Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutRESO 2016-20_1002 E 17th St #M (Deny Banquet Facility)LS 5.9.16 RESOLUTION NO. 2016-20 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF SANTA ANA DENYING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2016-13 TO ALLOW A BANQUET FACILITY AND DENYING VARIANCE NO. 2016-03 TO ALLOW A REDUCTION IN REQUIRED PARKING FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 1002 EAST SEVENTEENTH STREET, UNIT M 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 Conditional Use Permit No. 2016-13 to allow a banquet facility in the Community Commercial (C-1) zoning district pursuant to Section 41-365.5 0) of the Santa Ana Municipal Code (SAMC) at the property located at 1002 East Seventeenth Street, Unit M. B. Applicant is also requesting approval of Variance No. 2016-03 to allow a reduction in required parking pursuant to SAMC Section 41-1359 for a banquet facility proposed at the property located at 1002 East Seventeenth Street, Unit M. C. On April 25, 2016, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing on Conditional Use Permit No. 2016-13 and Variance No. 2016- 03. At the hearing, following a request by the property owner, the Planning Commission voted to continue the item to the May 9, 2016 regular meeting. D. On May 9, 2016, the Planning Commission held duly noticed public hearing on Conditional Use Permit No. 2016-13 and Variance No. 2016- 03. E. The Planning Commission of the City of Santa Ana determines that the following findings, which must be established in order to deny this Conditional Use Permit (CUP) pursuant to Santa Ana Municipal Code Section 41-365.5 0), have been established for Conditional Use Permit No. 2016-13 for the proposed banquet facility: 1. That the proposed use will provide a service or facility which will contribute to the general well being of the neighborhood or community. Resolution No. 2016-20 Page 1 of 7 The proposed banquet facility will not provide a service to the community. The commercial center in which the facility is proposed is insufficiently designed to accommodate a high - impact use such as a banquet facility. The low perimeter block wall that separates the commercial building from the adjacent residential land uses is insufficient to mitigate the impacts from noise and congregation activities generated by a banquet facility. Moreover, the minimal setback between the commercial building and the adjacent residential land uses does not provide an adequate buffer between a high -impact land use such as a banquet facility and sensitive land uses such as the single-family residences that surround the project site. In addition, substantial upgrades required to the building for the banquet facility, including additional emergency exits near sensitive land uses and emergency alarms, will negatively impact the well-being of the neighborhood in which it is proposed. 2. That the proposed use will not, 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 banquet facility will be detrimental to persons residing or working in the vicinity because the banquet facility's location and off-street parking requirements contribute to negative impacts to the health, safety, and general welfare of persons in the vicinity. The constricted parking supplies on the project site result in negative impacts to the surrounding community that will pose risks to motorists, cyclists, pedestrians, and emergency response vehicles in the neighborhood. 3. That the proposed use will not adversely affect the present economic stability or future economic development of properties surrounding the area. The proposed use will adversely affect the economic stability of the area because it reduces the viability of the site to accommodate other businesses and their parking requirements. The construction of a high -impact use such as a banquet facility at a center that is already deficient in parking reduces the economic viability of the area, causing negative impacts to the existing and potential tenants at the integrated development site and causing nuisances and risks to the surrounding residential community. The inability of existing tenants to meet the needs of their patrons, the difficulty in leasing existing vacant tenant suites due to Resolution No. 2016-20 Page 2 of 7 reduced parking, and the negative impacts to the surrounding residential neighborhoods will continue to result in negative impacts to property values and the possibility of increased blight. 4. That the proposed use will comply with the regulations and conditions specified in Chapter 41 for such use. The proposed project will not be in compliance with all applicable regulations and provisions of Chapter 41 of the Santa Ana Municipal Code because the site on which the project is located is already deficient in meeting the City's off- street parking requirements. Adding a high -impact land use such as the proposed banquet facility, and the future loss of approximately 18 parking spaces at the integrated development site to accommodate the proposed grade separation of the LOSSAN railroad corridor tracks at Seventeenth Street, will exacerbate this parking deficiency. No additional site improvements are proposed to bring the site into compliance with the zoning code. 5. That the proposed use will not adversely affect the General Plan of the city or any specific plan applicable to the area of the proposed use. The proposed use will adversely affect the General Plan. Land Use Element Policy 2.5 supports balancing economic and fiscal benefits of commercial development with impacts on the quality of life in the City. The proposed use will negatively impact the surrounding community by creating detrimental parking impacts and congestion. Because no additional parking options are available on site, the project does not support Policy 2.10, which supports new development that is harmonious in scale and character with existing development in the area. In addition, the proposed applications do not support numerous policies in Goal 5 of the Land Use Element, to ensure that the impacts of development are mitigated. These include: Policy 5.2, to protect the community from incompatible land uses; Policy 5.5, to encourage development that is compatible with surrounding land uses; and Policy 5.7, to anticipate that the intensity of new development does not exceed available infrastructure capacity. F. The Planning Commission of the City of Santa Ana determines that the following findings, which must be established in order to deny this Variance application pursuant to Santa Ana Municipal Code (SAMC) Resolution No. 2016-20 Page 3 of 7 Section 41-1359, have been established for Variance No. 2016-03 for the proposed reduction in required parking: 1. That because of special circumstances applicable to the subject property, including size, shape, topography, location or surroundings, that the strict application of the zoning ordinance is found to deprive the subject property of privileges not otherwise at variance with the intent and purpose of the provisions of this Chapter. The project site has no special circumstance related to its location and surroundings. The proposed use is located on a parcel that is surrounded by commercial and residential land uses. Due to its location in a built -out center, no opportunities to provide additional parking on the project site exist. In addition, the existing tenant mix at the multi -tenant integrated development site does not generate the possibility for a shared parking approach as the site is already deficient in meeting the City's off-street parking requirements. As a result, approval of a parking variance will continue the negative impacts to the surrounding community and to existing tenants whose patrons are unable to find adequate parking spaces on the site and who have to seek on -street parking in surrounding residential areas. 2. That the granting of a variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of one or more substantial property rights. The granting of the variance is not necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of substantial property rights. The site is already developed with two commercial buildings: a freestanding restaurant building and a multi -unit commercial building with a varied mix of commercial tenants, including eating establishments, offices, service uses, and retail stores. Approval of the variance will continue the negative impacts to already -constricted parking supplies at the site, resulting in detrimental impacts to other tenants on the site and to the surrounding community. These negative impacts will result in additional nuisances, constricted parking and circulation, resulting in the reduction of property values, and blight. 3. That the granting of a variance will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to surrounding property. The granting of the variance will be materially detrimental to the public welfare and will be injurious to surrounding property. Banquet facilities hold the majority of events during evening hours, which are also the peak times for eating Resolution No. 2016-20 Page 4 of 7 establishments. The site currently contains three (3) eating establishments: Super Antojitos Express (Unit A), Cholulas Restaurant (Unit F), and Hometown Buffet. If only these three tenants and the proposed banquet facility remained open at night, and all other tenants ceased business activity in the evening hours, the center would require 361 parking spaces to satisfy the off-street parking demands generated by these tenants. Because the 361 parking spaces required to satisfy their demands exceeds the existing 231 parking spaces currently provided on the site, a shared parking approach is not feasible at this location. Moreover, the loss of approximately 18 parking spaces in the future will reduce this figure to 213, further exacerbating the inability to share parking among tenants during evening hours. The insufficient parking provided on the site will negatively impact the surrounding community. Due to a lack of parking availability at the site, patrons of restaurants and/or the banquet facility will continue to seek other parking options on local streets and in residential neighborhoods. Patrons of all businesses at the center who park in the surrounding community will continue to constrict the supply of street parking for the local residents, which results in reduced quality of life for the residents in the surrounding neighborhood. The congestion generated by patrons parking in the surrounding community poses safety hazards to motorists, cyclists, and pedestrians using those streets. Congestion creates an unsafe environment for cyclists and pedestrians who are negatively impacted by excessive vehicular traffic and street parking on residential streets that are not designed to accommodate high -impact land uses such as banquet facilities. Moreover, patrons returning to vehicles after banquet events during late hours generate noise that degrades the quality of life for residents in the area. Finally, the impacted on -street parking negatively impacts the abilities of emergency responders to quickly and safely service the area. Emergency vehicles will not be able to locate sufficient parking areas to respond to incidents in the residential community adjacent to the project site which is detrimental to public welfare. 4. That the granting of a variance will not adversely affect the General Plan of the City. Resolution No. 2016-20 Page 5 of 7 The proposed use will adversely affect the General Plan. Land Use Element Policy 2.5 supports balancing economic and fiscal benefits of commercial development with impacts on the quality of life in the City. The proposed use will negatively impact the surrounding community by creating detrimental parking impacts and congestion. Because no additional parking options are available on site, the project does not support Policy 2.10, which supports new development that is harmonious in scale and character with existing development in the area. In addition, the proposed applications do not support numerous policies in Goal 5 of the Land Use Element, to ensure that the impacts of development are mitigated. These include: Policy 5.2, to protect the community from incompatible land uses; Policy 5.5, to encourage development that is compatible with surrounding land uses; and Policy 5.7, to anticipate that the intensity of new development does not exceed available infrastructure capacity. E. In accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) the recommended action is not subject to CEQA as staff is recommending denial of both the CUP and variance applications. If the project is denied, no further CEQA analysis will be required. Section 2. The applicant agrees to indemnify, hold harmless, and defend the City of Santa Ana, its officials, officers, agents, and employees, from any and all liability, claims, actions or proceedings that may be brought arising out of its approval of this project, and any approvals associated with the project, including, without limitation, any environmental review or approval, except to the extent caused by the sole negligence of the City of Santa Ana. Section 3. The Planning Commission of the City of Santa Ana after conducting the public hearing hereby denies Conditional Use Permit No. 2016-13 and Variance No. 2016-03 for the project located at 1002 East Seventeenth Street, Unit M. This decision is based upon the evidence submitted at the abovesaid hearing, which includes, but is not limited to: the Request for Planning Commission Action dated May 9, 2016, and exhibits attached thereto and the public testimony, written and oral, all of which are incorporated herein by this reference. Resolution No. 2016-20 Page 6 of 7 ADOPTED this 9t" day of May, 2016. AYES: Commissioners: Alderete, Bacerra, Bauer, Gartner, Mill (5) NOES: Commissioners: None (0) ABSENT: Commissioners: McLoughlin, Verino (2) ABSTENTIONS: Commissioners: None (0) APPROVED AS TO FORM: Sonia R. Carvalho, City Attorney By: f Lisa Storck Assistant City Attorney CERTIFICATE OF ATTESTATION AND ORIGINALITY I, ROSA BARELA, Acting Recording Secretary, do hereby attest to and certify the attached Resolution No. 2016-20 to be the original resolution adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Santa Ana on May 9, 2016. Date: jlglI6 Acting Recording Secretary City of Santa Ana Resolution No. 2016-20 Page 7 of 7