Resolution No. 2026-xx
RESOLUTION NO. 2026-xx
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF SANTA ANA DENYING APP EAL
APPLICATION NO. 2025-02 AND UPHOLDING
THE DETERMINATION OF THE PLANNING
COMMISSION TO APPROVE CONDITIONAL
USE PERMIT NO. 1982-18-MOD-1 AS
CONDITIONED TO FACILITATE THE
CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW PRIVATE SCHOOL
BUILDING WITHIN AN EXISTING CHURCH
CAMPUS LOCATED AT 5311 WEST MCFADDEN
AVENUE (APN: 108-073-13)
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. Rev. Fr. Karekin Bedourian with Ari Guiragos Minassian School (“Applicant”), representing Forty Martyrs Armenian Church (“Property Owner”), requested approval of Conditional Use Permit (CUP) No. 1982 - 18-MOD-1 to facilitate the construction of a new building at 5311 W.
McFadden Avenue for a private school that was originally approved under CUP No. 1982-18 and Variance No. 1982-20 (“Project”);
B. On October 27, 2025, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing for the Project and, by a vote of 6:1 (Ayes: Commissioners Benninger, Escamilla, Oliva, Pham, Ramos, and Woo; Absent: Leo), made required findings and approved CUP No. 1982-18-MOD-1;
C. On November 5, 2025, Anthony Gutierrez, on behalf of the Sally C.
Gutierrez Trust, (“Appellant”) submitted a timely appeal application pursuant to Section 41-645 of the SAMC on forms provided by the Planning Department. The Appellant generally requested that: (1) the City conduct s a de novo review using correct analytical and equity-based procedures; (2) require environmental review prior to any consideration; (3) the City demonstrates that the Project will not affect any of the adjacent residents and adversely impact vulnerable senior and ADA-protected occupants; and (4) should the City be unable to demonstrate that the project can meet the previously mentioned requests, that the City Council overturn the Planning Commission’s decision approving CUP No. 1982-18-MOD-1. Specifically, the Appellant states that:
Resolution No. 2026-xx
I. The project was approved with procedural deficiencies related to the public notice, access for public review of the project, complex materials that burdened the public, misrepresentation of the proximity to the project site, omission of corridor context, lack of existing classroom enrollment data, inadequate consideration of land use changes, omission of dual use impact on adjacent residential property, failure to include enrollment growth enforcement measures, failure to disclose commercial even use within the corridor, limited public participation during the public hearing, imbalanced hearing structure and opposition time, and reasonable perception of predetermined outcome;
II. The project was approved by using the incorrect CEQA exemption and improper environmental review of the project;
III. The multi-institutional corridor conditions and impacts on the single family residence;
IV. The decision to process the proposed project as a modification to the existing CUP No. 1982-18, rather than a new CUP lead to improper review of the project;
V. The project did not consider residential protection and land use compatibility violations;
VI. The project violates senior residents, Americans with Disabilities Act, and Fair Housing Act by imposing impacts that hinder protected individuals to fully and equally enjoy their homes;
VII. The conditions of approval for the project lack mitigation measures to diminish potential impacts;
VIII. The City failed to evaluate cumulative impacts arising from the addition of the school to the existing institutional uses; IX. The City failed to considered less intrusive or lower impact alternatives; and
X. The approval did not advance the public interest nor uphold equitable treatment of affected residents.
D. Pursuant t o Section 41 -645 of the Santa Ana Municipal Code, the City Council may, after public hearing, affirm, reverse, change, modify the original decision and may make any additional determination it shall consider appropriate within the limitations imposed by Chapter 41.
E. On February 3, 2026 , the C ity Council conducted a duly noticed public hearing on Appeal Application No. 2025-02;
Resolution No. 2026-xx
F. Staff presented the following in response to the Appeal: The Appellant does not provide any evidence that the proposed Project would adversely impact the community, pursuant to Section 41 -638 of the SAMC. Specifically, the Appellant does not provide evidence to substantiate that the Project will be a detriment to the general wellbeing of the neighborhood or the community; detrimental to the health, safety, or general welfare of persons residing or working in the vicinity; would adversely affect the present economic stability or future economic development of property in the surrounding area; does not comply with the regulations and con ditions specified in this chapter for such use; and would adversely affect the general plan of the city or any specific plan applicable to the area of the proposed use. A comprehensive response on the appeal items previously outlined has been prepared and can be found in Exhibit 6 of the staff report dated February 3, 2026.
Section 2. The City Council, after hearing, considering and weighing all evidence in the record presented on behalf of all parties and being fully informed of the application, the Planning Commission’s decision, and the appeal, hereby finds and determines that the Planning Comm ission’s decision was not made i n error, that the Planning Commission’s decision w as not an abuse of discretion by the Planning Commission and that the Planning Commission’s decision was supported by substantial evidence in the record.
Section 3. The denial of Appeal Application No. 2025 -02 would result in upholding the Planning Commission’s October 27, 2025, approval of Conditional Use Permit (CUP) No. 1982 -18-MOD-1, which in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the CEQA Guidelines, is exempt from further review per Section 15314 (Class 14 – Minor Additions to School). The Class 14 exemption consists of minor additions to existing schools within existing school grounds where the addition does not increase the original student capacity by more than 25 percent or ten classrooms. The proposed school expansion will not incr ease the student capacity by more than 25 percent and it only proposes to add four classrooms and one laboratory.
Moreover, pursuant to Section 15300.2 (a) through (f) of the CEQA guidelines, exceptions to the CEQA exemptions do not apply to the proposed project because the Project is not located on an environmentally sensitive location nor on a hazardous waste site, does not have significant cumulative impact nor significant effect according to the focused traffic study and parking demand analysis documents that are part of the Planning Commission staff report (Exhibit 3), and it will not cause substantial adverse change of a historical resource. Furthermore, the denial of Appeal Application No. 2025 -02 would result in upholding the Planning Commission’s a pproval of CUP No. 1982 -18-MOD-1; therefore, there is no further environmental impact associated with Appeal Application No. 2025-02.
Based on this analysis, a Notice of Exemption, Environmental Review No. 2023 -34, will be filed for the proposed Project.
Section 4. The Applicant shall indemnify, protect, defend and hold the City and/or any of its officials, officers, employees, agents, departments, agencies, authorized volunteers, and instrumentalities thereof, harmless from any and all claims, demands, lawsuits, writs of mandamu s, and other and proceedings (whether legal, equitable,
Resolution No. 2026-xx
declaratory, administrative or adjudicatory in nature), and alternative dispute resolution procedures (including, but not limited to arbitrations, mediations, and such other procedures), judgments, or ders, and decisions (collectively “Actions”), brought against the City and/or any of its officials, officers, employees, agents, departments, agencies, and instrumentalities thereof, that challenge, attack, or seek to modify, set aside, void, or annul, any action of, or any permit or approval issued by the City and/or any of its officials, officers, employees, agents, departments, agencies, and instrumentalities thereof (including actions approved by the voters of the City) for or concerning the project, whether such Actions are brought under the Ralph M. Brown Act, California Environmental Quality Act, the Planning and Zoning Law, the Subdivision Map Act, Code of Civil Procedure sections 1085 or 1094.5, or any other federal, state or local constitution, statute, law, ordinance, charter, rule, regulation, or any decision of a court of competent jurisdiction. It is expressly agreed that the City shall have the right to approve, which approval will not be unreasonably withheld, the legal counsel providing the City’s defense, and that Applicant shall reimburse the City for any costs and expenses directly and necessarily incurred by the City in the course of the defense. City shall promptly notify the Applicant of any Action brought and City shall cooperate with Applicant in the defense of the Action.
Section 5. The City Council of the City of Santa Ana her eby denie s Appeal Application No. 2025-02, thereby upholding the Planning Commission’s approval of Conditional Use Permit (CUP) No. 1982-18-MOD-1. This decision is based upon the evidence submitted at the above said hearing, which includes , but is not limited to: the Request for City Council Action dated February 3, 2026, and exhibits attached thereto, including the Response to Appeal Comments for Appea l Application No. 202 5-02 in Exhibit A of this resolution , and the public testimony , written and oral , all of which are incorporated herein by this reference.
[Signatures on the following page]
ADOPTED this ____ day of ___________, 2026.
_______________________
Valerie Amezcua
Mayor
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Sonia R. Carvalho
City Attorney
By:________________________
Melissa M. Crosthwaite
Senior Assistant City Attorney
Resolution No. 2026-xx
AYES: Councilmembers _______________________________________
NOES: Councilmembers _______________________________________
ABSTAIN: Councilmembers _______________________________________
NOT PRESENT: Councilmembers _______________________________________
CERTIFICATE OF ATTESTATION AND ORIGINALITY
I, Jennifer Hall, City Clerk, do hereby attest to and certify the attached Resolution No. 2026-xx to be the original resolution adopted by the City Council of the City of Santa Ana on _______________, 2026.
Date: ________________ ____________________________________ City Clerk
Resolution No. 2026-xx