn E R c c = o ~ o o ~ m ~ a 13A-8 d N W Rf O N w ~ N 1- = ca a ~ L ~ w ~ a ~ a~ o Oo 0 ~ N ~ M N ~ r ~ ~ 3 ~ 7 J ad a V ~ o Z o a ' N > 0 ~ r O Q N U ~ ~ ~ O ~ a~ ~ ~ ~ U ~ = 3 U~ c ~ y o 0 0 , o a Q ~ N c~ aNi a~i E a~ r ~ ~ c m m _ ~ d > Fr- c Qom x ~ NWN ~ a ~ u- V ~ ,a aci c ~ ~Zp Q o F_~N a = m UZ- ~ ; y W 'L ~ x d w = Q Q u w ~ N ~ d +r 'v Q J ~ ~ Z d C ~ O r Q ~ Q ~ _ ~ Q ~ K ~ m u.i o_ .y Q y Z Z w ~ ~ ~ U ° Z Y ~ p ~ ~ ~ W O N ~ W ~ ~ m Z H ~ C U c ~ Q ~ W Z ~ o ~ U ~ Z ~ ~ 3 O a E ~ ~ E w m ~i Q ~ _ ~ 13A-9 ~ N a~ m o ° w ~ ~ a ~ a as ~ g / l a~ ~ ~ ~p v~i o 0 O 'O p ~ N N ~ c J Q ~ M M U ~ v' ~ Z wo aA ~ ~ a ~ ~ ~ 0 ~ as o 0 } N O - ~ m ~ ~ ~ v ~ a~i ~ VO ~ C ~ Q O a ~ Zf- ~ wo v +T+ ~ m QQ~ p c •N V ~ ~ _ ~a~ ~a~i Y~.~ ~ m ZW~ ~ ~ p ~ a Na'N C ~ ~ ~ v a~ L ~U ~ w N~ c o ~ ~ H ~ N p 'a ~ a ~Qp Q a~ VZ- ~ ~ ~ 3 L V WQ ~ m Q w ~Q ~ u Q p w J m ~ -a Q ~ ~o r Z J a~ ~ Z ~ a Q ~ x m ui a z ca ~ w ~ ~ c m t ~ a ~ a p ~ ~ N w to z a ~ z ~ z ~ 1 z p w O ~ w a Y ~ _ ~ Z o ~ w w ~ ~ Q ~ ~ ~ z w m Q 13A-10 m W 0 0 d G'' m W d ~ D n. ~ x x w x x x x ~ o ° N d to Q ~ ~ U ~ ~ w J Q ~ c.i V x x X x ~ x x Z ~ ~ 0 U d m F- ~ ~ a m VO Q ~ 0 ~ m c Q~i ~ ~ rn a~~ Q O ~ c ~ _ a ~ ~ ~ n r c aWa ~ ~'x x x x x X w ~ ~ ~d ~ (AWN cc d Q LLV I ;X x x x x x x ~ o OZ~ ~o ~ }ap a c r x x x X x x x a HEN a ~ ~ N Z. ~ Ufa x x x x x x X w F- ~ n Q a FQ y 0 W x X x X X X ~C J a ~ ~ ~ .a m Q ~ J ~ ~ _ Z aii a c X X !C !C X )C X ~ Z p"' Q y Q ~ A Q ~ o X !C X X X X X x m W ~ Q Z Z W O ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Y ~ 00 a ~ ~ ea C ~ `m V y Q ~ as Z ~ ~ V ~ d W m !L! V W J ~ Q U 13A-11 W~ N X )C X X ~ 1C X N ~ ~ Z c 0 w ~ C~ ~ a, w m w ~ 4 ° N X X X !C X X X - cn p ~ ~ C7 c 'a ~ m J ad U x w x x x x x ~ Z ~ ~ ~ N X W X W X X X R 0 U d } ~ ~ c ~ Q1 ~ ~ X X X X )C W X ~ ~ Vo a ~O a m Q~N m N U U U U U U U H ~ L ~ Q~~ Z ~ axi m QQ~ ~ F. ~ ~ m u ~ ZW*' ~ ao x x x x x w x ~ Q ~ aai ~ AWN m N U U U U U U U c ~ U o ~ OQo G a c -a HEN ~ m VZ- ~ m ~ ~,a ~ ~ ~ X W X X X X X W aQ o u U w N U U U U U U U W Q z ~c ~ ~ ~ a Z ac z a a Q ~ M x x w x x x x x m w a z Z w ~ ~ ~a ~ ~ J w~ V C m N fn L i 'R C ` 10 W ~ W p, t U m U ~ F~ L° w ~ oU a m w is O ~ U 0 m N v v !d d d Y Q U W > ` ~ N g p g v w ~ ~ o ~ ~ d a I- O m a 13A-12 C). W ~ ~ ~ c~`~, X W X X X X X X W W ~ o. r., \ p C_.) ~ ~ D ~ c N X X X X X W X X X _ a~ J d U ~ Z 7 a 0 ~o } R C N ~ X X X X X X X W - r+ y V O ~ y N Uo o 0 N rn Z ` ~ Nom, -~5---_- ~ ~ W D 7 l ~ QO ~ N X W X W X ~ X X X ~ ~ _ _ Q LL Aar Y ~ ~ ~ W L AWN a m ~ o w OUc~ ~ ~ y }a0 C~~ N W W X X X X X X W a FAN O m VW~~ ~ ~ ~ d L x Qa ~ W W ~ ° ~ ~ Q ~ d ~ J G C Z ~ a~ N X X X X X X X X X Z mad a Q ~ II X m W a Z Z w x d d a a o N Z W `m H ~ Y ~ ~ 3 H N Z~ Z~ Y ~ ~ Q m ~ J O p W W O ~ G~ a~ a~ V _ W t > C9 > ~ Z ~ ~ a J ~ C7 ~ N O t o o C7 tip Z O a Z ~ ' ~ m a 13A-13 fA ~ N m ~ O N X X w X ~ x X w > > o, W ~ a m ~ p ~ ~ C7 = ~ r a~ U ~ Z ~ a 0 U ~ ~ _ „ ~ m Uo ~ a 0 0 Zvi ~ ~ Q~°' w° ~ ~ z QOE ~ ~ ~ w u ZWa ~ ~ Qom NWN a~ OZo~ v~ ~ ~o ~Q° a ~ a HON ~ ~w ~ Z_ ~ N U~.a ~ ~ ~ O w F' Q ~ u Q " w N ~ Q ~ ~o ~ O ~ a, Z ~ Q= w a Z Q ~ u X m ii.i a z = Z ~ ~ O N O ~ ~ ~ .L d ~ ~ i A Q ~ ~ d C t4 'a fq ~ ~ ~ ~ W ~ O O ~ ~ LLl ~ ~ ~ Y ~ m C ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ N ~ U ~ ~ ~ ~ L - C ~ = C i ~ Z C p ,O m ~ a ~ ~ N ~ O J ~ ~ d a d Z m Q 13A-14 N ~ O O N O N ~ N ~ L a d ~ d Q d ~ O ~ N O N C ~ ~ U m ~ a~ ~ ~ C C c m ea t m c ~ o -o a . c m ~ R •v ~ v ~ io a~ R c a ~ a > c d ~ ~ ~ L ~ H v 2 3 Q co ~ v a = c a~ R o m ~ ~ ~ o ~ o N V t > L ~ • C~ ~ C ~ N d ~ Q r M !~4 ~j t/J d 7 V _R ~ t V C ~ O ~ C ~ a~ 3 ~ c o ~ •N N _y ~ E C N U ~ H Z r d W ~ L R ~ d G7 ~ ~ ~ F'c- ' 13A-15 I~ 13A-16 REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: CLERK OF COUNCIL USE ONLY: NOVEMBER 16, 2009 TITLE: APPROVED ? As Recommended APPROPRIATION ADJUSTMENT FOR ? As Amended WORKFORCE INVESTMENT ACT ? Ordinance on 15t Reading ? Ordinance on 2"d Reading CALIFORNIA NEW START GRANT ? Implementing Resolution ? Set Public Hearing For CONTINUED TO ' C,-ttY----- _ F I L E N U M B E R CITY MANAGER RECOMMENDED ACTION Approve an appropriation adjustment recognizing $62,742 in Workforce Investment Act funds awarded to the Santa Ana WORK Center by the State of California Employment Development Department for a Prison-to-Employment Program. DISCUSSION In 2007, the Public Safety and Offender Rehabilitation Services Act of 2007 was enacted to reform California's prison system by reducing prison overcrowding and increasing rehabilitative programming. Among its provisions, the Act required California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) to develop an Inmate Treatment and Prison-to- Employment Plan. CDCR developed a partnership with the California Workforce Investment Board and the Employment Development Department to utilize California's One-Stop system to enhance the employability of parolees. In July of 2009, the City of Santa Ana WORK Center was awarded $62,742.00 to provide services to parolees, which will include job search activities and supportive services. Staff will participate in offsite meetings on a monthly basis with the local Parole and Community Team (PACT). PACT is composed of parole officers and other community service workers whose focus is to provide a range of resources and services to assist parolees in their effort to reintegrate into the community. Program participants will be served in various community centers including non profits. Staff anticipates serving 25 participants through this process. This program will operate for 12 months and terminate on June 30, 2010. 20A-1 AA WIA California New Start Grant November 16, 2009 Page 2 FISCAL IMPACT Funds for this program are available in the California New Start account (no. 12318759 -various). APPROVED AS TO FUNDS AND ACCOUNTS: Cynt is J. Ne on Francisco Gutierrez Deputy City Manager for Executive Director Development Services Finance & Management Services Agency Community Development Agency CJN/CDLR/kg 20A-2 REQUEST FOR ,:r COUNCIL ACTION CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: CLERK OF COUNCIL USE ONLY: NOVEMBER 16, 2009 TITLE: APPROVED CONTRACT AWARD FOR LOCAL STREET ? As Recommended SLURRY SEAL (PROJECT N0.106703) ? As Amended ? Ordinance on 1S` Reading ? Ordinance on 2"d Reading ? Implementing Resolution ? Set Public Hearing For CONTINUED TO ~ it ~?`~r~ FILE NUMBER CITY MANAGER RECOMMENDED ACTION 1. Award a contract to American Asphalt South, Inc., the lowest responsible bidder, in accordance with unit bid prices in the estimated amount of $130,150 for construction of slurry sealing of local streets. 2. Approve a Funding Analysis with a total estimated construction cost of $161,900. DISCUSSION Public Works Agency maintains the pavement management system (PMS) that contains street pavement condition data inventory. Based on the PMS program, certain streets have been identified for maintenance to prevent further deterioration and extend its service life (Exhibit 1). A slurry seal is applied to the streets to provide a high durable surface and low cost maintenance. The Notice Inviting Bids was advertised on October 7th and 9th, 2009, and bids were opened on October 27, 2009. A summary of the bid invitations mailed, the bids received, and the bid results follows. Santa Ana Contractors receiving notices: 0 Contractors requesting bidding documents: 9 Bids received: 2 Bids received from Santa Ana Contractors: 0 23A-1 Contract Award For Local Street Slurry Seal November 16, 2009 Page 2 NAME OF RESPONSIVE BIDDER CITY BID AMOUNT 1. American Asphalt South, Inc. Fontana $130,150 2. Pavement Coating Company Mira Loma $147,673 A total of two bids were received and all were responsive. The lowest bid was submitted by American Asphalt South, Inc., for $130,150, which is below the Engineer's estimate of $153,910. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT In accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act, the proposed project is exempt from future review. Categorical Exemption Environmental Review No. 2009-160 will be filed for the project. FISCAL IMPACT The funding analysis shows a total estimated construction cost of $161,900 for the project (Exhibit 2). Funds are available in the Public Works Account for Local Streets Slurry Seal Fund (accounting unit 05917660-66220). APPROVED AS TO FUNDS AND ACCOUNTS: ) Raul Godine Francisco Gut~errez m Executive Di ector Executive Director Public Works Agency Finance & Mgmt. Services Agency K:\Construction\RFCA-draft\11-16-09 Slurry Seal 1D6703 ET 30WD.docx 23A-2 G ~ ~ JUNIPER AV UNIPE AV / ~ r- ~ w ~ P, ON AV o ~ N ~ N ~ z N ~ wl o ~ o w ~ 0 ION 4V ~ > M R HY av 3 } ~ z ~ MURPHY AV z j ~ ~ a vii ° A ORA AV ~ ~ ~ q~Qe~ C.j~ AURAQ,RA ~ O ~ ~ V w SANDA91NTE I ~ ~ KELLERf AV~~~ N w I TAFT ap BEL AV ~ w ~ ~ W i ELEMENTARY ~ ~ ~ ~ N a to = p ~ 0 I STE cNn ~ ~ BE A~ ...1' ~ m a NO . LL ~ ~ •I .•~.~.L STEVENS AV -ST V N AV ~~P~•• I SUNFLOWER A V I I ~O•,••I P • ,1 Y III - PROJECT LOCATION GpT10/y EXHIBIT I /~oJ ~'s,, ciTY couNCi~ CONTRACT AWARD FOR I AGENDA DATE: LOCAL STREET SLURRY SEAL NOVEMBER i6. 2009 (PROJECT NOe 10-6703) 23A-3 FUNDING ANALYSIS PROJECT NO. 10-6703 LOCAL STREET SLURRY SEAL Construction Contract $130,150 Contract Administration $7,800 Inspection and Testing $10,935 Contingencies $13,015 TOTAL ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION COSTS $161,900 Exhibit 2 23A-4 REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION ~ CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: - - CLERK OF COUNCIL USE ONLY: NOVEMBER 16, 2009 TITLE: APPROVED CONTRACT AWARD FOR MEMORIAL ? As Recommended PARK POOL RENOVATION (PROJECT ? As Amended sc ? Ordinance on 1 Reading NO.O 8 - 6 016 ) ? Ordinance on 2"d Reading ? Implementing Resolution ? Set Public Hearing For CONTINUED TO ti ,~~w-~~ FILE NUMBER CITY MANAGER RECOMMENDED ACTION 1. Award a contract to South Coast Pool Plastering, Inc., the lowest responsible bidder, in accordance with unit bid prices for the base bid plus add-on alternate B in the estimated amount of $255,152.20 for construction of Memorial Park Pool Renovation. 2. Approve a Funding Analysis with a total estimated construction cost of $318,900. DISCUSSION Santa Ana Memorial Park Pool was constructed in 1961 and was last renovated in 1994 (Exhibit 1). This renovation will help address recent changes to health code regulations and reduce ongoing deferred maintenance costs. In addition, the renovation will address leaks in the pool structure, replacement of mechanical equipment, and installation of new pool plaster, tiles, and underwater lights. Once completed, the renovation will improve the safety and visual appearance of the pool for the estimated 10,000 to 15,000 community members that use it each year. The Notice Inviting Bids was advertised on September 30th and October 2, 2009, and bids were opened on October 27, 2009. A summary of the bid invitations mailed, bids received, and bid results follows. Santa Ana Contractors receiving notices: 20 Contractors requesting bidding documents: 10 Bids received: 2 Bids received from Santa Ana Contractors: 0 23B-1 Contract Award For Memorial Park Pool Renovation November 16, 2009 Page 2 NAME OF RESPONSIVE BIDDER CITY Base Bid TOTAL BASE BID PLUS ADD-ON ALTERNATE B 1. South Coast Pool Plastering, Inc. Lakeside $248,422.20 $255,152.20 2. Condor, Inc. E1 Monte $310,084.00 $346,984.00 A total of two bids were received and both w ere responsive. The lowest base bid plus add-on alternate B was submitted by South Coast Pool Plastering, Inc., for $255,152.20, which is below the Engineer's estimate of $260,750. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT Environmental Review No. 2009-21 has been completed and the Categorical Exemption will be filed upon Award of contract pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act. FISCAL IMPACT The funding analysis shows a total estimated construction cost of $318,900 for the project (Exhibit 2). Funds are available in the Acquisition and Development District 3 Fund (accounting unit 31313260- 66220) . APPROVED AS TO FUNDS AND ACCOUNTS: ~ ~ r ~ _ Raul Godin Francisco Gutierrez Executive Di ector Executive Director Public Works Agency Finance & Mgmt. Services Agency Gerardo Mou t Executive Dir for Parks, Recrea ion, and Community Ser ices Agency K:\Construction\RFCA-draft\11-16-09 Memorial Pool 086016 ET SOWD.doc 23B-2 Z w J Q U N J L_~ SAINT ANDREW PL ~ ~ L_ ~ ~ cn a J ~ O ~ F- Q cn O ~ SAINT ERTRUDE PL m _ m A~AORIAL PARK ~ ~ N ° ANAHURST PL ~ Y Q ~ Q J WARNER AV ~ nr~ PROJECT LOCATION LEGEND: ~N oRaNCF PROJECT LIMITS o EXHIBIT 1 32 ~ , Z a , SANTA ANA TITLE: ~ ~ r` P W A CONTRACT AWARD FOR Mo~?ember 1s, 2oos MEMORIAL PARK POOL RENOVATION PUBLIC MORKS AGENCY (PROJECT NO. 086016) 23B-3 FUNDING ANALYSIS PROJECT NO. 08-6016 MEMORIAL PARK POOL RENOVATION Construction Contract 255 153 $ , Contract Administration $14,700 Inspection and Testing $23,532 Contingencies $25,515 TOTAL ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION COSTS $318,900 Exhibit 2 23B-4 REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION - CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: CLERK OF COUNCIL USE ONLY: NOVEMBER 16, 2009 TITLE: APPROVED AGREEMENT AMENDMENT WITH MERCHANTS ? As Recommended LANDSCAPE FOR MAINTENANCE OF THE ? As Amended STADIUM AND CIVIC CENTER ? Ordinance on 15` Reading ? Ordinance on 2nd Reading ? Implementing Resolution ? Set Public Hearing For CONTINUED TO ~G~t"~-'--'-- FILE NUMBER CITY MANAGER RECOMMENDED ACTION Authorize the City Manager and Clerk of the Council to execute an amendment to the agreement with Merchants Landscape Services to provide landscape maintenance services at the Stadium and Civic Center in an amount not to exceed $273,976 for a total agreement amount of $858,239. DISCUSSION The City of Santa Ana has for over 20 years contracted landscape maintenance for bike trails and street medians. In 2003, 18 parks were contracted out for landscape maintenance. The City currently has four agreements with several landscape maintenance companies. On May 18, 2009, the City Council approved a one-year agreement amendment with Merchant's Landscape to continue with the park landscape maintenance at 10 park sites. The amendment did not include the Civic Center or the Stadium which were being maintained by part-time city employees. On October 5, 2009 the City Council approved an amendment to the Merchants agreement and added the Stadium and the Civic Center for a two-month period. The Civic Center and the Stadium has unique special maintenance needs. Merchants Landscape Services have been doing a good job these last two months. Staff is proposing to amend the agreement with Merchant's for an additional seven month period. During this time, staff will be developing plans for a long-term landscape maintenance program for the Civic Center and the Stadium. The current agreement amount is $584,263. This amendment will add $209,370 for seven month of routine maintenance and a $64,606 contingency for unanticipated and emergency work, for a total agreement amount to exceed $858,239. 25A-1 Merchants Agreement Amendment November 16, 2009 Page 2 FISCAL IMPACT Funds are available in the FY 2009-10 Park Services Other Contractual Services account (no. 01113250-62300) and the Civic Center Maintenance Other Contractual Services account (no. 07413250-62300). APPROVED AS TO FUNDS AND ACCOUNT: 1 _ Gerardo Mouet, Francisco Gutierrez, Executive Director Executive Director Parks, Rec. and Com. Svcs. Finance and Mgt. Svcs. Agency 25A-2 AMENDMENT TO AGREEMENT THIS SECOND AMENDMENT TO AGREEMENT is entered into as of November 16, 2009, between MERCHANTS LANDSCAPE SERVICES, INC., a California corporation (hereinafter "Contractor") and the City of Santa Ana, a charter city and municipal corporation organized and existing under the Constitution and laws of the State of California (hereinafter "City"). RECITALS: A. The parties entered into Agreement A-2009-053 dated May 18, 2009, by which Contractor provides certain park and landscape maintenance services at various locations in the City of Santa Ana. B. Said Agreement was amended by the parties to include maintenance for El Salvador Park. The Agreement as amended shall be referred to as "said Agreement". C. The parties wish to amend the Scope of Services and Compensation as set forth in said Agreement to include park maintenance services at the Santa Ana Stadium and Santa Ana Civic Center. WHEREFORE, in consideration of the covenants contained in said Agreement, and subject to all the terms and conditions of said Agreement, except those amended in this Second Amendment to Agreement, the parties agree as follows: 1. Section 1, SCOPE OF SERVICES, shall be deleted in its entirety and replaced with the following: "Contractor shall perform landscape maintenance services for Santa Ana Parks, District 2, and El Salvador Park, as set forth in City's Request for Proposal 09-006, dated February 27, 2009, incorporated by reference to this Agreement, the Specification for Routine Maintenance, attached to said Agreement as Exhibit A, and Contractor's Proposal dated Apri16, 2009, attached to said Agreement as Exhibit B. Said maintenance includes the baseball/softball diamond maintenance, which Contractor has subcontracted to Major League Softball. Commencing December 1, 2009, Contractor shall perform landscape maintenance for the Santa Ana Stadium and Civic Center as set forth herein." 2. Section 2.a., COMPENSATION, shall be deleted in its entirety and replaced with the following: "a. The total sum to be expended under this Agreement shall not exceed $722,594 for landscape maintenance services in the parks, Stadium and Civic Center, plus a contingency for unanticipated expenses in the amount of $135,645, for a total amount not to exceed $858,239.00, during the term of this Agreement." 25A-3 3. Exhibit A -SPECIFICATION FOR ROUTINE MAINTENANCE, shall be amended as follows: a. Section C. ROUTINE MAINTENCE, subsection 16, Special Maintenance, shall be amended to read, in full, as follows: 1. Special Maintenance a) Downtown Civic Center Grounds and Landscape -The Downtown Civic Center Authority Area is the home of federal, state, county and city government for Orange County. The classification of maintenance required at this site is considered "high-end commercial." In addition to the standard Grounds-Landscape Specification the following special maintenance shall be performed. All turf in the Civic Center is considered priority turf. (1) All pedestrian hardscape areas, including but not limited to, plazas, malls, sidewalks, pedestrian street crossing, vehicular drop-off areas, etc. shall be blown and/or swept clean daily seven (7) days per week. Contractor is not responsible for blowing parking lots, only litter removal. Contractor is not responsible for pressure washing. (2) All site amenities, including but not limited to, signage, benches, hand railing, electrical boxes, public telephones, newspaper machines, trash receptacles, drinking fountains, cigarette urns, light bollards, etc. shall be completely wiped clean with a germicidal cleanser and polished to a high luster with an approved product Monday through Friday. (3) All trash receptacles shall be emptied daily seven (7) days per week and replaced with new trash liners. The Contractor shall install trash liners so as not to be seen on the exterior of the receptacles. The Contractor shall be responsible for replacing missing trash receptacle lids and interior waste receptacles when missing. Lids and interior waste receptacles shall be provided by the City. (4) All cigarette urns shall be sifted daily Monday through Friday. The sand in the cigarette urns shall be fresh and leveled. Contractor shall replace cigarette urn sand with #20 white silica sand once per month. 2 5A-4 (5) All shrubs and groundcover areas shall be highly detailed weekly. At no time shall any dead leaves, flowers or branches exist. The contactor shall remove/prune plant material by hand using hand shears or loppers leaving no stubs. The intent is to prune the plant material without the average lay person noticing the cuts. (6) All trees below 15' shall be pruned monthly using hand shears and loppers. The intent is to prune the plant material without the average lay person noticing the cuts. (7) Replace all 52 state flags in the Plaza of the Flags in January and July of each year. Flags to be provided by City. b) Santa Ana Stadium - The historic Santa Ana Stadium is a premier youth football and soccer venue and is recognized as one of the best amateur athletic sporting facilities in the county. Because of the number of people that visit the Stadium each year the classification of maintenance required at this site is considered "high-end commercial." In addition to the standard Grounds- Landscape Specification the following special maintenance shall be performed. All turf at the Stadium is considered priority. (1) All pedestrian hardscape areas, including but not limited to, grandstand bleachers, ramps, tunnels, sidewalks, parking lots, safe dispersal areas, vehicular drop-off areas, etc. shall be blown and/or swept clean daily seven (7) days per week. (2) All site amenities, including but not limited to, signage, player benches, hand railing, goal posts, electrical boxes, public telephones, newspaper machines, trash receptacles, drinking fountains, etc. shall be completely wiped clean with a germicidal cleanser and polished to a high luster with an approved product daily seven (7) days per week (3) All trash receptacles shall be emptied daily seven (7) days per week and replaced with new trash liners. The Contractor shall install trash liners so as not to be seen on the exterior of the receptacles. The Contractor shall be responsible for replacing missing trash receptacle lids and interior waste receptacles when missing. Lids and interior waste receptacles shall be provided by the City. 25A-5 (4) All shrubs and groundcover areas shall be highly detailed weekly. At no time shall any dead leaves, flowers or branches exist. The contactor shall remove/prune plant material by hand using hand shears or loppers leaving no stubs. The intent is to prune the plant material without the average lay person noticing the cuts. (5) All trees below 15' shall be pruned monthly using hand shears and loppers. The intent is to prune the plant material without the average lay person noticing the cuts. (6) All grandstand bleachers shall be inspected daily and if necessary wiped clean so they are free of dirt, stains, markings, etc. Note: 30 day start-up period for Civic Center and Stadium begins on December 1, 2009 and ends February 28, 2009. Synthetic Turf Maintenance Specification Introduction This specification shall explain the procedures necessary for maintaining the synthetic turf fields at the Santa Ana Stadium and the Centennial Park, Dan Young Soccer Complex. I. Cleaning and Stain Removal A. General Dirt Rain is a natural field cleaner. Rainfall cleans the turf fibers of dust, pollen and airborne chemicals. In areas where rain is not sufficient enough to remove embedded dirt, the Contractor shall saturate the surface of the synthetic turf field until contaminants are flushed through the turf. Embedded dirt shall not be removed by mechanically sweeping the field. B. Rubbish 1. Rubbish Removal Paper, peanut shells, sunflower seeds, athletic tape, paper, etc., shall be removed daily from the synthetic turf surface. A sweeper is satisfactory for lifting paper scraps, food debris and loose trash from the surface as well. Sweeping the field should be accomplished as soon as possible after an event. The sweeper should have synthetic fiber bristles such as nylon or polyolefin. The minimum brush length should be 2.0". 25A-6 The brush should contain no metal. (Metal bristles or fibers can create a safety hazard if individual bristles break off and become lodged in the turf or rubber fill). The brush setting should be checked often. The actual setting depends on the model and type of sweeper. The sweeper will work best when the brush is set so it just touches the tips of the fibers of the turf. DO NOT SET THE BRUSH SO LOW THAT IT DIGS INTO THE TURF PILE, THE FILL MATERIAL OR THE TURF BACKING. A brush setting that is too low can damage the artificial grass and adversely disturb the fill. Do not use a mechanical sweeper during the heat of the day if the temperature exceeds 90 degrees F. C. Vehicles Vehicles are not allowed on the field at any time. Only approved off-road type equipment may be driven on the field. The Contractor shall use caution not to spin the tires, turn sharply, or in any way maneuver the piece of equipment where it will damage the synthetic turf. 1. Oil and Fuel Spills Oil and fluid spills can discolor and even damage the artificial grass. Proper equipment maintenance shall be observed. Battery acid and most other fluids should not be allowed on the artificial grass. Never change or add fluids to equipment while the equipment is parked on the artificial surface. D. Stains The Contractor shall be responsible for removing stains on the synthetic turf. Polyethylene fibers are stain resistant fibers because most stains are moisture borne and polyethylene, a "hydrophobic" yarn, absorbs little moisture. As a result, a "stain" on a synthetic turf field is not a true "stain"; rather, it is generally dried residue of foreign matter, which must be quickly and thoroughly removed. It is best removed while still moist and thus before it has dried on the fibers. These residues can generally be removed with water or soap and water. Remember, it is much easier to clean a fresh spill before it has time to dry and harden. Remove any deposit promptly using a putty knife or similar tool. Then soak up excess liquids with paper or cloth towels or rags. 25A-7 "Water Based" Stains or Residues: Stain Procedure for Removal 1. Scrub the area with soap and water. Use a stiff fiber brush for maximum agitation. Acid, Alkali, Beer, Blood/Mucus, Catsup, 2. Rinse the area thoroughly with clear water Coffee, Colas and Soft Drinks, Disinfectants, to remove all traces of soap. Standard Dyes, Food Coloring, Fruit Juice/Gatorade, Glue, Hot Chocolate, Ice 3. Dry with absorbent towel, if necessary. Cream, Latex Paint, Milk, Mustard, Tea, Note: A three percent (3%) solution of Urine, Water Colors ammonia in water may be used in lieu of household detergent for stubborn residues or stains. Stubborn or Oil-Based Stains Stain Procedure for Removal Crayon, furniture polish, lipstick, cooking oil, Sponge with dry cleaning solution rubber cleat marks, shoe polish, suntan oil, (perchecloroethylene). Soak up with absorbent ballpoint ink towels. Flush with water. Oil paints Soak up or blot immediately. Sponge with turpentine or paint remover (apply sparingly). Blot with detergent and water. Re-sponge with cold water to remove detergent. Scrape excess. Sponge with perchloroethylene (dry cleaning solvent). Repeat the above as necessary. Nail Polish Sponge with acetone. Paraffin Wax Scrape excess. Sponge with dry cleaning solution. Tar and Asphalt Scrape excess. Sponge with dry cleaning solution. Note of Caution: Mineral Spirits, MEK, acetone and other petroleum-based solvents are highly flammable. Do not smoke or permit flames near containers or near solution when in use. Be sure the area is well ventilated. Animal Waste: Remove if necessary. Neutralize residue with of white distilled vinegar in an equal amount of water. Flush thoroughly with water after application. 25A-8 Chewing Gum: Freeze the gum by applying ice or spray with and scrape to remove residue Fungus, Mold, Mildew and Other Infectious Growths: The Contractor shall apply one (1) time per month an approved germicide to control infectious diseases such as, but not limited to, virus, bacteria, parasites, etc. The Contractor shall also apply as necessary approved chemicals to control fungus, mold, mildew, etc. Use aone-percent solution of hydrogen peroxide in water. Note: Do not use high-pressure water spray with stream force in excess of 250 psi as this can damage the turf and displace the fill. II. Minor Repairs The Contractor shall be responsible for damage to the synthetic turf caused by his negligence. The Contractor shall not be responsible for damage to the synthetic turf caused by others. Should the synthetic turf be damaged by others the City may request from the Contractor a proposal to make repairs. Note: Do not cut, seam, sew, remove or in any way attempt to repair major artificial grass damage. If extensive damage occurs, contact your Sports Technology International dealer assistance. Note: Contractor is responsible for providing all labor, materials and equipment necessary to maintain the synthetic turf. The City may make its synthetic turf maintenance equipment available to contractor. However, the contractor will assume all responsibility for maintenance and repair of this equipment. 25A-9 4. Except as herein amended, all terms and conditions of said Agreement shall remain in full force and effect. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this First Amendment to Agreement the date and year first above written. ATTEST: CITY OF SANTA ANA MARIA D. HUIZAR DAVID N. REAM Clerk of the Council City Manager APPROVED AS TO FORM: MERCHANTS LANDSCAPE SERVICES, INC. JOSEPH W. FLETCHER City Attorney By: Laura Sheedy (NAME) Assistant City Attorney (Title) APPROVED AS TO CONTENT: GERARDO MOUET Executive Director Parks, Recreation and Community Services Agency 25A-10 REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION ~ ~ ~a CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: CLERK OF COUNCIL USE ONLY: 1QOVEI~ER 16 , 2 0 0 9 TITLE: APPROVED ? As Recommended VARIANCE NOS. 2009-03, 2009-05, ? As Amended 2009-06, 2009-07 AND 2009-09 AND ? Ordinance on 151 Reading CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO . 2 0 0 9 -15 ? Ordinance on 2"d Reading ? Implementing Resolution TO ALLOW A CHECK CASHING BUSINESS AT ? Set Public Hearing For 1647 EAST FIRST STREET, SUITE A - JC INTERNATIONAL„SERVICES, APPLICANT CONTINUED TO ~.)J1 l U' ~ FILE NUMBER CITY MANAGER RECOMMENDED ACTION Receive and file the staff report denying Variance Nos. 2009-03, 2009-05, 2009-06, 2009-07, 2009-09 and Conditional Use Permit No. 2009-15. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION On October 12, 2009, the Planning Commission adopted a resolution denying Variance Nos. 2009-03, 2009-05, 2009-06, 2009-07, 2009-09 and Conditional Use Permit No. 2009-15 by a vote of 5:0 (Yrarrazaval absent) to not allow a check cashing facility in the General Commercial (C2) zoning district at 1647 East First Street, Suite A. The Planning Commission made no changes to the attached staff report (Exhibit A). FISCAL IMPACT There is no fiscal impact associated with this action. Ja Trevino Executive Director Planning & Building Agency MF:rb mf\reporte\cup09-15va09-3,5,6,7&9 1647 E First Check Cashing.cc 31 A-1 31 A-2 REQUEST FOR Planning Commission Action PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING DATE: PLANNING COMMISSION SECRETARY OCTOBER 12, 2009 APPROVED TITLE: ? As Recommended PUBLIC HEARING - FILED BY JC INTERNATIONAL ? As Amended SERVICES FOR VARIANCE NOS. 2009-03, 2009-05, ? Set Public Hearing For 2009-06, 2009-07 AND 2009-09 AND CONDITIONAL DENIED USE PERMIT NO. 2009-15 TO ALLOW A CHECK ? Applicant's Request CASHING BUSINESS AT 1647 EAST FIRST STREET, ? Staff Recommendation SUITE A CONTINUED TO Prepared by Matt Foulkes ~`-i<-(fin-~ ~ ~~tt , Executive ~ ctor Planning anager RECOMMENDED ACTION Planning Commission Direction. DISCUSSION Request of Applicant Ms. Maria Guererro, on behalf of JC International Services, is requesting approval of variances from the check cashing separation requirements, minimum lot size, building setbacks, landscaping and parking as well as a conditional use permit in order to operate a check cashing facility at 1647 East First Street, Suite A. Property Description The subject site is a 0.12 acre parcel of land located on the north side of First Street between Lyon and Mabury Streets. The site is currently developed with a 3,245 square foot multi-tenant commercial building. JC International Services occupies a 1,100 square foot tenant space within the building and provides a variety of financial services, including insurance, tax preparation and money wiring. The remainder of the building is currently vacant. The General Plan land use designation for this site is General Commercial (GC), and it is located within the General Commercial (C-2) zoning district. Surrounding land uses include residential to the north and a mixture of commercial and hotel uses to the east, south and west (Exhibits 1 and 2). EXHIBIT A 31 A-3 VA Nos. 2009-03, 05, 06, 07 & 09 CUP No. 2009-15 October 12, 2009 Page 2 Project Description The applicant wishes to add check cashing as a service offered within the tenant space they occupy as JC International Services. The check cashing facility would occupy approximately 100 square feet of JC International's existing tenant space (Exhibit 3). There is an existing Conditional Use Permit for a check cashing facility within 1,000 feet of the applicant's proposed check cashing location, which does not comply with the separation requirement for check cashing facilities contained in the Santa Ana Municipal Code(SAMC). The applicant seeks relief from this requirement. In addition, the property has a number of non-conformancies for which the applicant is seeking several variances from the SAMC's development standards for C-2 properties. These variances include minimum lot size, building setbacks, landscaping and parking. Finally, the applicant is seeking a conditional use permit in order to allow a check cashing facility at the subject property. The applicant proposes to make minor interior modifications to accommodate the check cashing use and will also make a number of repairs to the site to address the existing non-conformancies and bring the site into closer compliance with the code. These repairs include: addition of a trash enclosure, re-striping the parking lot, removing security bars from the windows, installing landscaping by adding stone planter boxes and veneer along the base of the building, raising the parapet on the front portion of the building and installing a decorative cornice in order to screen existing roof mounted equipment, removal of a non-conforming projecting sign, relocation of the primary entrance and installation of new storefront glass (Exhibit 4). The proposed hours of operation for the check cashing business will be from 9:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m., Monday through Friday and 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. on Saturday. Analysis of the Issues Background The applicant previously operated her business, JC International Services, including check cashing pursuant to an approved CUP at a leased tenant space located at 1620 East First Street, Suite E. In 2009, the applicant purchased the building located at 1647 East First Street and relocated JC International Services to the new location. Conditional Use Permits are ~ said to "run with the land" and, as such, cannot be transferred to a new 31 A-4 VA Nos. 2009-03, 05, 06, 07 & 09 CUP No. 2009-15 October 12, 2009 Page 3 property address. Therefore, when the applicant vacated the 1620 East First Street location, which had an approved CUP for check cashing, she was unable to reestablish this use at the new location of 1647 East First Street without the issuance of a new CUP for check cashing. The applicant then applied for a conditional use permit and variances in order to operate a check cashing facility at 1647 East First Street, Suite A. During the review of this application it was determined that the proposed check cashing facility would be within 1,000 feet of an existing approved check cashing facility and, as such, would be in violation of Section 41-374.5 of the Santa Ana Municipal Code which requires the 1,000 foot separation between check cashing businesses. The applicant was notified of this situation, but chose to pursue a variance application to seek relief from the separation requirement. Variance No. 2009-03, an application to vary from the separation requirement for check cashing establishments, was heard at the Planning Commission meeting of August 24, 2009. After a presentation outlining the staff recommendation of denial, testimony from the public and a discussion of the issues surrounding this project, the Commission voted to continue the item for 30-days to allow staff time to work with the applicant on the design and improvements to the building, analyze and bring forward for review the additional discretionary actions required for the project, develop appropriate conditions should the Commission move to approve the items and to gather further information regarding check cashing operations and the use of the Matricula Consular identification card. Due to the number and complexity of the each of the required discretionary actions surrounding this project, they have been identified and analyzed separately in the subsections that follow. Background on 1,000 Foot Separation Requirement and Check Cashing CUP Requirement The applicant is requesting relief from the separation requirement for check cashing facilities in the General Commercial (C-2) zone, as well as a CUP to allow for a new check cashing facility. In December 1999, Ordinance No. NS-2412 was adopted to require a conditional use permit for check cashing establishments. At that time the City was concerned with the recent proliferation of check cashing businesses in various retail centers citywide and the potential for criminal activity that can 31 A-5 VA Nos. 2009-03, 05, 06, 07 & 09 CUP No. 2009-15 October 12, 2009 Page 4 be associated with this type of use. The primary goals of the ordinance were to require a separation between check cashing establishments to limit their numbers and to require a conditional use permit to review each request on an individual basis and apply appropriate conditions. Section 41-374.5 of the Santa Ana Municipal Code (SAMC) requires a minimum separation of 1,000 feet between check cashing facilities, as measured from property line to property line. This distance requirement was adopted by the City Council in 1999, as part of the ordinance that established the CUP requirement. Separation requirements are not unique to check cashing establishments and are used in several instances within the Municipal Code for uses that have been determined to have a negative impact to surrounding uses and/or that generate crime when they are located in dense quantities within a given area of the City. Off-site alcohol licenses for markets less than 20,000 square feet are an example of a use with a separation requirement. Similar to the rationale employed for check cashing establishments, it was determined that, based on studies performed by other jurisdictions and analyses of Santa Ana's crime statistics, an over concentration of small markets and liquor stores selling alcohol may create both visual blight and can lead to an increase in criminal activity. Another example is massage establishments which also have a 1,000 foot separation requirement from both other primary massage establishments, as well as adult entertainment uses. Again, similar to check cashing businesses, it was determined that, while the use itself does not necessarily result in negative impacts to the surrounding area, the over proliferation of the use may cumulatively have a negative impact. Existing Status of Check Cashing Facilities within 1,000 Feet of JC International Services Business license and Certificate of Occupancy records indicate that the applicant was approved to operate an office use at 1620 East First Street, Suite E in 2000. In 2002, the applicant applied for and received Conditional Use Permit No. 2002-23 to operate a check cashing facility at this location. JC International Services' proposal to relocate to 1647 East First Street places them 110 feet from their former location at 1620 East First Street. JC Check and Cash, which was also operated by the applicant, was located within the commercial center on the south side of First Street. Although JC Check and Cash closed in order to move to its new location at the subject site, the conditional use permit 31 A-6 VA Nos. 2009-03, 05, 06, 07 & 09 CUP No. 2009-15 October 12, 2009 Page 5 that was approved at 1620 East First Street, Suite E remains valid at the current property and allows another check cashing business to occupy the space within a one year time period. On September 28, 2009, Cash Multi-Service submitted a Certificate of Occupancy and business license application to open a new check cashing facility in Suite E. Cash Multi-Service is able to utilize the existing conditional use permit and begin operating under the original conditions of approval without any further discretionary actions or public hearing. Although Cash Multi- service currently operates as a money transfer business, following the approval of a check casher's license by the state, they will begin the check cashing component of the business without any additional City review. This new check cashing facility eliminates the possibility that the applicants' previous site will remain vacant or utilized for a business other than a check cashing facility, further intensifying the number of check cashing facilities in the area. Background on Check Cashing Facility Services and Commercial Banking Services The check cashing industry is regulated by the State of California and permits are issued from the Check Casper Permit Program through the Attorney General's Department of Justice. A permit is required for each check cashing establishment and is valid for one year. Although it may be renewed annually, a permit can also be revoked if the applicant violates the provisions or regulations of the check casher permit. Additionally, Section 1789.35 of the California Civil Code regulates the fee amounts that can be charged for the cashing of a check. Up to a three percent fee can be charged to cash a payroll or government check if identification is provided by the customer, or three and a half percent without identification. For personal checks, the check cashing business may charge up to 12 percent. If a customer feels that they have been charged fees in excess of those allowed by law, they may contact the California Department of Justice. Check cashing facilities provide a variety of financial services similar to commercial banking institutions with one important difference being a requirement for identification. Commercial banking establishments typically require two forms of identification to open new accounts. Until recently, this identification requirement meant that foreign nationals who hold valid identification other than a California Driver's License, Social Security Number or a United States Visa or Passport had to seek out alternative banking options. Several commercial banks, 31 A-7 VA Nos. 2009-03, 05, 06, 07 & 09 CUP No. 2009-15 October 12, 2009 Page 6 including Bank of America, Bank of the West, JP Morgan Chase, Union Bank and Wells Fargo, now accept Consular Identification cards issued by foreign governments such as the Matricula Consular issued by the Government of Mexico as one form of valid identification. This practice was authorized by the United States Treasury Department as part of the mandate that banking establishments require valid identification from those wishing to open new accounts pursuant to the provisions of the U.S. Patriot Act. Once an account is established, the bank customer is eligible for all check cashing services provided by that bank. In December, 2008 Governor Schwarzenegger launched the "Bank on California" program to increase the number of Californians with bank accounts. According to the Office of Planning and Research, one in five Californians do not have a checking account, and will spend up to five percent of their annual income cashing checks each year. Currently, of Santa Ana's 60 banks and credit unions, 30 have already signed on to accept Consular Identification cards (Exhibit 5). Additionally, on August 26, 2009, Mayor Pulido sent a letter to various banks within Santa Ana to encourage them to join the "Bank on Santa Ana" program and begin to accept Consular Identification cards as a valid form of identification. This recent push for additional banks and credit unions to begin accepting the Consular card as a valid form of identification will likely result in an increase in that number. The opening of an account with a commercial bank or credit union is often the first step towards establishing a credit history and provides a free or low-cost way to begin saving money for the future, in addition to allowing wage earners to keep more of their paychecks. Availability of Check Cashing and Banking Services in the Area In addition to Cash Multi-Service, there are six other check cashing businesses located within a one mile radius of the project site that provide the same or similar financial services as the proposed facility. Excluding Cash Multi-Service, the next nearest check cashing facility is located approximately 1,631 feet from the subject property at 1325 East First Street, with another facility located 2,165 feet from the subject property at 218 North Grand Avenue (Exhibit 6). There are also five commercial banks within the one-mile radius of the proposed check cashing facility and two additional banks just outside of the one-mile radius ring. The following table lists these banks and their current ability to use Consular identification. They are arranged in order of proximity to the subject address. 31 A-8 VA Nos. 2009-03, 05, 06, 07 & 09 CUP No. 2009-15 October 12, 2009 Page 7 Bank Name Address Accepts Consular ID Citizens Bank 2000 East Fourth St., Suite 100 No Mutual Diversified FCU 2030 East Fourth St., Suite 100 No Community Commerce Bank 17332 Irvine Blvd., #125, Tustin No Wells Fargo Bank 1801 East Seventeenth St. Yes Bank of America 2000 East Seventeenth St. Yes Union Bank 1935 East Seventeenth St. Yes Bank of America 2127 East Seventeenth St. Yes General Plan Land Use Policy 2.2 was established to promote commercial land uses in adequate amounts to accommodate the City's needs for goods and services. Staff's analysis of the availability of check cashing and commercial banking facilities within the study area indicates that the community has adequate access to such facilities. Process to Vary From Separation Requirements In seeking to reestablish the proposed check cashing facility, the applicant is seeking relief from the 1,000 foot separation requirement. The tool proposed to accomplish this request is the variance. Variances, by definition, are designed to allow relief from development standards due to a physical constraint that exists on the property. Such physical constraints relate to the size, shape, topography, location or surroundings of the property. Further, the separation requirement is not a development standard. As stated in SAMC Section 41-374.5, locating a check cashing facility within 1,000 feet of another such facility is strictly prohibited. As such, the findings that are required in order to substantiate the need for a variance cannot be made in cases with a separation requirement. In order to allow this application to deviate from the separation requirement, an amendment to the Santa Ana Municipal Code would be required. This amendment would alter the separation requirements for check cashing facilities to either no longer require a 1,000 foot separation, or to create an exemption process, with objective, quantifiable criteria, for cases when the separation requirement would not apply. This zoning ordinance amendment would require the approval of both the Planning Commission and City Council before going into 31 A-9 VA Nos. 2009-03, 05, 06, 07 & 09 CUP No. 2009-15 October 12, 2009 Page 8 effect and would also require the continuance of the subject applications until the new regulations go into effect. This same process could also potentially apply to other uses, such as alcohol sales, that have separation requirements. Site Variances Part of the analysis for all conditional use permits is to determine if the project is in compliance with all applicable sections of the Municipal Code. Both the lot size and the existing buildings location result in the site's nonconformance with several development standards within the General Commercial (C-2) zoning district. These nonconformities include: lot size, building setback, landscaping and parking. As no modifications to the building footprint are proposed, variances will be required from each of these development standards in order to comply with the Municipal Code. Although the site's existing conditions prevent the applicant from complying with the development standards in the General Commercial (C-2) zone, the applicant is proposing several improvements to bring the site into closer compliance, including the restriping of the parking lot to meet City standards and the installation of landscape planter boxes adjacent to the building. The addition of check cashing at this site will be incorporated into the existing building footprint and will not increase the amount of required off-street parking, however; the addition of a check cashing use within this space will likely result in an increased number of patrons, which will further exacerbate an already under parked site. Conditional Use Permit Staff has analyzed each of the required discretionary actions and is unable to make the necessary findings to recommend approval of this project. Based upon the analysis of the project and the project's incompatibility with the City's General Plan, applicable development standards, and proximity to other check cashing and banking institutions, staff recommends that the Planning Commission deny Variance No. 2009-03, Variance No. 2009-05, Variance No. 2009-06, Variance No. 2009-07, Variance No. 2009-09 and Conditional Use Permit No. 2009-15 (Exhibits 7 through 12) . 31 A-10 VA Nos. 2009-03, 05, 06, 07 & 09 CUP No. 2009-15 October 12, 2009 Page 9 CEQ~i 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. ~c Matt Foulkes, LEED AP Vince Fregoso, CP Assistant Planner I Principal Planner MF: jm mf\reports\cup09-15va09-3,5,6,7&9 1647 E First Check Cashing.pc 31 A-11 1 J ~ R1 is-T~-- ~~-I~--' U 0 0 rL R1 R1 Rt ~ _i I ~ i, _1 _ I esd I P R2 Mz M1 0 c E sr ~ Ri 1 ~ - - R7-PRD I Rt ~v cert. Ri ° -TTI ~ ~ ~ M2 0 s ~ - I I ~ P xM a Ram Cy ~ \ s R r ai i 1 ;II Ali Rt ~R1 rc R1 t I L R , nr ° T. R3 l® D Ra t I D e 1 I ;~_~-1 ~ 8 I ~ I~ i D ~ r~P eau _ e r s R3 R1 S ~ Rl- ~ ' I ° ~ PRD e r O,e 0 R1 a R4 R1 R19 R1 0 M2 ~ P SD-21 R1 R1 EL °IR. ~ 0 Mt R3 R3 R1 `°R1 M2 n - - R1 P-OZ1-F ~ 1 ~ P-OZ1-F N R1 r5' T 55' N INI AD WY ~+~"''r R1 Ri R1 I~z„~ S P-OZi-F P-OZ1-F M1 I MDI M2 M2 R3 R3 g P-OZ1-F g O P-OZ1-F C2 c2 c~ 0 ~ ~ o PNI„ ~5 P P P "„'sl cz _I p,a, _ _ aN sr - - Cz a ~ ez i C2 P _ p «,:r ,ey _P p~ P e,r.. - ea. M2 Mt Ml I M1 ` R2 r r _ P-OZl ~ P-OZ1-F ~ ~ ;n P R2 ~ R2 2BR2 p2 M1 i ~ ~ M2-Ron LL M7 Mt c2 I C2 R2 M1 sc SDZi r®~ 't P-OZt-F PRV~JEV 1 S~ R2 Cp o ~ C5-OZ F ACS C1-OZ1-F ~ _ M1 Rp I Y M1 I ~ C? ~ m m M2-Ron I »I C2 ~ C2 ~I 2e ~ m i C? ~2 m m _ ' 1 T ST.~ - - 1- M1 M1 ~ M2 R M1 ~ ,~i C2 C2 Q~e,,,~~ f. ~,ar ~ M1 C2 ~ ieTg I- Mt m cs C2 R ~ ~ _ WALNUTS ~ C2-OZ1-F ni- Mt Mt ~ U oii-F OZ1-F C5- ~ a OZt-F IN T M2 M1 R3 I Mt M7 ~ ~ ~ 1 1 R2 M7 iM2 I ~ ero I R2 CHESTNUTAY CHESTNUT AV - - Ai ~ ~ ~ C ^ Mi M2 Mi ~ IMIN 9T V 'I,9l~F~YgY R1 I C2 I 1 CAAMLE I L°RELEI LN. Rt Mz SD-16 R4 ~I ENS Rl Rt M2 J R4 R WARREN 9T. I J vte et=-.I Rt a M2 ~ Al ' I m M1 i mr R7 - R4 ~ M1 R1 Mt R4 ~ Mt R7 M1 z Mi M1 M1'~' R3 Al ~ non n Al GENERAL AGRICULTURAL C-SM SOUTH MAIN STREET COMMERCIAL DISTRICT PD PLANNED DEVELOPMENT -B PARKING MODIFICATION -F FLOOR AREA RATIO PRD PLANNED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT C1 COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL GC GOVERNMENT CENTER R1 SINGLE-FAMILV RESIDENCE C1-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 MILITARY OPERATIONS R4 SUBURBAN APARTMENT C3-A CENTRAL BUSINESS-ARTISTS' VILLAGE O OPEN SPACE RE RESIDENTIAL ESTATE C4 PLANNED SHOPPING CENTER -OZ OVERLAY ZONE SD SPECIFIC DEVELOPMENT C5 ARTERIAL COMMERCIAL P PROFESSIONAL SP SPECIFIC PLAN CR COMMERCIAL RESIDENTIAL PCD PLANNED COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT VAR 09-3 JC INTERNATIONAL SERVICES CHECK CASHING 1647 EAST FIRST STREET, SUITE A - - =500 FEET 1" = 1000 FEET 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 F'?BI~ I N D U S T R I A L I MARK STREET W W J J O F F I C E S ~ ~ H O T E L ~ J J ~ Z _ ~ ~ ~j PROJECT N W SITE VACANT C M ERCIAL H O T E L F- H O T E L cn , , m ?J~•. ~ G FIRST STREET PARK Z Z J C O M M E R C 1 A L ~ Y J J H O T E L W OFFICES OFFICES VAR 09-3 JC INTERNATIONAL SERVICES CHECK CASHING ~i'' 1647 EAST FIRST STREET, SUITE A 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 3 ~'~~B'~T3~ u•o< (E) cMU weu. (E) CMU well. Existing ofice rentail Existing ofice [entail ~ UNIT ~~g~~ STORAGE ELEC. AREA PANEL Ea Exi / ® unitonu NEW PLANTER ~ Era © NEW TRASH ENCLOSURES Exi' ~ing y,.eapcQl _om s' O ~ ~ .-PARKING LOT STRIPED PER CITY STANDARDS t g -».x: ~ Edo. ~ ~ U is I \ O \ J ~~d 2 EXISTING ^(sa PARKING ~K CASHER w ROOM O Existing ofice rentail ~ UNIT "A" ~ (E) CL * 2'-9" ~ 2'-9" ~2'-9~ 2'-9" ~ 3 NEW PLANTER (E) CONC. ~2'$' (E) CONC. SIDEWALK. SIDEWALK NOTE EXIT DR SHALL BE OPENABLE FROM THE INSIDE W/O THE USE OF KEY OR ANY SPECIAL KNOWLEDGE OR EFFORT. u EAST 1st. ST EXHIBIT 3 31A-14 N ~ N . .wk: J' f O ~i F ! ~ 8 E I 1~ > I f 5~ F t~. 1V~ I~~I i~ :yI~SA. f ~ FV I N ~ ~ ill,i _ Ihµi ~'i ~ ~ x. . ~ ~ ~ ~ I III ~ ~ i i ~ 4 i~ - =~i ~ ~ t` C} ~ ',mac ~ ~ : ~ Q ~ li j ~ ~ ~ I ~z` . ~ ~ ~t ~ i ~ ~ I i v F .F.+ i~ ~ ~ ~ 4. ~ i I ~ ~ ~ ` a LJ.. I so i ~ ~ i ~ _ II ~ I~' ~ ja `5 r~"' it ~ - iii II(~ ~ V ~J VVVJJ . 0 1 . V +AAI~~~ ~ iV F N~ FO N ~ F iv EXHIBIT 4 . 31 A-15 M cYMj ~ M ~.j O ~ ~ ~ M O ~ CO N N ~ ~ M N ~j O O O p N O U _ N ~ N ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~O ~ M ~ O (O ~ lL'~ O O O O O O ~ O N O O O Q O M N O O O M Q ~ O N ~ N O O Q O N M N U ~ U N O O N O O U Q O ~ Q N O) N O U ~ CAD ~ 00 O ~ ~ O Q Q N (Q M O M N U N M ~ o Q o o Q° c o Q Q o Q Q~ Z U ^o U o U o rn c o o~ o U o 0 0 c ~ ~ 1~ Z r U U t~ c Q Q o y N° N U N N N Q N N U U Q f6 N N~ (6 r~ Q o ~ Q r` ti~ ti Q O (6 N 61 Q C C N N U ~D N N N ~ N Z (B N N N U1 to N Q rn Q Q c c co iv m H ° Q° c° c rn rn N rn Q c rn rn rn d rn Q Z Q Q H U m Q Q Q Q c c c Z Q Q m Q Q Q cti cn o Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q ~ U Q U Q U U Z U U~~ U Q Q m Q~ U ~ U~ U c~ V U U Q U F- m U U U 'y ~ U Q Q ~ co Q ~ o cd c ~ ca ~ ~ U U m iv cv ccu ca Q Q cd co U cd Z m ca cd m ~ c ~ Z H c c (!l Q~ c m m c co co °o °o U c~ c U c ~ c c co c Q~ c c c ~ c a z a Q Q cn cn a Q J Q c = cn ~ U Cn M J J Q Q Q C Q Q Q Q m Q Q ~O ~O ~ N W w ~6 ~ ~ c Q Q ~ o Q ~ c ~ w w ~ ~ ~ ~ cq ~ ~ m ~u ~v Q ~ ~a ~ ~a ~ c Z Z ~ m ~ ~ ~ ~ Q Q ccv > > c c ~ cco ~ cca ~ ~ H W c m m c ~ m ccss cca m ca Q J fn Cn c (n ~ ~ (n Q Q ~ ~ W U W U W U Cn ~ ca (n to c0 Cn c Q Cn (n fn Cn (/1 H F- ~ ~ ~ H W F- Q' ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ J Q Cn ~ ~ N ~ } Cn (n ~ ~ (n W (n W W Cn U O ~ 0 ~ ~ ~ O ~ F- I- H F- ~ ~ f- H F- a_+ U I- F- ~ H C7 Z Z Z Z cA tq cn to F- to ~ to to cn ~ m U U O Z_ Z Cn W W Z_ Z Q' Z_ Z_ Z_ Q Z Q 2 Q 2 fn Z S= N Z F- O¢ Z= Z ~ S 2~ Q Q 2} Q 0 Q 0 0 0 Q Q~ Q H 1- 1- ~ H F- = F- N Q F- F- ~ H W ~ Cn ~ F- ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Q ~ d' Q ~ Q ~ ~ o o ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ cn ~ cn m c~ ~ v ~ m ~ ~ ~ 3 z~ ~ w z u~ w z~~ z w w z z w cn ~ w w w z z~ w w w cA ~ z z w cn R ~ I~ O O ~ a0 CO CO N Cfl O O O O ~ to O O ~ ~ N ~ O N M~ O f~ B O O O N N O O N~ CD O st O M O O D N N O L O O O O O N N M M M ~t ~ ~ f0 Cfl 1~ I~ ti ~ aO O O O O N N N N N N N N O ~ Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z ~ O _O O O _O O O _O O _O O O O O O O O _O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 _O O O _O O O p F- I- H H F- H H F- F- H F- H F- I- F- I- H H ~ I- H H I- H H F- F- H F- F- ~ Y N o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 m a a a a a. ~ a a a a~ a ~ a. ~ a a. a a a a a~ a a a a~ a a~ ~ O O O O O O O O O O O Z O Z O O O z O Z 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ~ ~ U U U U U U U U U U U ~ U ~ U U U ~ U ~ U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U J J J J J J J J J J J Z J Z J J J Z J Z J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J ~ ~ Q Q a Q a Q a Q Q Q Q~ a~ Q Q a~ Q~ a a a Q Q Q Q Q¢ Q Q Q a Q Q a m v v v U v v v v v ~ v~- ~ v v~ ~ f- v ~ v v v v ~ U v ~ v ~ v v v z z z z z z z z z z z o z o z z z o z o z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z a Q a a Q a Q Q a Q Q w a w a Q a w a w a a Q Q a a Q Q a Q a a a Q a z z z z z z z z z z z~ z~ z z z~ z~ z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ LL. ~ ~ ~ ~ U ~ U ~ ~ ~ U ~ U ~ ~ ~ LL. ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ L t ~ ~f., -1 .1 O ~ O ~ Z Q ~f J}~~ Z Z V • ~ O W z Y Q O •L ~ . ~ Y J ~ ~ ~ Z Z ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ !q~ ~ ~ ~ U Q m W Z m p p V Q ~r , Q J Z JJ p , ~ ~ : ~ ~ W ~ W Z J u. L ~ ~ ~ ~ ro ~ W ,c: m~ p W p 1- ~ Q Z~ ~ Y h~5 Z W LL Z C R'J ~ Z ~ ~ U2' ~ W ~ i' U U ~ Z ~ W Z , Q Z F f- U i1 m ~ E, U O U O Q ~ W Z m O O~ m ~ 7 Q w Q °t3 w H LL u m ~ m U Q O Z Z~ m Q w W Q' U Q Z i J Z L m - ~ Z m Z ~ ~ J ~ O t ~ ~ Z Z ~ 1~-- U t ~ ~ W - - O U ~ m a m O U U~ U N Ca O O lai ~ U" O O to G1 O C EXHIBI/T~ 5 ~I Pa~ ~/"~-16 m ~ o v ~ rn ti ~ o ~ Q ~ ~ o o ~ rn U° o N¢ o ¢ rn N M O N I~ CJ) U N ~ ~ cD I~ M ~ N O U CND ~ ~ ~ C ¢ ~ ¢ ~ M M O~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ O N C ~ u'~ oM M ~ co ¢ U ¢ U Q ti o ~ N ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ¢ rn ¢ o ,n v N ~ ~ ~ ~ U v ~ ~n v rn v ~t ~ v ~ U ¢ ~ ~ o N ~ ~ N N ~ Z C ¢ ~ N O N N U N N N N O ~ U N ~ ~ rn o o rn rn Co N rn¢ rn rn rn rn rn rn~¢ ~ cn ¢ o ¢ N N ¢ ¢ " ¢ ~o c ¢ ¢ U ¢ ¢ ~ ¢ ¢ ¢ ¢ rn ~ ¢ o U ~ U D~ rn U U ~ Z c N U Q U U ¢ U U U U¢ ~ co 0 cn c¢ c c c c c c c ~ ~ C c ~ :a > CD > C W yp H ~ N N ~6 ~C ~a N ¢ M ¢ ~ C c6 ~ ¢ ¢ m cca m N m ~ Q cco Q cco m > ~ ccu cca ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Q U ~ ~ U~~~~>~ U cn cn U¢ cn to U U m c c D~ ~o F- N ~ W W~ c~¢ W F- H H F- Z H H F- F- Cn W U c ~ Cn (n > > 2 ~ 2 ~ (n (n N Cn W Cn Cn Cn fn W W ~ } ce J ~ ~ ¢ ¢ ~ ~ ~ ~ O J J J J ~ J J J J ~ > > ~ ¢ ~ N O U (n p U W J 0 0 0 0 ~ 0 0 0 0~¢¢ Z H H Z Z¢ ¢ Z L.L H F- H H¢ F-- F- H F- Z Z W p fn of U Z Z ¢ Z a Q z (n cn cn to ~ cA to to cn ~ ~ U ¢ U ~ m~~c~c~~~~~~mmmm~mmmm~>>O~O 3 cn z z cn z ~ z ~ ~ ~ cn cn cn cn ~ cn cn cn cn cn ~ ~ m ~ z z ~ z z ~ r~ ~ o 0 0 0 0 0 ~r o o v~ o rn o _ O I~ O O ~ a0 O O O O O ~t to M cD N N M M ~ O c0 cD C V CD f~ I~ ~ ~ M O ~ ~ O CD CD 1~ f~ OO O O 07 O O M = ~ i- N N N N N N N M M M M M M M M M M M M M ~ st u'> ~ M O w Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z ~ O O O _O 0 0 0 0 0 0 _O O O _O O O O O O _O _O O O QH Fq- F- H FQ- H HQ H H F- F- FQ- F- IQ-- H- Q ~ ~ Fq- F- H Fq- Y LL LL ~ ~ LL ~ LL ~ ~ LL ~ LL ~ L.L ~ LL LL LL LL ~ ~ LL ~ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O m a~ a a a a a. a a a a a a. a s ~ a a ~ a a~ _ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ N ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ m - O O O O O O O O O O O Z O O O O O O O O O Z O O Z L U U U U U U U U U U U ~ U U U U U U U U U ~ U U D J J J J J J J J J J J Z J J J J J J J J J Z J J Z L ¢ ¢ ¢ ¢ ¢ ¢ ~ ¢ ¢ ¢ ¢ ¢ ¢ ¢ ~ ¢ ~ Q U U U U U U U U U U U H U U U U U U U U U F- U U H Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z ~ Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z ~ Z Z ~ ¢ ¢ ¢ ¢ ¢ ¢ ¢ ¢ ¢ ¢ ¢ w ¢ ¢ ¢ ¢ ¢ ¢ ¢ ¢ ¢ w ¢ ¢ °w -a z z z z z z z z z z z~ z z z z z z z z z~ z z ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ LL ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ U ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ U ~ ~ U v L ~ ~ ~ , E ~ N ~ U ro ~ ~ ;ti' Z ~ 3 . Z 3 Z y ~ U Q ¢ - Z e~S; z JQJ' F- ~ m ~ *k ~ ~ W Q c= Z J w ~ Z Y W m Q V U J m H Z~~ Z m ~ ¢ U Q m 0 ~ J cn 0 J ¢ (n m J z~ W ~ U ~ Q ~ cn Z - Q ~ c~A W ~ ~ o ~ z o C7 ~ z w ~ ~ ~ ~ '+e,~, ¢ J O Q~ z cQ Q z to z Z v z I m o ~ w ~ U U O O O~ ~ J ~ ~ ~ W Q W~~ U ~ J J Z of C7 U~ Z ~ ~ Q ~ a~ U U O c ro v O c v Page 2 of 2 a~I s 31 A-17 m 2 o ¢ a n f ~ a ~ o U A ~ ~ ~ ~ i _ ~ Ad NllSfll ~ ~ - -i i aw a03RIVdOIIRlBV~ i ____1___-_ f° h i ~ n ~ P a Q~ PAP N yQ~~P ~ N. AV ONVM'J 4Ntl21'J M N n Q Q Z W ~ O ~ LL U S ~ ~ O ~ ~ to r iq q N C ~i O w ~ i ^ N ~ U ~ ° Z ~ LLj Q r c a b~ N C ui r ~ ~1~ ~ _T m VJ N O S ~a Zt,~" HW U y L L Q N p1 `~}//~~I O Q1 N Gf ~a~a~L+ ~ tO r ~We^- ~ ~ N ~ ~ "O Vl N ~ ~-t9 c ~o ~ ~ o O N O o ° motiZt~°.WV Wpv oor~ a~ m a~ m L Z O V i m r r R OIL Gf ~ r v W N U ~ C N C p .T. ~ ~ W O d PvVyt~ p~ Nw_ £n A C~°io_yMiu (n J ~ U m ° ~ (j VI Z O C~'C~JLOOa RN~Um O EYE U ~ LLJ a O R~JY yYZY C~ 7 ~ LL OmO ~ a ~ i 1A~ Q O1 YN'pO lq~~~VfL t7 ~_E- HYOY UL1J ~ ~ ~ ~ U 1_ O L ~ L y m E N - C._ C ~ i ~ ~ " ~ N a -a ° EXHIBIT 6 Variance No. 2009-03 October 12, 2009 Page 1 of 2 Findings of Fact - 1,000 foot separation requirement (deny) A. That because of special circumstances applicable to the subject property, including size, shape, topography, location or surroundings, 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. The subject site is located within 110 feet of an existing entitled check cashing facility which directly violates the purpose and intent of Ordinance No. NS-2412 which was to require a 1,000 foot separation between check cashing facilities in order to prevent their over-proliferation within the City's commercial areas. No special circumstances applicable to the subject project exist to justify the granting of this variance. B. That the granting of a variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of one or more substantial property rights. The granting of this variance would allow the property owner the ability to operate a check cashing business at this location; however, the property's location within the General Commercial (C-2) zoning district allows a variety of office and retail uses which are unconditionally permitted in this zone and similar in nature to the proposed use. C. That the granting of a variance will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to surrounding property. The Santa Ana Municipal Code was amended in 1999 to require a 1,000 foot separation between check cashing facilities as a way to prevent the over proliferation of this type of use and the potential for illicit activity associated with check cashing uses. The approval of this variance and subsequent conditional use permit has the potential to be detrimental to the public welfare in that by allowing a second check cashing facility within 1,000 feet of another facility will only increase the potential for illicit activity. EXHIBIT 7 31 A-19 Variance No. 2009-03 October 12, 2009 Page 2 of 2 D. 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 City's General Plan by opposing several of the General Plan Land Use policies, including Policy 2.2 by allowing an additional conditionally permitted use in an area which is already accommodated by an adequate amount of banking services. Additionally, the approval of this variance and subsequent conditional use permit will oppose Land Use Policy 2.9 which supports developments that create a business environment that is safe and attractive, while check cashing facilities have been known historically to be locations of illicit activity. i 31 A-20 Variance No. 2009-05 October 12, 2009 Page 1 of 2 Findings of Fact - Building Setback (deny) A. That because of special circumstances applicable to the subject property, including size, shape, topography, location or surroundings, the strict application of the zoning ordinance is found to deprive the subject property of privileges not otherwise at variance with the intent and ur ose of the rovisions of this P P p chapter. The subject site is located within 110 feet of an existing entitled check cashing facility which directly violates the purpose and intent of Ordinance No. NS-2412 which was to require a 1,000 foot separation between check cashing facilities in order to prevent their over-proliferation within the City's commercial areas. The existing building may be utilized for a number of office and service uses without any additional discretionary actions. No special circumstances applicable to the subject project exist to justify the granting of this variance. B. That the granting of a variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of one or more substantial property rights. The granting of this variance would allow the property owner the ability to operate a check cashing business at this location; however, the property's location within the General Commercial (C-2) zoning district allows a variety of office and retail uses which are unconditionally permitted in this zone and similar in nature to the proposed use. C. That the granting of a variance will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to surrounding property. The Santa Ana Municipal Code was amended in 1999 to require a 1,000 foot separation between check cashing facilities as a way to prevent the over proliferation of this type of use and the potential for illicit activity associated with check cashing II uses. The approval of this variance and subsequent conditional use permit has the potential to be detrimental to the public welfare in that by allowing a second check cashing facility within 1,000 feet of another facility will only increase the potential for illicit activity. EXHIBIT 8 31 A-21 Variance No. 2009-05 October 12, 2009 Page 2 of 2 D. 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 City's General Plan by opposing several of the General Plan Land Use policies, including Policy 2.2 by allowing an additional conditionally permitted use in an area which is already accommodated by an adequate amount of banking services. Additionally, the approval of this variance will oppose Land Use Policy 2.9 which supports developments that create a business environment that is safe and attractive, while check cashing facilities have been known historically to be locations of illicit activity. 31 A-22 Variance No. 2009-06 October 12, 2009 Page 1 of 2 Findings of Fact - Lot size requirement (deny) A. That because of special circumstances applicable to the subject property, including size, shape, topography, location or surroundings, 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. The subject site is located within 110 feet of an existing entitled check cashing facility which directly violates the purpose and intent of Ordinance No. NS-2412 which was to require a 1,000 foot separation between check cashing facilities in order to prevent their over-proliferation within the City's commercial areas. The existing building may be utilized for a number of office and service uses without any additional discretionary actions. No special circumstances applicable to the subject project exist to justify the granting of this variance. B. That the granting of a variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of one or more substantial property rights. The granting of this variance would allow the property owner the ability to operate a check cashing business at this location; however, the property's location within the General Commercial (C-2) zoning district allows a variety of office and retail uses which are unconditionally permitted in this zone and similar in nature to the proposed use. C. That the granting of a variance will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to surrounding property. The Santa Ana Municipal Code was amended in 1999 to require a 1,000 foot separation between check cashing facilities as a way to prevent the over proliferation of this type of use and the potential for illicit activity associated with check cashing uses. The approval of this variance and subsequent conditional use permit has the potential to be detrimental to the public welfare in that by allowing a second check cashing facility within 1,000 feet of another facility will only increase the potential for illicit activity. EXHIBIT 9 31 A-23 Variance No. 2009-06 October 12, 2009 Page 2 of 2 D. 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 City's General Plan by opposing several of the General Plan Land Use policies, including Policy 2.2 by allowing an additional conditionally permitted use in an area which is already accommodated by an adequate amount of banking services. Additionally, the approval of this variance will oppose Land Use Policy 2.9 which supports developments that create a business environment that is safe and attractive, while check cashing facilities have been known historically to be locations of illicit activity. 31 A-24 Variance No. 2009-07 October 12, 2009 Page 1 of 2 Findings of Fact - Landscaping (deny) A. That because of special circumstances applicable to the subject property, including size, shape, topography, location or surroundings, 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. The subject site is located within 110 feet of an existing entitled check cashing facility which directly violates the purpose and intent of Ordinance No. NS-2412 which was to require a 1,000 foot separation between check cashing facilities in order to prevent their over-proliferation within the City's commercial areas. The existing building may be utilized for a number of office and service uses without any additional discretionary actions. No special circumstances applicable to the subject project exist to justify the granting of this variance. B. That the granting of a variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of one or more substantial property rights. The granting of this variance would allow the property owner the ability to operate a check cashing business at this location; however, the property's location within the General Commercial (C-2) zoning district allows a variety of office and retail uses which are unconditionally permitted in this zone and similar in nature to the proposed use. C. That the granting of a variance will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to surrounding property. The approval of this variance will be detrimental to the public welfare by intensifying the use of the site without bringing it into compliance with the minimum landscape standards. The sites lack of landscaping contributes to the general degradation of the property which has the potential to affect surrounding property values. I EXHIBIT 10 31 A-25 Variance No. 2009-07 October 12, 2009 Page 2 of 2 D. 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 City's General Plan by opposing several of the General Plan Land Use policies, including Policy 2.2 by allowing an additional conditionally permitted use in an area which is already accommodated by an adequate amount of banking services. Additionally, the approval of this variance will oppose Land Use Policy 2.9 which supports developments that create a business environment that is safe and attractive, while check cashing facilities have been known historically to be locations of illicit activity. 31 A-26 Variance No. 2009-09 October 12, 2009 Page 1 of 2 Findings of Fact - Parking (deny) A. That because of special circumstances applicable to the subject property, including size, shape, topography, location or surroundings, 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. The subject site is located within 110 feet of an existing entitled check cashing facility which directly violates the purpose and intent of Ordinance No. NS-2412 which was to require a 1,000 foot separation between check cashing facilities in order to prevent their over-proliferation within the City's commercial areas. The existing building may be utilized for a number of office and service uses without any additional discretionary actions. No special circumstances applicable to the subject project exist to justify the granting of this variance. B. That the granting of a variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of one or more substantial property rights. The granting of this variance would allow the property owner the ability to operate a check cashing business at this location; however, the property's location within the General Commercial (C-2) zoning district allows a variety of office and retail uses which are unconditionally permitted in this zone and similar in nature to the proposed use. C. That the granting of a variance will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to surrounding property. The Santa Ana Municipal Code was amended in 1999 to require a 1,000 foot separation between check cashing facilities as a way to prevent the over proliferation of this type of use and the potential for illicit activity associated with check cashing uses. The approval of this variance and subsequent conditional use permit has the potential to be detrimental to the public welfare in that by allowing a second check cashing facility within 1,000 feet of another facility will only increase the potential for illicit activity. Further, allowing an additional use on this site will further intensify the lack of off-street parking. EXHIBIT 11 31 A-27 Variance No. 2009-09 October 12, 2009 Page 2 of 2 D. 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 City's General Plan by opposing several of the General Plan Land Use policies, including Policy 2.2 by allowing an additional conditionally permitted use in an area which is already accommodated by an adequate amount of banking services. Additionally, the approval of this variance will oppose Land Use Policy 2.9 which supports developments that create a business environment that is safe and attractive, while check cashing facilities have been known historically to be locations of illicit activity. 31 A-28 Conditional Use Permit No. 2009-15 October 12, 2009 Page 1 of 2 Findings of Fact (Conditional Use Permit - Deny) A. Will the proposed use provide a service or facility which will contribute to the general well being of the neighborhood or community? The addition of another check cashing business in this area will not contribute to the general well being of the neighborhood or community. An Office of Planning and Research study regarding check cashing concluded that the average check cashing business patron will spend up to five percent of their annual income paying fees to cash checks when most commercial banks will offer this service for free or reduced rate. Additionally, there is another check cashing facility proposing to operate in the adjacent center and there are six other check cashing faculties within a one-mile radius of the proposed facility that offer similar or the same financial services. The existing check cashing facilities sufficiently meet Policy 2.2 of the Land Use Element which encourages commercial land uses in adequate amounts to accommodate the City's needs for goods and services. B. Will the proposed use under the circumstances of the particular case be detrimental to the health, safety, or general welfare of persons residing or working in the vicinity? The proposed conditional use permit for the check cashing business will be detrimental to persons residing or working in the area as check cashing establishments have been associated with a variety of illicit activities. C. Will the proposed use adversely affect the present economic stability or future economic development of properties surrounding the area? The check cashing business will negatively affect the economic stability of the surrounding area by adding a use that has been known to attract illicit activity. When the City Council modified the Santa Ana Municipal Code to allow check cashing facilities with a conditional use permit, one of the development standards was to require a 1,000 foot separation between facilities. This separation requirement was implemented as a result of concerns regarding the over proliferation of check cashing businesses and the potential for illicit activity that is associated with this use. 3 ~~H~~ 12 Conditional Use Permit No. 2009-15 October 12, 2009 Page 2 of 2 D. Will the proposed use comply with the regulations and conditions specified in Chapter 41 for such use? The proposed check cashing business does not meet several of the development standards specified in Chapter 41 of the Santa Ana Municipal Code including: lot size, parking, building setbacks, landscaping and separation requirements for check cashing facilities in the commercial zone. Variances from each of these standards will be required in order for the project to comply with Chapter 41 of the Municipal Code. E. Will the proposed use adversely affect the General Plan or any specific plan of the City? The granting of the variance will adversely affect the City's General Plan by opposing several of the General Plan Land Use policies, including Policy 2.2 by allowing an additional conditionally permitted use in an area which is already accommodated by an adequate amount of banking services. Additionally, the approval of this variance and subsequent conditional use permit will oppose Land Use Policy 2.9 which supports developments that create a business environment that is safe and attractive, while check cashing facilities have been known historically to be locations of illicit activity. 31 A-30 bk:10/26/09 RESOLUTION NO. 2009-11 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF SANTA ANA DENYING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2009-15 AND VARIANCE NOS. 2009-03, 2009-05, 2009-06, 2009-07 AND 2009-09 SEEKING TO ESTABLISH A NEW CHECK CASHING FACILITY FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 1647 EAST FIRST STREET, SUITE A 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 a variance to city standards needed to establish a new check cashing facility at 1647 East First Street, Suite A. B. Variance No. 2009-03, came before the Planning Commission of the City of Santa Ana for a duly noticed public hearing on August 24, 2009. Following public testimony, the matter was continued by the Planning Commission to October 12, 2009, and staff was directed to return at that time with all needed discretionary actions. C. Conditional Use Permit No. 2009-15 and Variance Nos. 2009-03, 2009-05, 2009-06, 2009-07 and 2009-09 have been filed with the City of Santa Ana seeking a variance to city standards, specifically the standard that check cashing facilities must be located at least 1,000 feet apart, needed to establish a new check cashing facility at 1647 East First Street, Suite A. Section 41-374.5 of the Santa Ana Municipal Code requires a minimum separation of 1,000 feet between check cashing facilities, as measured from property line to property line. The proposed site is 110 feet from a site with an approved conditional use permit to operate as a check cashing facility. In addition, the property has a number of non-conformities for which the applicant is seeking several variances from the Municipal Code's development standards for C-2 properties. These variances include minimum lot size, building setbacks, landscaping and parking. Finally, the applicant is seeking a conditional use permit in order to allow a check cashing facility at the subject property. D. Santa Ana Municipal Code Section 41-638 authorizes the Planning Commission to grant a variance to the 1,000 foot separation requirement between check cashing facilities upon making certain findings. Resolution No. 2009-11 Page 1 of 9 31 A-31 1. That because of special circumstances applicable to the subject property, including size, shape, topography, location or surroundings, 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 provisions of this Chapter. The subject site is located within 110 feet of an existing entitled check cashing facility which directly violates the purpose and intent of Ordinance No. NS-2412 which was to require a 1,000 foot separation between check cashing facilities in order to prevent their over-proliferation within the City's commercial areas. No special circumstances applicable to the subject project exist to justify the granting of this variance. 2. That the granting of a variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of one or more substantial property rights. The granting of this variance would allow the property owner the ability to operate a check cashing business at this location; however, the property's location within the General Commercial (C-2) zoning district allows a variety of office and retail uses which are unconditionally permitted in this zone and similar in nature to the proposed use. 3. That the granting of a variance will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to surrounding property. The Santa Ana Municipal Code was amended in 1999 to require a 1,000 foot separation between check cashing facilities as a way to prevent the over proliferation of this type of use and the potential for illicit activity associated with check cashing uses. The approval of this variance and subsequent conditional use permit has the potential to be detrimental to the public welfare in that by allowing a second check cashing facility within 1,000 feet of another facility will only increase the potential for illicit activity. 4. 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 City's General Pfan by opposing several of the General Plan Land Use policies, including Policy 2.2 by allowing an additional conditionally permitted use in an area which is already accommodated by an adequate amount of banking services. Resolution No. 2009-11 Page 2 of 9 31 A-32 Additionally, the approval of this variance and subsequent conditional use permit will oppose Land Use Policy 2.9 which supports developments that create a business environment that is safe and attractive, while check cashing facilities have been known historically to be locations of illicit activity. E. Santa Ana Municipal Code Section 41-638 authorizes the Planning Commission to grant a variance to the building setback requirement for check cashing facilities upon making certain findings. 1. That because of special circumstances applicable to the subject property, including size, shape, topography, location or surroundings, 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. The subject site is located within 110 feet of an existing entitled check cashing facility which directly violates the purpose and intent of Ordinance No. NS-2412 which was to require a 1,000 foot separation between check cashing facilities in order to prevent their over- proliferation within the City's commercial areas. The existing building may be utilized for a number of office and service uses without any additional discretionary actions. No special circumstances applicable to the subject project exist to justify the granting of this variance. 2. That the granting of a variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of one or more substantial property rights. The granting of this variance would allow the property owner the ability to operate a check cashing business at this location; however, the property's location within the General Commercial (C-2) zoning district allows a variety of office and retail uses which are unconditionally permitted in this zone and similar in nature to the proposed use. 3. That the granting of a variance will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to surrounding property. The Santa Ana Municipal Code was amended in 1999 to require a 1,000 foot separation between check cashing facilities as a way to prevent the over proliferation of this type of use and the potential for illicit activity associated with check cashing uses. The approval of this variance and subsequent conditional use permit has the potential to be detrimental to the public welfare in that by allowing a second Resolution No. 2009-11 Page 3 of 9 31 A-33 check cashing facility within 1,000 feet of another facility will only increase the potential for illicit activity. 4. 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 City's General Plan by opposing several of the General Plan Land Use policies, including Policy 2.2 by allowing an additional conditionally permitted use in an area which is already accommodated by an adequate amount of banking services. Additionally, the approval of this variance will oppose Land Use Policy 2.9 which supports developments that create a business environment that is safe and attractive, while check cashing facilities have been known historically to be locations of illicit activity. F. Santa Ana Municipal Code Section 41-638 authorizes the Planning Commission to grant a variance to the landscape standards for check cashing facilities upon making certain findings. 1. That because of special circumstances applicable to the subject property, including size, shape, topography, location or surroundings, 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. The subject site is located within 110 feet of an existing entitled check cashing facility which directly violates the purpose and intent of Ordinance No. NS-2412 which was to require a 1,000 foot separation between check cashing facilities in order to prevent their over- proliferation within the City's commercial areas. The existing building may be utilized for a number of office and service uses without any additional discretionary actions. No special circumstances applicable to the subject project exist to justify the granting of this variance. 2. That the granting of a variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of one or more substantial property rights. The granting of this variance would allow the property owner the ability to operate a check cashing business at this location; however, the property's location within the General Commercial (C-2) zoning district allows a variety of office and retail uses which are unconditionally permitted in this zone and similar in nature to the proposed use. Resolution No. 2009-11 Page 4 of 9 31 A-34 3. That the granting of a variance will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to surrounding property. The approval of this variance will be detrimental to the public welfare by intensifying the use of the site without bringing it into compliance with the minimum landscape standards. The sites lack of landscaping contributes to the general degradation of the property which has the potential to affect surrounding property values. 4. 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 City's General Plan by opposing several of the General Plan Land Use policies, including Policy 2.2 by allowing an additional conditionally permitted use in an area which is already accommodated by an adequate amount of banking services. Additionally, the approval of this variance will oppose Land Use Policy 2.9 which supports developments that create a business environment that is safe and attractive, while check cashing facilities have been known historically to be locations of illicit activity. G. Santa Ana Municipal Code Section 41-638 authorizes the Planning Commission to grant a variance to the parking standards for check cashing facilities upon making certain findings. 1. That because of special circumstances applicable to the subject property, including size, shape, topography, location or surroundings, 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. The subject site is located within 110 feet of an existing entitled check cashing facility which directly violates the purpose and intent of Ordinance No. NS-2412 which was to require a 1,000 foot separation between check cashing facilities in order to prevent their over- proliferation within the City's commercial areas. The existing building may be utilized for a number of office and service uses without any additional discretionary actions. No special circumstances applicable to the subject project exist to justify the granting of this variance. 2. That the granting of a variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of one or more substantial property rights. The granting of this variance would allow the property owner the ability to operate a check cashing business at this location; however, Resolution No. 2009-11 Page 5 of 9 31 A-35 the property's location within the General Commercial (C-2) zoning district allows a variety of office and retail uses which are unconditionally permitted in this zone and similar in nature to the proposed use. 3. That the granting of a variance will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to surrounding property. The Santa Ana Municipal Code was amended in 1999 to require a 1,000 foot separation between check cashing facilities as a way to prevent the over proliferation of this type of use and the potential for illicit activity associated with check cashing uses. The approval of this variance and subsequent conditional use permit has the potential to be detrimental to the public welfare in that by allowing a second check cashing facility within 1,000 feet of another facility will only increase the potential for illicit activity. Further, allowing an additional use on this site will further intensify the lack of off-street parking. 4. 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 City's General Plan by opposing several of the General Plan Land Use policies, including Policy 2.2 by allowing an additional conditionally permitted use in an area which is already accommodated by an adequate amount of banking services. Additionally, the approval of this variance will oppose Land Use Policy 2.9 which supports developments that create a business environment that is safe and attractive, while check cashing facilities have been known historically to be locations of illicit activity. H. Santa Ana Municipal Code Section 41-638 authorizes the Planning Commission to grant a conditional use permit upon making certain findings. 1. Will the proposed use provide a service or facility which will contribute to the general well being of the neighborhood or community? The addition of another check cashing business in this area will not contribute to the general well being of the neighborhood or community. An Office of Planning and Research study regarding check cashing concluded that the average check cashing business patron will spend up to five percent of their annual income paying fees to cash checks when most commercial banks will offer this service for free or reduced rate. Additionally, there is another check cashing facility proposing to operate in the adjacent center Resolution No. 2009-11 Page 6 of 9 31 A-36 and there are six other check cashing faculties within aone-mile radius of the proposed facility that offer similar or the same financial services. The existing check cashing facilities sufficiently meet Policy 2.2 of the Land Use Element which encourages commercial land uses in adequate amounts to accommodate the City's needs for goods and services. 2. Will the proposed use under the circumstances of the particular case be detrimental to the health, safety, or general welfare of persons residing or working in the vicinity? The proposed conditional use permit for the check cashing business will be detrimental to persons residing or working in the area as check cashing establishments have been associated with a variety of illicit activities. 3. Will the proposed use adversely affect the present economic stability or future economic development of properties surrounding the area? The check cashing business will negatively affect the economic stability of the surrounding area by adding a use that has been known to attract illicit activity. When the City Council modified the Santa Ana Municipal Code to allow check cashing facilities with a conditional use permit, one of the development standards was to require a 1,000 foot separation between facilities. This separation requirement was implemented as a result of concerns regarding the over proliferation of check cashing businesses and the potential for ~ illicit activity that is associated with this use. 4. Will the proposed use comply with the regulations and conditions specified in Chapter 41 for such use? The proposed check cashing business does not meet several of the development standards specified in Chapter 41 of the Santa Ana Municipal Code including: lot size, parking, building setbacks, I, landscaping and separation requirements for check cashing facilities in the commercial zone. Variances from each of these standards will be required in order for the project to comply with Chapter 41 of the Municipal Code. 5. Will the proposed use adversely affect the General Plan or any specific plan of the City? I Resolution No. 2009-11 Page 7 of 9 31 A-37 The granting of the variance will adversely affect the City's General Plan by opposing several of the General Plan Land Use policies, including Policy 2.2 by allowing an additional conditionally permitted use in an area which is already accommodated by an adequate amount of banking services. Additionally, the approval of this variance and subsequent conditional use permit will oppose Land Use Policy 2.9 which supports developments that create a business environment that is safe and attractive, while check cashing facilities have been known historically to be locations of illicit activity. I. 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. 2009-102 will be filed for this project. Section 2. The Planning Commission, after conducting the public hearing and being fully advised, hereby denies Conditional Use Permit No. 2009-15 and Variance Nos. 2009-03, 2009-05, 2009-06, 2009-07 and 2009-09 for the property located at 1647 East First Street, Suite A. This decision is based upon the evidence submitted at the above said hearing, which includes but is not limited to: the Requests for Planning Commission Action dated August 24, 2009 and 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) Christopher Leo Chairman Resolution No. 2009-11 Page 8 of 9 31 A-38 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. 2009-11 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 Resolution No. 2009-11 Page 9 of 9 31 A-39 i 31 A-40 REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION ~ ~a CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: CLERK OF COUNCIL USE ONLY: NOVEMBER 16, 2009 TITLE: APPROVED PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO ? As Recommended CLASSIFICATION AND ? As Amended COMPENSATION ? Ordinance on 1S' Reading ? Ordinance on 2"d Reading pI,p,N ? Implementing Resolution ? Set Public Hearing For CONTINUED TO -1 FILE L~~.,z~,/~. J'~trw---- NUMBER CITY MANAGER RECOMMENDED ACTION Adopt a resolution that amends the City's Basic Classification and Compensation Plan for management employees (91-066). DISCUSSION The Personnel Services Department recently conducted a classification and compensation study of the Risk Manager (MM) job classification. This analysis included a comparison of Santa Ana's organizational structure and functions to Risk Management divisions in similar jurisdictions as well as an examination of organizational relationships within the City. As a result, a 7.5% salary reduction for this classification is requested effective when the position becomes vacant in December 2009. This adjustment would align the Risk Manager classification not only with appropriate market levels, but also with other City classifications at comparable responsibility and authority levels. FISCAL IMPACT Assuming an effective date of January 1, 2010, there will be a savings of $5094 for the remainder of the fiscal year. Kathie Gonzalez Executive Director Personnel Services Agency 55A-1 55A-2 RESOLUTION NO. 2009- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA ANA TO AMEND RESOLUTION NO. 91-066 TO ADJUST THE SALARY FOR THE MIDDLE MANAGEMENT CLASSIFICATION OF RISK MANAGER (MM). 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. Section 1004, Article X of the City Charter of the City of Santa Ana requires the City Manager to prepare, install and maintain a position classification and pay plan subject to civil service rules and regulations and the approval of the City Council. B. On July 1, 1991, the City Council passed and adopted Resolution No. 91- 066, re-establishing the Basic Classification and Compensation Plan for classes of employment designated as Executive and Middle Management. C. The Executive Director of Personnel Services proposes to adjust the salary level for the middle management classification of Risk Manager (MM), in order to more closely reflect compensation practices in the labor market as well as properly align the compensation level of this classification with the compensation of other middle management classifications in the City. i D. It is now desired to amend Council Resolution No. 91-066, as amended, in order to effect these changes. Section 2: That Section 3B of Resolution No. 91-066, as amended, is hereby further amended by adjusting the pay level assigned to the middle management classification title of Risk Manager (MM) as shown below: 15-Step Salary Rate Ranae (SRR) Effective 01/01/10 FROM Monthly Salary TO Monthlv Salary Class Title No. Min-Max No. Min-Max Risk Manager (MM) MM26 ($8406 - $11,876) MM23 ($7805 - $11,027) Section 3: That except as amended by this Resolution, all other provisions of Resolution No. 91-066, as amended, shall remain in full force and effect. 55A-3 Section 4: This Resolution shall be operative from and after January 1, 2010. ADOPTED this 16th day of November, 2009. Miguel A. Pulido Mayor APPROVED AS TO FORM: Joseph W. Fletcher City Attorney By: Joseph Straka Assistant City Attorney AYES: Councilmembers NOES: Councilmembers ABSTAIN: Councilmembers NOT PRESENT: Councilmembers CERTIFICATE OF ATTESTATION AND ORIGINALITY I, MARIA D. HUIZAR, Clerk of the Council, do hereby attest to and certify the attached Resolution No. 2009- to be the original resolution adopted by the City Council of the City of Santa Ana on Date: Maria D. Huizar Clerk of the Council City of Santa Ana 55A-4 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