HomeMy WebLinkAbout31A - 1201 E FOURTH ST
REQUEST FOR
COUNCIL ACTION
CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE:
CLERK OF COUNCIL USE ONLY:
JULY 3, 2006
TITLE:
VARIANCE NO. 2006-01TO ALLOW
REDUCTION OF PARKING AT 1201 EAST
FOURTH STREET - MARCOS CONTRERAS,
APPLICANT
~cZ
CITY MANAGER
APPROVED
o As Recommended
o As Amended
o Ordinance on 151 Reading
o Ordinance on 2nd Reading
o Implementing Resolution
o Set Public Hearing For
CONTINUED TO
-
FILE NUMBER
RECOMMENDED ACTION
Receive and file the staff report denying Variance No. 2006-01.
PLANNING COMMISSXON ACTION
On June 12, 2006, the Planning Commission denied Variance No. 2006-01 by
a vote of 6:0 (Rodriguez absent) to allow a reduction of required parking
for office use at an existing industrial building in the General
Commercial (C2) zoning district at 1201 East Fourth Street. The Planning
Commission made no changes to the recommended action (Exhibit A) .
FXSCAL XMPACT
There is no fiscal impact associated with this action.
~L--L-..
~ M. Trevino
Executive Director
Planning & Building Agency
PG:rb
pg\reports\va06-01.cc
31A-1
REQUEST FOR
Planning Commission Action
PLANNING COMMISSION SECRETARY
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING DATE:
JUNE 12, 2006
TITLE:
PUBLIC HEARXNG - VARXANCE NO. 2006-01
FILED BY MARCOS CONTRERAS TO ALLOW
REDUCTION OF PARKING AT 1201 EAST FOURTH
STREET
APPROVED
o As Recommended
o As Amended
o Set Public Hearing For
DENIED
o Applicant's Request
o Staff Recommendation
CONTINUED TO
Prepared by Pedro Guillen
~~E . D~
xecut e Irector
~~
Planning anager
RECOMMENDED ACTION
Adopt a resolution denying Variance No. 2006-01.
DISCUSSION
Request of Applicant
Mr. Marcos Contreras is requesting approval of a variance to allow the
reduction of required parking for office use at an existing industrial
building at 1201 East Fourth Street.
Property Description
The development site is a rectangular shaped lot that is approximately
9,000 square feet in size and is located on the northeast corner of Fourth
Street and Eastwood Avenue. The property is located in the Community
Commercial (C2) zoning district and has a General Plan land use
designation of General Commercial (GC). The existing site has an
industrial use that includes warehousing, manufacturing and food
preparation for vendor carts. Additionally, the site currently has seven
parking spaces. The surrounding land uses consist of single and mul ti-
family residences immediately to the north, industrial and commercial to
the west, and commercial to the south and east (Exhibits 1 through 3) .
Project Description
The proposed project involves a proposal to lease 750 square feet of space
on the second floor of an existing building for a real estate and mortgage
office use (Exhibits 4 through 6). The existing building does not have
sufficient parking for the proposed use, necessitating the request to vary
from existing parking standards.
EXHIBIT A
31A-2
Variance No. 2006-01
June 12, 2006
Page 2
Analysis of the Issues
In August of 2001, Contreras Mexican Ice Cream obtained permits to open an
industrial business specifically for warehousing and preparation of food
for mobile vendor carts. This use was approved as a continuation of a
legal nonconforming use, as the existing industrial building and
associated use were established prior to the property being zoned C2,
which does not allow industrial uses. In September of 2003, a portion of
the building was destroyed by fire and subsequently, the building was
allowed to be rebuilt per section 41-6B2 of the nonconforming code that
allows reconstruction of nonconforming buildings damaged by fire. The
building was rebuilt to the same square footage as existed before and
included approximately 1,400 square foot of second floor ancillary
industrial office space that was approved under Variance No. 74-13.
Variance No. 74-13 allowed the expansion of a legal nonconforming meat
processing plant in the C2 zone even though such enlargement was not
permissible per section 41-6B6 of the nonconforming code. Section 41-6B1
states that no enlargement of nonconforming buildings is allowed unless
such building and site conform to all provisions of the zoning code.
Typically, the project review process involves evaluating proposals for
zoning compliance. If a project complies with zoning regulations, it is
approved. If a proposal does not comply with applicable zoning
provisions, such as the nonconforming code, the proposal would be denied.
In this case, the proposal does not comply with parking requirements and
section 41-6B6 of nonconforming code, which does not allow additional uses
to nonconforming sites. Normally, projects such as this would be denied
and would not be reviewed by the Planning Commission as they are
noncompliant with local and State of California land use laws. The
proposed project was denied, however the applicant wanted to pursue an
option to present his proposal before the Planning Commission and explain
the circumstances that exist for his site. Staff determined that the only
way to present this item before the Commission would be to have the
applicant apply for a parking variance. The site is currently
nonconforming in parking and the proposed use would further increase the
parking demand.
Mr. Contreras is requesting approval of 750 square feet of second floor
space to be used as independent office space, not ancillary or associated
to the existing industrial use. Staff has identified several concerns
with the request that have resulted in a negative recommendation of the
variance application.
31A-3
Variance No. 2006-01
June 12, 2006
Page 3
Section 41-6B6 of the City's nonconforming code states that no additional
uses shall be allowed on a site where an existing nonconforming use
exists, even though such proposed use may be a conforming use in the
zoning district. As a result, the existing warehousing and food
preparation business is considered a nonconforming use; therefore, the
proposed real estate and mortgage office cannot be permitted on the site.
In order for the proposed office use to be permitted, the existing
industrial business must not operate on this site.
The State of California Government Code Section 65906 states that a
variance shall not be granted for a parcel of property which authorizes a
use that is not expressly permitted by the zone district governing the
parcel of property. Considering that Section 41-686 of the City's
nonconforming code does not allow the proposed office use on the site,
this section of the State code applies and therefore, does not allow the
proposed use to be approved. Additionally, this section implies that a
use variance for the proposed office use is not allowed under State codes.
Variances are typically reserved for variations from development standards
such as setbacks and parking and not uses.
The Santa Ana Municipal Code establishes a parking requirement for office
use at one parking space for each 333 square feet of office space. As
proposed, the site would require a total of 11 parking spaces, two parking
spaces for the proposed 750 square feet of second story office space and
nine spaces for the remaining 4,550 square feet of industrial space.
Approval of a variance for a parking reduction of four spaces, 36 percent,
will be required as the site only has seven spaces available.
In recent history, the Planning Commission has reviewed variances for
parking, each with different situations. In February of 2005, the
Commission reviewed Variance No. 2004-1B for the FAMSA retail chain
addition located at 419 East First Street. The addition required 43
parking spaces, of which only 20 were being provided. This resulted in a
reduction of 23 parking spaces for the addition or 53 percent. In this
case, the Commission denied the variance request as a result of the
existing nonconforming parking situation. Variance No. 2002-06 for Doffo
Automotive located at 1607 South Sycamore was reviewed by the Commission
in June of 2002. A new auto repair facility was proposed that required 37
parking spaces. The Commission approved a reduction of four parking
spaces, an 11 percent reduction, based on the nature of the business
operation that included the ability of the vehicle repair bays to be
utilized as parking spaces and the second floor office space's low parking
31A-4
Variance No. 2006-01
June 12, 2006
Page 4
implication compared to the automotive repair use. Each variance request
is unique to its own site; however, in the proposed case the site is
nonconforming in terms of parking and does not meet current development
standards. Considering the existing conditions, the site has maximized
its possible usage.
Staff has considered the site's conditions, including the lot size and
inability to provide for additional parking. The State Code states that a
variance shall only be granted when special circumstances apply to a
property in relation to size, shape, topography, location and surroundings
or if the local zoning ordinance deprives the property owner of privileges
enjoyed by other property in the vicinity and under identical zoning
designation. In this case, it has been determined that there is not a
special circumstance that deprives the property owner of privileges to
utilize the site. The current legal nonconforming industrial use on the
site allows the property to be fully utilized. Additionally, a parking
deficient site may impact the surrounding properties and aggravate the
residential parking situation by requiring additional parking.
Furthermore, the reduction of four parking spaces, 36 percent, is
considered high in view of the site's limited size. The applicant has
also presented the possibility of utilizing the parking lot across the
street at 1111 East Fourth Street. This site is zoned industrial and is
occupied by a legal nonconforming retail business that requires 150
parking spaces for 30,000 square feet of building space. However, the
site currently has only 24 parking spaces. This request would also
require a variance for parking.
Were the Commission to consider approving the proposed action, the
following would be required. The Commission would have to direct staff to
prepare a zoning ordinance amendment to modify the nonconforming code
section 41-686 to allow additional uses to sites which have existing
nonconforming uses or direct staff to process an amendment application
(zone change). If a zone change would be requested, most likely a
Specific Development (SD) zone would have to be created to accommodate for
the site's unique mix of uses and site development conditions. As the
Commission may recall, a Work Study Session was held earlier this year
relative to amending the nonconforming code to allow for expansions of
nonconforming uses in the Commercial South Main (CSM) zone. The
Commission stated that the City's existing nonconforming policies and
codes should be upheld. Additionally, the project site is located within
31A-5
Variance No. 2006-01
June 12, 2006
Page 5
the boundaries of the proposed Santa Ana Renaissance Specific Plan
encompasses the City's central area from the Downtown, east to
Avenue. Future land uses for this unique area are currently
analyzed for consideration and may result in land use changes.
which
Grand
being
Based on analysis of
circumstances warrant
nonconforming code.
Variance No. 2006-01.
the proposed project and findings, no special
approval of a use that does not comply with the
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission deny
CEQA Compliance
In accordance with the
recommended action is not
environmental documentation
California
considered
is required.
Environmental Quality Act,
a CEQA proj ect . Therefore,
the
no
//\{ ~ ~
Pedro Guillert
Associate Planner
PG:jm
pg\reports\va06-01.pc
31A-6
o \~' ~, C2 < A11lc1\1 csf:' Rl l!l2J I A1 I R1 J 1"1 :
M2 !I" ~ ~' 1 ,I R1 ] R1 1 ~l" l
"' 1"" (:~ . A1 ~ C5! ~!
I -1r ~ 'J ~ M2 ,,' ~ T:11 R1! R1 ~ " t
l~~ A2 ~A21 M2 ~' t R1
I -: ~ '\ \\}. ~ ~"-\ ,\2 ~ --I"""' '_h ~ 15 V~PL ~ Rl :> 0
~ ",. '.~" ~" --.,~ -' "
~~ ~~ 0 " ~~~, ,,' A1 1S'~ ,le-R1 . R1~' R1
~\i>:~~-': ~ ~2 1:2 0 .,R3 R3 50-21 A1: ~ OR1::"l p'
) q;J.~,:~\3~~.~~ ,,--, "; ",'.--'- ':' Q I ~':: '~"{_
"ilffl ~ ':'" l' ;~ ~ Rl Rl Rl ~7-,,,.
~j~S 0 ~,,2 ~o~, M2\M 12/~Ml1R3'~19:3' cJ'~ 0' ,,~,~.,Wp; p ~
_HDII II-~~I fC2.HOII I M2 FU [g C2 "II P,." ~~ 1l ~
3 'lGJ . ,"" V~"~I " I
50.37 I R~ Jj M2 M2."'" ., ~~' ,~J." \2 A2 ,,- - ~ !f;;;;-r--"" --j!
,_"_:1; 0: M2 ~I .~A2 ;!j R2 -< R2 ~M1 --.JI
~i, "' ~~_ ~[~~] M2-"''' ' 1=2'" , ~"'1 EB~OJECT I'.' A2;! ,., ~ R2 U C2 0
~1" R2 'I G:~" I" M2."''' ~ ~"' ~r,l~~~~hi C2 l! ',,:1 C2 0
1ST ST \\\ "'~
-:;J~~~Sr;ll;l~ M2 11Q~, C2' E'"tC2 C2
iJ~~QO~L:J~ o;.e~ ~C5 C2 Rl~ I--
~0~G:J: -';'-1 ':'''''I~ w~'", . '.,,, ~cr-'
:9 CJD ~ GU R3 II pM1 T ~ M1 ~ M2 Ml I ~ R3 R3
~GU~QO~cm~II'f\\~, . \, 0 ,
Ri1'R3'~'ii3''ii3'~1 ., 111\\' ,,,.
~ ~ L_~~_JiL_~~.J L..:::::......J ~ Cl<ESTNUTAV
o R3 FCiiQJ R3 '. R3 ll~~' R2 I [~ M2
~" oAl
Rl~~ Rl i ST. M1
J I:l R1 0' AI
~~ R1 Q~~ R4
:J~ R1 R1 I~ J~
o Rl fRil fRil fR1l R1 '! R; ! ~
R1
p
,\
~
o
M1
i 1'---: .,;,:"
'Inri, II
I _,
... t; R4 ~I
~6
,
.2
50-16
R1
M2
W AE.N T.
M2
"~"'----"I
A1 :
A1
.6
C-SM
C1
Cl-MD
C2
C3
C3-A
C'
CS
GENERAL AGRICULTURAL
PARKING MODIFICATION
COMMERCIAL SOUTH MAIN
COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL
COMM. COMMERCIAL-MUSEUM DISTRICT
GENERAL COMMERCIAL
CENTRAL BUSINESS
CENTRAL BUSINESS-ARTIST' VILLAGE
PLANNED SHOPPING CENTER
ARTERIAL COMMERCIAL
CR
GC
M1
M2
MO
o
P
PCO
PRD
COMMERCIAL RESIDENTIAL
GOVERNMENT CENTER
LIGHT INDUSTRIAL
HEAVY INDUSTRIAL
MILITARY OPERATIONS
OPEN SPACE
PROFESSIONAL
PLANNED COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
PLANNED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT
R1
R2
R3
R'
RE
SD
SP
SINGlE-FAMILY RESIDENCE
TWO-FAMILY RESIDENCE
MULTIPLE-FAMILY RESIDENCE
SUBURBAN APARTMENTS
RESIDENTIAL ESTATE
SPECIFIC DEVELOPMENT
SPECIFIC PLAN
A
VA 06-1
MR. MARCOS CONTRERAS
1201 EAST FOURTH STREET
~
.gy
- = 500 FEET
1" _ 1000 FEET
P LAN N
N G
AND
8 U
L 0
N G
AGE N C Y
3 ~~~ijr 1
~
~ ~ w .,
::::! ~ -
:::) ~
it: L5 z
~ ~ w ~ RESIDENTIAL
~ ~ Q
-
'"
~
'"
MULTI FAMILY VACANT
RESIDENTIAL ~
~
~
MULTI FAMILY .,
RESIDENTIAL ~ W
:::)
- COMMERCIAL Z
~ W
~ ~
"
~
~
.,
-
"
INDUSTRIAL '"
0 ~
0 PRQ,JECT ~
0 COMMERCIAL ~
~ SITE 0 0
z "
l/l <I:
<I: a:
w Cl
/ ,
FOURTH STREET
~ I-' (f
., l/l
COMMERCIAL ~
" ~
~
~ ~ C 0 M M E R C I A L .,
'" ~
~ ::c
'" ~
::c
COMMERCIAL RESIDENTIAL
~
~
VA 06-1
MR. MARCOS CONTRERAS
1201 EAST FOURTH STREET
A
#{'
P LAN N
N G
AND
B U
L 0
N G
AGE N C Y
EXHIBIT 2
31A-8
---
g !
., '"
. ..
~
..
.A
..~ ~ 9-~~' .~.
3e~~ 3
iiiiiiiiIii:; <
_':f.
-'.,-.... ".-"
..
~~
'" /l'"
;0
~;
~ .
..
-
Q)
Q)
....
-
(/)
.I::
t
:J
o
LJ..-
o
w,;,
..-8
ON
NO:
..-~
.
,
.; ~
i~. fii.Y-_[f i
%<1' <
,~~:t; . \" ~
'I ~
3
Cl,,-m """ "., '",-"1''''''~J.J3Jll14'l''~-1
""'O-<R' io:,,; "'1 '010" " '",",.~".
1','01""'".""
-"""'''''''''"''''~_''~
......""""'''''..'''"~=:~
"I ",l~"~ln"J ~ Nm",," ':""~~d
I"
I
I
i
I
I
~ , " , ,
, ~ C
~~
co
[(j
o
4'Y.
;~~
(...__n....'_,................." .1
l
31 ArA1:8-1
EXHIBIT 4
lOLUiV:I'V"VVl.NVS
.LS fUr '3: TOe]
DNIa-Im6 SV~31LLNOJ
~ : ;,
! ~ ~ ;
1,
F~~ u
o
DCiJ
"
c ,
~ "
- ,
~ "
; .
t . -
;
;
;
,
1
; ~
;
, 0
7;:
o 0
.
"
,i;
~ ~ 'I
A-
i
- I
I
~ --
.:::~
08
000008
1 J
u ~
~
~,
W"
~~
<n_
'i' Vi'
r r
[~~~~~~--=~_=~=l--g~N~
i ::=--=:.:::::.":'=.:sll ..sf !..o--;.c~liO__ll__ _ __ ,OINO.LN'V'
I~.:F'~=-=::=..E;J~'.!.'.-"_,"-H__,J._ ~...C;:JC--::::'''~M-c~~~Ciid'
OICrus
V\rV~
f..- -~.NO. '"~ ^3:-'jG.'o:~?. -.~.--'.':;:<. '00 (~:~-,! ~fl :~~~... ,
'__ N'9'ld ~ool~ I S~~~~!g ~ h ~I~I <( I
L_.._~~,",Bn:L'L C--:------O:';".~E..~ _~"_l.._>..__"J
--~. ....oh
~~
~.l: .....1
l~\~ ill I. , I !
',~-+ ;~~~lil~
i 'I! Ill! 11
~' !li'l '!
rh 'I; l!. ,.Ql
\~.j ~ *Ih T It jiJ f!i
'j
,
-------..-- - --_._-~.._------_... ----- L- --- - ---
--- , I@ l'i~;1 @
"-- 11/ ~ ~ h ~~
m_ -Tl_~""""'" -li" I .( \Jiil~ <C~ili
~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~~ ~ng
~ ~ ~ ii~~ ~~l~
. ,!,f~ ~
n > -~>=i!i 153
, ! ! ~~~! ,~,
Ill' ! ~ ~!n ~l:
! ~ '.', H
; ~;fh!h
d=~=--"~_u ~~l ~I\ [I n m! @i~!1
:, 'ill,~Q ~!
~ -- ;5a )-~--'
'::1 2 h/I m
Z I I ~~!ll!!l~~
ii' <(~ I ill 1!8!!~m;.1
, i ~" ' "'
" S~!'""<,,,
\) -IF iSlt'!(;l'!l:!<
r:r: I ~ ~'!lD;::l1ll'i~",~~
o I ~ !I~/!:!,>!;!
O! d !~O!"'l~ ~,
.J! 5 g;~@il~,ml
lo.l '~h '~~l c!
o i 'ioi)'~!1<
Z! ~ :!~~!'i~'!1
,0 ~.li~~gliH~!!
1 U! "~'(lr!!81~3'i
'W I
:n
~t:.~~~::~ \~~~J, '.~;:::
co..o,,'" .'W'"'..,~,,.,,,,,, ",,,
.10 ~-13:n,"" ''',''
,
/
I:;~
/ ,~
"
i
.,
I
" .1~. / ....j M
~ \ . .. I'.. L:"'J
I. ., ~
'I' }
".,,--__,", .!,/
t'I.'- I
r_~./
-- :
~! '
+~:
"
: I
II~
,
,
~:
r
rT]
Ill.
illJ
I--~=-
Ii
I
II
l
_ 'I II
I~-;-
"
r' :PC...
+:t
~(/: "
I it
h .1l
, 5 i fI
11i
I I
~ 11-
l I ol:l "
; ~
.
,
':11' )
,,' "hi!;,
.~-.. "
,j.--.,
,- .0':'
4
,
-- ,
'..'..
I
L
31A- A 06-1
EXHIBIT 5
8
I I
II fI
lih~
11118
~I~
111' I IIII ';
~ I I I e
~ II I Ii ~
~ I I i
: i I if
! I '
ml
I ~h~U "~ 1.{\
~ ." (l
~ ..;....- <r
! II,iI I I 1")'
~ I 'llll! !.,!
'5! I' dt i l
W .",,,,,.. ~
l .J
j a.
l: i a::
o
o
.J
lo.
t-
UI
II
j;:
~~
II !U
Ii hili!
II !!I1~1
:llll!l
llllt"'l"
"W'! :i
hll'l!;I,'
IIII.!, i,
I
Ihi
111l
ml
i!j
IU
t-
o
Z
-.--.,
South Elevation
West Elevation
VA 06-1
3I!fCAijJf2
KO -6/7/06
RESOLUTION NO. 2006-014
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF
THE CITY OF SANTA ANA DENYING VARIANCE NO.
2006-01 TO ALLOW THE REDUCTION OF REQUIRED
PARKING FOR OFFICE USE FOR THE PROPERTY
LOCATED AT 1201 EAST FOURTH STREET
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 Variance No. 2006-01 to allow the
reduction of required parking for office use at an existing industrial building
at 1201 East Fourth Street
B. Variance No. 2006-01 came before the Planning Commission on June 12,
2006 for a duly noticed public hearing.
C. The Planning Commission determines that for Variance No. 2006-01 the
following findings, which must be established pursuant to Santa Ana
Municipal Code Section 41-638 in order to grant a variance from the
provisions of the Santa Ana Municipal Code, have not been established:
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.
This is a typical rectangular lot with no unique site features
that warrant approval of a variance for parking. There are no
special circumstances applicable to the subject property
where the strict interpretation 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 the zoning code. Additionally, strict application
of the zoning code would not deprive the owner the
privileges enjoyed by other property in the vicinity and under
identical zoning classification. The property is fully occupied
and the denial of the variance for parking to allow the
Resolution No. 2006-014
Page 1 of4
31A-13
additional use would not deprive the property owner of the
privilege to use property.
2. That the granting of a variance is necessary for the preservation
and enjoyment of one or more substantial property rights.
The denial of the variance will not significantly impact the
rights of the property owner to enjoy the use of their
property. The property owner is able to continue to operate
the existing legal nonconforming industrial business on this
site. The denial of a parking variance to allow an office use
would not impact the existing nonconforming industrial
business.
3. That the granting of a variance will not be materially detrimental to
the public welfare or injurious to surrounding property.
The granting of a variance will be detrimental to the
surrounding residential uses, when considering that the
existing industrial business is located immediately adjacent
to residential uses which are considered to be a sensitive
land use. The approval of a variance and the addition of the
proposed office use would increase the parking impacts to
the surrounding residences. As a result of the
nonconforming on site parking, spillover parking will impact
the residential neighborhood. Additionally, state and local
codes state that a variance shall not be granted for a parcel
of property which authorizes a use that is not expressly
permitted by the zone district governing the parcel of
property, such as the case on this site.
4. That the granting of a variance will not adversely affect the General
Plan ofthe City.
i. The proposed office use is allowed by the current
Community Commercial (C2) zoning district and General
Commercial General Plan Designation. However, section
41-686 of the City's nonconforming code prohibits the
addition of uses where existing legal nonconforming uses
exist, even though the proposed use is allowed in the zone.
Additionally, the State of California Government Code
Section 65906 prohibits the granting of variances for uses
which are not allowed by the local zoning code governing the
property.
ii. In addition, Policies 5.4 of the City's General Plan Land Use
Element state that measures to insure that the impacts of
Resolution No. 2006-014
Page 2 of 4
31A-14
development are mitigated by supporting land uses which
are consistent with the Land Use Plan of the Land Use
Element. Also, Policy 5.5 encourages development which is
compatible with and supportive of surrounding land uses.
The existing nonconforming industrial use combined with the
proposed office use would be inconsistent uses with such
Land Use Plan and therefore not compatible with
surrounding land uses.
D. In accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act, the
recommended action is not considered a CEOA project. Therefore, no
environmental documentation is required.
Section 2. The Planning Commission of the City of Santa Ana after conducting
the public hearing hereby denies Variance No. 2006-01. 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 June 12,2006 and exhibits attached
thereto; and the public testimony all of which are incorporated herein by this reference.
ADOPTED this 12th day of June 2006 by the following vote:
AYES: Commissioners: Betancourt, Cribb, De La Torre, Gartner, Leo, Lutz
(6)
NOES: Commissioners: None (0)
ABSENT: Commissioners: Rodriguez (1)
ABSTENTIONS: Commissioners: None (0)
Christopher Leo
Chairman
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Joseph W. Fletcher, City Attorney
By:
Kylee O. Otto
Assistant City Attorney
Resolution No, 2006-014
Page 3 of 4
31A-15
CERTIFICATE OF ATTESTATION AND ORIGINALITY
I, MARTHA RAMIREZ, Clerk of the Planning Commission, do hereby attest to and
certify the attached Resolution No. 2006-014 to be the original resolution adopted by the
Planning Commission of the City of Santa Ana on June 12, 2006.
Date:
Clerk of the Planning Commission
City of Santa Ana
Resolution No. 2006-014
Page 4 of 4
31A-16