Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout16 CUP 98-022 DR 98-026 07-06-9NO. 16 7-6-99 JULY 6, 1999 F.=,OI¢,· WILLIAM A. HUSTON, CITY MANAGER COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING: APPEAL PERMIT 98-022 AND DESIGN REVIEW 98-026 OF CONDITIONAL USE SUMMARY: The a££licant is requesting authorization to establish alt emt~loyee £arking lot bt a vacant 50foot by 314 foot £ortion of an abandoned railroad right of way located to the north of the Plaza Lafayette shot¥ffng center at 13031 Newport Avenue attd to the west of the lI7oodcrest Apat:tments located at 12091-12943 Newport Avenue. Ott April 12, 1999, the Plannbtg Commission approved CUP 98-022 attd DR 98-026. On April 19, 1999, the Foothill Comntunities Association attd George Haltntan appealed the Planning Commission's decision. The City Council considered the at~lPeal on May 3, 1999, attd June 7, 1999 attd continued the £roject to July 6, 1999. Apt~licant: Jack Stanaland, Plaza Lafayette, LLC. Owner: Plaza Lafayette, LLC. RECOMMENDATION Pleasure of th'e City Council. FISCAL IMPACT The appellants paid fees associated with the processing of the appeal of conditional Use Permit 98-022 and Design Review 98-026. On May 3, 1999, the City Council directed staff to refund the fees. A refund was sent on May 18, 1999. BACKGROUND On April 12, 1999, the Planning Commission considered and approved Conditional Use Permit (CUP) 98-022 and Design Review (DR) 98-026. On April 19, 1999, the Foothill Communities Association and George Haltman appealed the Planning Commission's decision. On May 3, 1999, and June 7, 1999, the City Council considered the appeal and continued the public hearing to July 6, 1999 (see Exhibit A - City Council Staff. Report dated June 7, 1999). City Council Report Continued Public Hearing: Appeal of CUP 98-022 & DR 98-026 July 6, 1999 Page 2 DISCUSSION City Council Meeting on June 7, 1999 At the meeting on June 7, 1999, members of the public and the applicant provided testimony on the proposed parking lot and the Tustin Branch Trail. In general, members of the public expressed concerns regarding the proposed parking lot and, although the trail is not part of the project, expressed support for the trail. The applicant expressed concems regarding proposed conditions of approval. The City Council continued the public hearing to allow time to resolve outstanding issues. Meeting with the AppliCant Staff met with the applicant on June 17, 1999, to discuss his concerns with the proposed conditions of approval (see Exhibit B). In addition to discussing the conditions of approval, the applicant reiterated that he would be able to reduce the size of the parking lot and sent correspondence, outlining the revised proposal (see Exhibit B). Condition Nos. 1.7 and 1.8: Condition 2.1: Condition 2.11 The applicant requested that these conditions be eliminated. These conditions impose penalties for code violations and provide for recovery .of code enforcement costs. These conditions have been attached to several similar projects. Staff recommends that these conditions be retained to ensure co.mpliance with the conditions of approval, provide a disincentive for code violations and allow the City to recover costs. The applicant and staff agreed to the language provided in Resolution No. 99-32 which would allow the applicant to take advantage of existing walls by grading the site down to ensure a minimum wall height 6'8" on the applicant's property. The applicant requested that this condition be eliminated. This condition requires on-security personnel to be provided, if deemed necessary by the Chief of Police or Community Development Director. Staff supports eliminating this condition since Condition 3.2 allows staff to review the operations of the parking lot every six months to ensure that the use is compatible with surrounding development. If the use does not operationally comply with the conditions of approval, the Director may require the property owner City Council Report Continued Public Headng: Appeal of CUP 98-022 & DR 98-026 July 6, 1999 Page 3 Condition 2.12: Condition 3.11 Condition 3.12 Finding G: to provide' additional mitigation such as reducing the hours of operation or~ retaining on-site security; or recommend revocation of the use permit. The applicant and staff were not able to' agree on modified language for this condition. However, to clarify the intent of the condition, staff recommends the following modifications: "If the off-street portion of the Tustin Branch Trail or a public linear park adjacent to the site is established, the property owner shall negotiate in good faith work with the County of Orange to provide public ingress/egress to Plaza Lafayette except the property owner is under no obligation to reach agreement except on terms mutually acceptable to the County and the property owner." The' applicant requested that this condition be eliminated. This condition requires the applicant to. enforce existing lease agreements with tenants which require employees to park in the rear of the center. Staff recommends that this condition be retained. This condition ensures that the proposed parking lot will be used for its intended use. The applicant requested that the requirement for a valet parking plan be eliminated. A valet parking plan is necessary to ensure that valet parking operations do not conflict with' access to the proposed parki.ng lot or other parking areas to the rear of Plaza Lafayette. The configuration and operations, of the existing valet service has never been approved or authorized by the City of Tustin. As documented in the City's parking Survey dated April 1998, the current configuration and operations of the existing valet service inhibits access to parking spaces by patrons and employees. Parking . spaces are required to be independently accessible to all patrons and emploYees. Although staff recommends that this condition be retained, to reduce the cost to the applicant, staff modified this condition to require that a valet service be provided for all patrons of the restaurants within Plaza Lafayette rather than all patrons of the center. The applicant requested that this finding be eliminated since it is unrelated to the project. Staff recommends that this finding be retained since an additional point of City Council Report Continued Public Hearing: Appeal of CUP 98-022 & DR 98-026 July 6, 1999 Page 4 public access to the rear of the center may encourage alternative forms of transportation which could minimize the need for parking within Plaza Lafayette. Since the proposed project is intended to provide employee parking to mitigate an existing parking deficiency, encouraging future alternative forms of transportation to the site would reduce the demand on parking and is related to the scope of the project. County of Orange · On June 23, 1999, staff met with. representatives of the County of Orange Public Facilities and Resources Department. County staff indicated that they had been directed by John Sibley, Director of Public Facilities and Resources, to advise the City of Tustin of the COunty's position. The County will: Monitor the City of Tustin's actions on the proposed parking lot; Decline acceptance of liability and maintenance responsibilities for trail access through Plaza Lafayette; Discontinue acquisition of the abandoned railroad right-of-way between Warren and Plaza Lafayette if no trail access is to be provided by the applicant; and, Acquire the abandoned railroad right-of-way between Vanderlip and Warren and develop a decomPosed granite trail. County staff provided a copy of the staff report which contains these recommendations (see Council' Exl~ibit C). CITY COUNCIL ALTERNATIVES Adopt Resolution No. 99-32 approving the proposed parking lot. Resolution No. 99-32 (see Exhibit D) would approve an employee parking lot with thirty-seven (37) spaces that could operate twenty-four (24) hours each day. Modify Resolution No. 99-32 as deemed appropriate. The City Council could approve a reduced number of parking spaces consistent with the applicant's revised proposal and/or require additional and more restrictive operational conditions. City Council Report Continued Public Hearing: Appeal of CUP 98-022 & DR 98-026 July 6, 1999 Page 5' 3, Continue the matter and request that the applicant submit a modified site plan and direct staff to prepare a modified resolution of approval for the Council's consideration. The City Council could request the applicant to modify the site plan to reduce the number of parking spaces and add landscaping. Continue the matter and direct staff to prepare a resolution of denial for the Council's consideratiom The City Council could direct staff to Prepare a resolution of denial with appropriate' findings. Karen Peterson Acting Senior Planner Director, Community DeVelopment Attachments: Council Exhibit A - Council Exhibit B - Council Exhibit C- Council Exhibit D- City Council Staff RePort dated June 7, 1999 Letters from Applicant dated June 23, 1999 County of Orange Staff Report dated May 18, 1999 Resolution No. 99-32 cc/cup98-027-7-6 EXHIBIT A NO. 19 6-7-99 DATE: JUNE 7, 1999 I n t e r-C o m TO' FROM: SUBJECT: WILLIAM A. HUSTON, CITY MANAGER o. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING' APPEAL PERMIT 98-022 AND DESIGN REVIEW 98-026 OF CONDITIONAL USE SUMMARY: The applicant is requesting authorization to establish an employee parking lot in a vacant 50 foot by 314 foot portion of an abandoned railroad right of way located to the north of the Plaza Lafayette shopping center at 13031 Newport Avenue and to the west of the Woodcrest Apartments located at 12091-12943 Newport Avenue. Qn April 12, 1999, the Planning Commission approved CUP 98-022 and DR 98-026. Qn April 19, 1999, the Foothill Communities Association and-George Haltman appealed the Planning Commission's decision. On May 3, 1999, the City Council considered the appeal and continued the public heating to June 7, 1999. Applicant: Jack Stanaland, Plaza Lafayette, LLC. Ownen Plaza Lafayette, LLC. RECOMMENDATION Pleasure of the City Council. FISCAL IMPACT The appellants paid fees associated with the processing of the appeal of Conditional Use Permit 98-022 and Design Review 98-026. On May 3, 1999, the. City Council directed staff to refund the fees. A refund was sent on May 18, 1999. BACKGROUND On April 12, 1999, the Planning Commission Considered and approved Conditional Use Permit (CUP) 98-022 and Design Review (DR) 98-026. On April 19, 1999, the Foothill Communities Association and George Haltman appealed the Planning Commission's decision. On May 3, 1999, the City Council considered the appeal and continued the public hearing to June 7, 1999 (see Attachment A - City Council Staff Report dated May 3, 1999). City Council Report Continued Public Hearing: Appeal of CUP 98-022 & DR 98-026 June 7, 1999 Page 2 DISCUSSION City Council Meeting on May 3, 1999 At the meeting on May 3, 1999, fifteen members of the public and the applicant provided testimony on the proposed parking lot and the Tustin Branch Trail.. Although the trail is not part of the application for the proposed parking lot, it would terminate at the northern boundary of the proposed parking lot and County staff have indicated that they will not recommend implementation of the trail without access through Plaza Lafayette's existing or proposed parking lots. Ten members of the public spoke in opposition to the Proposed parking lot. In general, 'the speakers were concerned with retaining the residential character of the area and noted that potential noise, light, and other disturbances associated with a parking lot would negatively affect their quality of life. One of the appellants requested modifications to the project such as: limiting the height of the lighting standards to six feet; providing on-site security; limiting hours of. operation, and installing a gate for access to the future Tustin Branch Trail. 'Many of the speakers indicated support for the Tustin Branch Trail. David Knowleton, representative of the Union Pacific Railroad, also indicated support for the Tustin Branch Trail and noted that the prior owner of Plaza Lafayette had verbally agreed to provide access to the trail. Three members of the public spoke in opposition to the Tustin Branch Trail noti,~g that they had extended their properties into the abandoned right-of-way through long-standing leases with Union Pacific Railroad. They also noted that potential noise and other disturbances associated with a public trail would negatively affect their quality of life. ; A representative of the Tustin Chamber of Commerce and the applicant spoke in favor of the proposed parking lot. The applicant indicated that he had not been able to Obtain an agreement with the County for trail access through' his property and noted his concerns with the requirement for a masonry wall and valet parking plan. The City Council noted that the proposed parking lot may be able to be improved by the addition'of trees and landscaping. Since the parking demand study shows a parking deficiency of twenty-two (22) parking spaces, the proposal could be reduced from thin,- six (36) parking spaces to twenty-two (22) parking spaces to allow sufficient planter area for trees, in addition, the City Council indicated general support for the implementation of the Tustin Branch Trail between Warren Avenue and Plaza Lafayette but recognized that the applicant had been unsuccessful in obtaining an access agreement with the County of Orange. The Council continued the public hearing to June 7, 1999, with the applicant's approval, to cladfy whether the CoUnty intended to: 1) implement the trail between City Council Report Continued Public Hearing: Appeal of CUP 98-022 & DR 98-026 June 7, 1999 Page 3 Warren Avenue and Plaza Lafayette; and, 2) indemnify the property owner of Plaza Lafayette and/or obtain a trail easement for access from the proposed parking lot to Newport Avenue. The Council also..requested that staff host a meeting to encourage a consensus among the interested parties. Meeting with the County of Orange On May 7, 1999, Mayor Tracy Wodey and City staff members met with Paul Hernandez, an aide from Supervisor Todd Spitzer's office, and Mike .Ruane, Director of the Environmental Management Agency. The following items were discussed: Mike Ruane confirmed that the CoUnty has $500,000 to be used for the purchase of the portion of the trail between Vanderlip. and the area adjacent to the proposed Plaza LaFayette parking lot. County staff estimates $500,000 will provide for minimum improvements such as a decomposed gravel, trailway and small landscaping plants. Additional landscaping would be installed if the County receives Intermodal Surface Transportation Enhancement Act (ISTEA) funding. Paul Hernandez indicated support for the trail 'between Vandedip and Plaza .Lafayette. However, 'County staff are reluctant to execute the purchase agreement with Union Pacific for the entire segment between Vanderlip and Plaza Lafaytte until the. issue of whether a gate will be installed at Plaza Lafayette is resolved.- Mike Ruane confirmed that if access cannot be obtained through Plaza Lafayette, County staff would recommend that only the trail segment between Vandedip and Warren Avenue be implemented. PauI.Hernandez indicated general support for a trail/easement through Plaza Lafayette. Mike Ruane indicated that he would explore the possibility of accepting liability for trail access through Plaza Lafayette and noted the issue may need to be considered by the Board of Supervisors. County representatives indicated that they would visit the site and prepare a written response to the City of Tustin within two weeks. To date, City staff nor the Mayor has received a formal response from the County. However, Mike Ruane indicated that the issue of indemnification on 'private property is currently being reviewed by County Counsel. Since the County has not indicated whether the trail will be implemented, staff has not scheduled a meeting with all interested parties. New Information Following the City Council meeting, the applicant proposed to reduce the number of parking spaces from thirty-seven (37) to twenty (20) and reduce the length of the lot from 314 feet to 175 feet (see Attachment B). Attachment C shows the approximate location of the revised boundaries in relation to the previously proposed boundaries. City Council Report Continued Public Hearing: Appeal of CUP 98-022 & DR 98-026 June 7, 1999 Page 4 A representative from the State Fire Marshall's office sent correspondence confirming that no structures, _including fences or walls, can be constructed over the ten (10) foot wide pipelin~ easement traverses north to south through the center of the proposed parking lot (see Attachment D). However, the representative indicated that a gate or removable fence could be installed over the easement provided the footings or support system is not located within the easement. The applicant would be required to receive authorization from the easement holder prior to the issuance of permits for any improvements over the easement area. CITY COUNCIL ALTERNATIVES le Adopt Resolution No. 99-32 approving the proposed parking lot. Resolution No. 99-32 (see Attachment E) would approve.an employee parking lot with thirty-seven (37) spaces that could operate twenty-four (24) hours each day. A number of conditions are included to mitigate potential impacts, including the following: Parking shall be limited to employees only (Condition 3.5) Lighting shall be directed downward and not produce direct light or glare on adjacent properties (Condition 2.3) The Community Development Director and/or Police Chief may require the applicant to provide on-site security personnel to patrol the lot and limit pedestrian and vehicular access (Condition 2.11 ). The parking lot shall be reviewed by the Community Development Department every six months. If noise, security, or other nuisance problems exist, the Director of Community Development could require additional mitigation measures such as reducing hours, of use or retaining on-site security (Condition 3.2.). In response to comments at the May 3, 1999, meeting and new information, the following conditions have been added or modified: Conditions 1.7 and 1.8 have been added to impose civil penalties and code enforcement costs for violations. Condition 2.1 has been modified to require the applicant/property owner to provide evidence of authorization from all easement holders to construct proposed improvements within their easements. Condition 2.12 has been modified to require the applicant/proped7 owner to work with the County to provide pedestrian ingress/egress in the event that a pubtic trail or a linear park is established in the abandoned railroad right~ of-way. Providing future pedestrian access would provide an alternative City Council Report Continued Public Hearing: Appeal of CUP 98-022 & DR 98-026 June 7, 1999 Page 5 means of transportation which may minimize the need for vehicular parking within Plaza Lafayette. 2, Modify Resolution No. 99-32 as deemed appropriate. The City Council could require additional and more restrictive operational conditions to ensure compatibility with adjacent uses. For example, conditions could address hours of operation, on-site security, .and hours of lighting. 3' Continue the matter 'and reqUest that the applicant submit a modified site plan and direct staff to prepare a modified resolution of approval for the Council's consideration. The City Council could request the applicant to modify the site plan to reduce the number of parking spaces, add landscaping such as trees, and consider other measUres that may improve compatibility with surrounding uses. 4, Continue the matter and direct staff to prepare a resolution of denial for the COuncil's consideration. The City Council could direct staff to prepare a resolution of denial with appropriate findings. Karen Peterson Acting Senior Planner E--iizabeth A. Binsac~' Director, Community Development Attachments' Council Exhibit A - Council Exhibit B - Council Exhibit C- Council Exhibit D - Council Exhibit E- City Council Staff Report dated May 3, 1999 Letter from Jack Stanaland dated May 24, 1999 Revised Parking Lot Boundaries Memorandum from Emmet[ Cooper dated June 1, 1999 Resolution No. 99-32 EXHIBIT A. MAY 3RD, 1999 CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT · AG :DA :,;0. 1 5-3-99 Inter-Co,,, DATE: TO: FROM: SUBJECT: MAY 3, 1999 WILLIAM A. HUSTON, CITY MANAGER COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT APPEAL OF CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 98-022 AND DESIGN REVIEW 98-026 RECOMMENDATION That the City Council adopt Resolution 99-32 approving Conditional Use Permit 98-022 and Design Review 98-026. .. FISCAL IMPACT . . The appellants have paid fees associated with the processing of the appeal of Condi_tional Use Permit 98-022 and Design Review 98-026. HISTORY On March 22, 1999, the Planning 'Commission was-scheduled to consider Conditional Use Permit (CUP) 98-022 and Design Review (DR) 98-026 but continued the public hearing to April 12, 1999, since the property was not posted in accordance with the City's public noticing procedures (see Exhibit A- March 22, 1999 and Apdl 12, 1999 staff reports). On March .29, 1999, a public meeting was held at the Clifton Miller Community Center (see April 12, 1999, staff report). On April 12, 1999 the Planning Commission considered and approved Conditional Use Permit (CUP) 98-022 and Design Review (DR) 98-026 by adopting Resolution No. 3662 (Exhibit B - Minutes and Resolution No. 3662). Materials provided by members of the public and the applicant at the April 12, 1999 Planning Commission meeting are included in Exhibit C. On April. 19, 1999, the Foothill Communities Association and George Haitman appealed the Planning Commission's decision (see Exhibit D). City Council Report Appeal of CUP 98-022 & DR 9o-d26 May 3, 1999 Page 2 DISCUSSION The project would provide for thirty-seven parking spaces adjacent to the rear parking area of Plaza Lafayette to satisfy Condition No. 6.18 of Resolution No. 3413 which required the property owner to mitigate parking problems by providing additional parking within 500 feet of the existing center or by other means (see March 22, 1999 staff report). The project site is surrounded by Woodcrest Apartments to the east, multiple family residences to the west, Plaza Lafayette to the south, and an abandoned railroad right-of- way to the north (see A~tachment A of March 22, 1999 staff report). Beyond the northern limits of the proposed parking lot, there are twelve (12) homes along Clarissa Lane and four- (4) homes along Beeson Lane that border the abandoned railroad right-of-way. The appeal submitted by Foothill Communities Association states that proposed parking lot will adversely impact the adjoining neighborhood and seeks design and operational changes to the project including: · Installation of a gate at the northern wall to allow for fUture access to a potential off- street multi-purpose trail between Warren Avenue and Plaza Lafayette; · Installation of lighting fixtures that are six (6) feet, eight inches or less in height; · Requirement for on-site security personnel; and, · Application of operating hours for the parking lot. The appeal submitted by George Haltman requests that the City CounCil consider issues that he believes the Planning Commission did not adequately address. At the Planning Commission meeting and public meeting, Mr. Haltman indicated that he was not in favor of th'e trail or the proposed parking lot. Following is a discussion of issues raised in the appeal letters and during the public review process and how they were addressed by Resolution No. 3662 and the proposed City Council Resolution No. 99-32. Prior City Council Action Residents of Woodcrest Apartments and Clarissa and Beeson Lanes questioned why the project was being proposed when the City Council had previously denied a similar application for a commercial parking lot in March 1997. They also noted that the staff report did not address this prior action. However, the staff report for March 22, 1999, discussed previous City Council actions, outlined issues associated with the prior project, and included City Council Resolution No. 97-16 for the Planning Commission's review. City Council Report Appeal of CUP 98-022 & DR 9~-026 May 3, 1999 Page 3 The previous project was denied, without prejudice based on the following concerns: Without 'restrictions, the parking lot expansion area has the potential to create noise and other nuisance impacts on adjacent properties; The use of the employee parking lot between the hours of 10 p.m. and 7 a.m. has the potential to disturb the comfort and general welfare of persons residing' adjacent to the proposed use; An unsecured employee parking lot area would permit access to non-employees, which could increase the potential for noise impacts on adjacent properties; and Although the use of the site as a commercial parking lot may be an appropriate use, the use of the site. as an expansion of the adjacent residential uses may be a more optimal use of the site. A number of conditions discussed in following sections are included in Resolution No. 99- 32 to mitigate potential impacts and restrict access to the parking lot. With respect to expansion 'of adjacent residential' uses, the owner of Woodcrest Apartments was not successful in acquiring the proposed project site prior to its sale 'to the current property owner in late 1997. In addition, the Union Pacific Railroad has refused offers of purchase to residents along Clarissa Lane who had wanted to expand their backyards into the abandoned right-of-way. Noise Residents of the Woodcrest Apartments noted that they are concerned with potential noise that may be generated from the proposed parking lot. Residents of Clarissa and Beeson Lanes noted that a trail in the abandoned right-of-way may disrupt them and subject them to criminal activities given their proximity to a public trail. To mitigate · potential noise impacts associated with the parkin, g lot, Resolution No. 99-32 includes the following conditions: ' ' · Condition 2.1 requires installation of a 6'8~ block wall to separate the parking lot and 'the adjacent properties. This wall 'also could mitigate noise impacts to adjacent properties. Condition 2.6 prohibits the operation of property maintenance equipment which is- attended by loud or unusual noise on Sundays and City observed federal holidays, before 7:00 a.m. and after 6:00 p.m. Monday through Friday, and before 9:00 a.m. and after 5:00 p.m. on Saturdays. Condition 2.7 prohibits the installation and/or operation of outdoor public telephones and public address systems in the parking lot. Condition 2.11 indicates that, if deemed necessary by the Community Development Director and/or Police Chief, the applicant would be required to provide security personnel and/or on-site manager to limit access to the parking lot City Council Report Appeal of CUP 98-022 & DR 98-026 o~ May 3, 1.,.,9 Page 4 to employees only and to provide on-site security. Condition 3.5 limits the use of the parking lot to employees only. Condition 3.9 regulates construction hours in accordance to the City's noise ordinance. Condition 3.10 requires signs to be installed to' prohibit skateboarding and loitering within the proposed parking lot. Security .. Residents of the Woodcrest Apartments also indicated that they are concerned with potential criminal activities that could take place in the proPosed parking lot since it is not visible from a public street. They also indicated that calls for Police service were routinely transferred back and forth-between the Tustin Police and Orange County Sheriff. Residents along Clarissa. Lane and Beeson Lane are opposed to installation of a trail behind their homes which may subject them to vandalism and criminal activities. Resolution No: 99-32 includes the following conditions: . · Condition 2.3 requires a minimum of one (1) foot-candle of illumination through out the .site. This condition will satisfy the security ordinance to assure that lighting is -provided through out the parking area.. · ConditiOn 2.11 indicates that, if deemed necessary by the Community Development Director and/or Police Chief, the applicant would be required to provide secudty personnel and/or on-site manager to limit access to the parking lot to employees only and to provide on-site security. In addition, the Chief of Police has indicated that he would notify the City's dispatchers, staff and the Orange County Sheriff to ensure that this does not occur in the future. -- Lbhting Due to the' close proximity of the proposed parking lot and residential properties, the residents of Woodcrest Apartments brought up concerns regarding the potential for light and glare impacts from lighting fixtures and vehicle headlights. Although no windows at Woodcrest Apartments face the proposed parking lot, Condition 2.3 was included to require lighting fixtures to be directed 90 degrees down and not disperse direct light or glare on adjacent properties. Parkina and Circulation Study in general, residents noted that the study does not provide evidence that additional parking is needed. However, the study found the following: Based on the current occupancies and vacancies in the tenant spaces, the highest demand for parking was for 224 spaces at 12:00 noon on Friday. There are a total of City Council Report Appeal of CUP 98-022 & DR 9b-~26 May 3, 1999 Page 5 232 existing Spaces. Based on full tenant occupancy with no vacancies, a total of 254 parking spaces would need to be provided. With only 232 marked parking spaces, a total of 22 parking spaces would be required to satisfy the parking demand at full tenant occupancy. · The installation of 37 parking spaces would, therefore, satisfy the parking demand at full tenant occupancy: Resolution No. 99-32 includes the following conditions: · Cond. ition 3.11 which requires the property owner to enforce lease provisions' which require employees to park in the rear of the Center. · - Condition 3.12 requires the property owner t° limit valet operations to an approved plan so that patrons may use preferred parking in the front of the center. Tustin Branch Trail In general, residents of Woodcrest. Apartments supported a connection of the Tustin Branch Trail to the proposed parking lot and noted that the previous property owner had agreed to provide a connection. They also questioned the viability of the City's preferred alternative of an on-street trail along Warren Avenue and Newport Avenue. In general, residents of Ciarissa and Beeson Lanes indicated that the trail would adversely impact their properties, and submitted a petition of opposition with '27 signatures (See Exhibit C). · The applicant has indicated that he would provide a ga~e and future trail connection with a written agreement with the County of Orange that defines areas of responsibility. To date, the County has declined' to enter into a written agreement with the applicant.- To require the applicant to provide a gate and trail connection to the Tustin Branch Trail, the City would need to determine that there is a nexus between the gate/trail connection and the proposed project. - With respect to the viability of an on-street trail, the Warren Avenue section of the preferred Tustin Branch Trail alignment would be a Class Iil (on-street signed) bike route and the Newport Avenue section would utilize the existing Class !1 (on-street striped bike lane) bike route (See Exhibit E). The City's Traffic Engineer has determined that both of these designations are feasible and both are currently in use ~ountywide. Resolution No. 3662 includes the following condition: '0 Condition 2.12 would allow the Zoning Administrator to consider the future installation of a gate if the Tustin Branch Trail is installed in the abandoned railroad riclht-of-way and the property owner and County of Orange agree to provide a connectior~. City Council Report Appeal of CUP 98-022 & DR 98-026 May 3, 1999 Page 6 CITY COUNCIL ALTERNATIVES . o o Adopt Resolution No. 99-32 approving the prOposed parking lot. Modify Resolution No. 99-32 as deemed appropriate. Direct staff to prepare a resolution of denial for the City Council's consideration. Ju~'tina Willkom Associate Planner Elizabeth A. Binsack Director, Community Development Attachments: CoUncil Exhibit A - Council Exhibit B- Council Exhibit C- Council Exhibit D- Council Exhibit E- Staff Reports dated March 22, 1999 and April 12, 1999 Minutes of Planning Commission meeting of April 12, 1999 and Resolution No. 3662 Materials submitted at April 12, 1999 Planning Commission Meeting Appeal Letters Preferred Tustin Branch Trail Alternative City Council Resolution 99-32 COUNCIL EXHIBIT A STAFF REPORTS, MARCH 22, 1999 APRIL 12, 1999 Report to the Planning Commission DATE: SUBJECT: APRIL 12, i999 ' CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING: CONDITIONAL 98-022 AND DESIGN REVIEW 98-026 USE PERMIT APPLICANT: JACK STANALAND PLAZA LAFAYETTE, LLC 30872 S. COAST HIGHWAY #160 .. LAGUNA BEACH, 'CA 92651 OWNER: PLAZA LAFAYETTE, LLC 30872 S. COAST HIGHWAY #i60 LAGUNA BEACH, CA 92651 LOCATION' VACANT PARCEL TO THE' NORTH OF 13031 NEWPORT AVENUE AND TO THE WEST. OF 12901-12943 NEWPORT AVENUE (APN #401-221-04) ZONING: MULTIPLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL (R-3) ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: REQUEST: THIS pRoJECT IS CATEGORICALLY EXEMPT (SECTION 15311, CLASS 11) PURSUANT TO THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT. -- ESTABLISHMENT OF A COMMERCIAL PARKING LOT IN A 50' BY 314' PORTION OF AN ABANDONED RAILROAD RIGHT-OF- WAY LOCATED IN THE MULTIPLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL (R-3) ZONING DISTRICT. RECOMMENDATION Adopt Resolution No. 3662 approving Conditional Use Permit 98-022 and Design Review 98-026. BACKGROUND AND DISCUSSION On March 22, 1999, the Planning Commission continued this item since the property was not posted in accordance with the City's public noticing procedures (see Exhibit A - Staff Report). Subsequently, the property was posted on March 23, 1999, for the April 12, 1999, meeting of the Planning Commission. Council ELxhibit A · Planning Cammission Supplemental Report Conditional Use Permit 95-022 & Design Review 98-026 April 12, 1999 Page 2 Before continuing the item, the Planning' CommiSsion received testimony from members of the public who were not available to attend the meeting on April 12, 1999. One member of the public, a Mr. McCauley, indicated that he supported a trail connection to the proposed parking lot, noted that there was an a. greement with the previous property owner to install a gate in the wall of a similar project, and requested that the new owner consider installing a gate in the wall. Due to the interest from the audience, the Commission directed staff to meet with members of the public and the property owner prior to the next public headng. Public Workshop On March 29, 1999, a public meeting was held at the Clifton Miller Community Center (see Exhibit B - Minutes). Approximately fifty (50) people attended the meeting including the property owner of Plaza Lafayette, representatives from the County of Orange, and a representative from the Southern Pacific Railway. Nine members of the public who reside in the immediate area spoke in favor of the trail. The majority of these residents were in · favor of the proposed parking lot if a trail connection was provided. In general, the residents noted: · The proposed trail would provide a recreational opportunity that is currently lacking in the immediate area; · The proposed trail would provide a safer alternative for children traveling to school; and, · Development and maintenance of the trail would eliminate the presence of trash and debris that are currently left in the railroad right-of-way. However, residents of the Woodcrest Apartments indicated that the parking lot had the potential to disrupt them and asked whether the Tustin Police Department or O_range County Sheriff would respond to calls for service if incidents occur at the proposed parking lot. The residents noted that calls for service were routinely transferred back and · forth between the two agencies Without a clear understanding of their jurisdiction. Two residents spoke in opposition to the trail stating .that they have a lease with the Southern Pacific Railway to extend their rear yards into the abandoned railroad right of way. They noted that although they were told in the past that they would be given the opportuni~ to purchase the property in the future, their purchase offers have been rejected by the Southern Pacific Railway. David Knowiton, representative of Southern Pacific Railway, indicated that the purcl~ase offers had been too Iow to accept. These residents a!so indicated that they have concerns with the potential noise, disruption, and' liability of a trail or parking lot in close proximity to their homes and questioned the need for additional parking for Plaza Lafayette. A representative.of t~e County of Orange, Mr. Jeff Dickman, stated that the County is ready to purchase the abandoned railroad right-of-way from Warren Avenue south to the Planning Commission Supplem~, ,tal Report Conditional Use Permit 98-022 & Design Review 98-026 April 12, 1999 Page 3 applicant's property line and construct the trail. However, before any offer can be made, the County needs an assurance that the trail Will not terminate without a connection or access to the remaining portion of the trail south of irvine Boulevard. The property owner of Plaza Lafayette, Mr. Jack Stanaland, stated that he had concerns regarding the security risks and liabilities associated with accepting public access in the rear of the property. To alleviate these concerns, he had attempted on numerous occasions to obtain a written agreement with the County of Orange to 'define the responsibilities of each party in relation to the trail connection. However, the County declined to enter into an agreement noting that they are not willing to accept responsibility or iiabili~ f6r a trail connection that is on private property and outside of their jurisdictional boundary..Mr. Stanaland indicated that he is hesitant to install a gate without a firm understanding of whether or not the trail would be implemented. In response, staff offered the following comments: The proPosed project does not preclude an on-street trail connection from Warren to irvine Boulevard along Newport Avenue, or an off-street trail between Warren Avenue south to the applicant's property, if a condition is added requiring public access for a trail, a nexus between the proposed project' and the need for the trail should be included in the findings. If the County is desirous of providing a connection before the trail is implemented, then an agreement could be reached between the County of Orange and the property owner because this link would be a portion of a regional facili~ that traverses'many jurisdictions. A number of operational conditions are proposed to mitigate potential impacts on adjoining properties. Staff would Confirm with the Chief of Police that the Tustin Police Department is responsible for responding to calls for service in the 'proposed _parking lot. Concerns of the Applicant Since the public hearing on March 22, 1999, the applicant has expressed concems regarding the proposed conditions of approval. A revised Resolution No. 3662 is attached for the Planning Commission's consideration. The following revisions were made to address the City's requirements and the applicant's concerns: · Condition 2.1 7he applicant indicated that.there is an approximately two (2) foot difference between the proposed parking lot elevation and the Wo0dcrest Apartments elevation. The applicant requested that the height of the required six (6) foot, eight (8) inch block wall be measured from the proposed parking lot elevation: Although walls along a common property line are typically measured from the side that is higher in elevation (top of grade), Section 9271(i)(3) would allow the' Planning Commission to modify this requirement through the Conditional Use _Permit Planning Commission Suppleme~ ~al Repo,t Conditional Use Permit 95-022 & Design Review 98-026 April 12, 1999 Page4 process. The applicant also indicated that he is preparing a block wall analysis to determine the optimum height of the wall for security purposes. The applicant will provide the City with a copy of the analysis once it is completed. No revisions are proposed at this time. · Condition 2.5 Condition No. 2.5 requires six (6) inch concrete curbing to protect landscape materials. The. applicant requested-that this condition be deleted since no landscaping will be provided in the proposed parking lot area. Staff concurs with the deletion of this condition. · Condition No. 2.9 through 2.11 Condition No. 2.9 requires a gate be installed and maintained at the south end of the proposed parking lot to limit access from the rest of the shopping center and Condition 2.10 requires the gate be closed between the hours of 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. Condition No. 2.11 requires security personnel to .patrol the proposed parking lot between the hours of 5:00 p.m. to 12:00 midnight. These conditions were recommended to address City Council concerns regarding potential noise and disturbances on adjacent properties. Provided access to the proposed parking lot is limited in some manner, Condition 2.9 through 2.11 could be revised as follows: 2.9 2.10 2.11 The applicant shall provide security personnel and/or an on-site manager to limit access to ,,'~*""' the parking lot to employees only and to provide on-site security, bcb. voen tho ho'.-'rs of 5:00 p.m. to !2:00 midn).ght. · Condition 3.11 Condition 3.11 requires the applicant to amend existing lease agreements with each tenant to require an acknowledgementthat employees are required to park in the proposed parking lot and rear of the center. The applicant indicated that all lease agreements, with the exception of Great western Bank (currently vacant), have a clause*which requires employees to park in the rear of the shopping center. Condition 3.11 is revised as follow; 3.11 The applicant shall ame.Rd enforce existing lease agreements with each · ~,., .,,.t.,.,,,,,,~,~,4,.,..,.,,..-, +~'at employees _=,ce tenant which require to r~qu~re ............... = ...... ,, ,,. ~ to parl~ in the proposed parking lot and rear of the center. Planning Commission Supple ..... ~tal Report Conditional Use Permit 9S-022 & Design Review 98-026 April 12, 1999 Page 5 Condition No. 3.12 Condition No. 3.12 requires a' valet parking Plan to be submitted for review and approval. The applicant has indicated that currently only Nieuport 17 is providing valet parking and the location of valet parking area is already included within their lease agreement. Although he agrees that providing valet service to all patrons would benefit the center as a whole, the current lease agreement precludes Nieuport 17's valet service from accepting other vehicles. He indicated that he would work with City staff to come up with an effective and enforceable valet parking plan. Condition 3.12 could be revised as follows: '3.12 Within forty-five (45) days of the approval of CUP 98-022 .and DR 98-026, the applicant shall provide the following' a.. bo co d. The applicant shall provide a valet service for all patrons of Plaza. Lafayette and shall post signs in visible locations stating that the valet service is available to all patrons of Plaza Lafayette. Valet' personnel shall park vehicles in a manner that will maximize the number of parked vehicles. The applicant shall provide a valet parking plan. for review and approval by the Community Development Department to designate permanently (physically identify).the number and location of valet par.king spaces in accordance with Attachment E of the staff report dated. March 22, 1999, or as modified by' the Community Development Department. The applicant shall submit written~ statements from ali tenants, including all restaUrant tenants, and valet service operators ~ acknowledging the location and number of parking spaces that may be designated and used for'valet parking in accordance with the approved valet parking plan. The,~,~,-"~'~"""+ ............. o~,.. ~-"~""';~'~ ...... ",,~'~"""" +" +h~ r~,..,.+~,, ,.,~ C'-'-'m' '"'~/D~;'e!op''''''''+ th2..t t~''' Just~na Willkom Associate Planner Karen Peterson Acting Senior Planner A~achments: Exhibit A Staff Report dated March 22, 1999 Exhibit B - Minutes of Public Workshop, March 29, 1999 Resolution No. 3662 EXHIBIT B (ITEM #3: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 98-022 & DESIGN REVIEW 98-026) 5 [INUTES CO3 I~'IUNI'IW DEVELOPi~LENT PL.4~ZA LAFAYETTE WORKSHOP hi -A~CH 29, 1999. CALL TO ORDER: 4:00 p.m., Clifton Miller Community Center Staff: Elizabeth Binsack, Director of Comm .unity Development Karen Peterson, Acting Senior Planner Justina Willkom, Associate Planner Present: JeffDicku-nan, County of Orange Sherfi Miler, County of Orange Jack Stanaland, Plaza Lafayette PUBLIC CONCERaNS: Elizabeth Binsack opened the meeting and indicated that due to an error in the pubic noticing for the public hearing, the Planning Commission continued the item until April 12, 1999 and directed staff to hold a workshop to gather public input. She noted that providing testimony at the workshop would not preclude anyone fi-om providing testimony at the April 12, 1999 meeting of the Planning Commission. Justina Willkom presented a brief report noting that the proposal includes construction of thLwy seven (37) additional parking spaces north of Plaza Lafayette and west of the Woo&rest -Apartments. She described the conditions that'staff is proposing to mitigate the potential impact on adjacent properties as follows including restricting.the parking lot to employee parking oMy, closing or sec .uring the parking lot between 10 p.m. and 7:00 a.m., requiring lighting to be directed dov~-nward, and prohibiting public address systems. Justina further noted that if the a"-zil were to become a reality, staff is proposing a condition that will allow the City to expedite the review process for installation of the gate if the County and the property owner come to an agreement. She clarified that the preferred alternative for the Tustin Branch Trail is an on-street ~'ail along Newport Boulevard between Warren Avenue and Irvine Boulevard and noted that th.is project would not preclude the continuation of the trail. · Jeff Dicku'narb Orange County Chief of Public Facilities & Resources Deparmmnt, indicated ',he county has acquired additional right-of-way fi-om 17th Street down to Vanderlip and the County has an interest in continuing the trail to the south. He further noted that a number of years ago, Caltrans had initiated the process of acquiring grant money from Intennodel Sm'face Transportaion Act to buy the remaining fight-of-way from Warren north to the Santa A.ua River, Plaza Lafayette Workshop March 29, 1999 Page 2 !es with some discussioh 'of including the portion between Irvii~e Boulevard and Warren Avenue. After the ~ant application was den/ed, the County focused the project to apply to un- incorporated areas and allocated funding from the Landscape and Lighting District to purchase additional fight-of-way. He noted that Carriage Homes dedicated fight-of-way for the future trail between 17th Street to Vanderlip. He noted that the County is ready to do whatever is sho-v,m to be the preferred trail choice. He had been 'involved with several meetings with the property 9wner and was aware of the property owner's concerns. He indicated that the County is waiting to see what the City believes is most important and noted that the County is ready to purchase right-of-way. He believes it would not be fair and reasonable to implement an off-street trail if it ends at a solid wall. Jack stanaland, owner of Plaza Lafayette, asked the County representative if an a~eement had been reached with Union Pacific Raikoad to purchase the abandoned right-of-way bem'een Warren and Plaza Lafayette. David Knowlton, Union Pacific Railroad representative, indicated that they had not completed their transaction with the County because they are waiting to see what wSI1 happen with the trail between Warren and Plaza Lafayette. He also noted that he recalled that at the time a portion of the raikoad fight-of-way was sold to the previous property owner of Plaza Lafayette, there was a verbal a~eement to put a trail connection through Plaza Lafayette. Mr. Stanaland stated' that he has several concerns in prov. iding an access gate including 1).he doesn't know when the trail will be implemented and the condition of the abandoned fight-of- way concerns him because it is full of trash and debris and often occupied by homeless persons; 2) the trail is a bikeway trail which will bring bicycles to the center and therefore would create a ~eater liability on his part; and 3) he was willing to install a gate and had been trying to _~.t a written a~eement fi.om the County to outline each party's responsibility since last May. 'An unidentified woman in the audience commented that people are akeady wa -lking throu~ the property, tiding bicycles on the property, and accessing the shopping center. Christy Jones, r~sident of Woodcrest Apartments, stated that there is a need for recreational area since there are so 'few recreational opportunities nearby.. Dee Anne Santos, resident of Woodcrest .Apartments for 26 years, stated that she is concerned with 1) the security of the apartment complex being next to a parking lot but would support the parking lot if the trail goes through; 2) lack of response from the Tustin Police Department or Orange County Sheriff] and 3) potential-vehicle noise. She noted that employees are cmn-enrty required to park in th, rear of the complex but park in the fi'ont of the shopping center and indicated she does not think employees would be willing to park in the proposed parking lot either. Plaza Lafayette Workshop March 29, 1999 Page 3 Dave Skelton, resident of Beeson Lane, stated his opposition :to the trail due to increased traffic. He also indicated that he had been leasing property fi-om the Union Pacific Raikoad and had been told that they could purchase the property in the future. He noted that kids play in the abandoned right-of-way and have caused- damage to his property. He indicated that the City Council had supported their efforts to purchase the property. David Knowlton, Un/on Pacific Raikoad, explained that they had.not s°ld the leased land because the purchase offers had been to low to consider. Alisa Vega stated her support for the trail since it would provide a good recreational opportunity. Nancy Ramage stated that the trail would impart a nn-al feeling to the area and add business t6 the center. Michele Murphy stated her support for an off-street trail. Paul Geary, Beeson Lane, stated he did not support the trail since it. would be twenty (20) feet fi.om his back window. He indicated that his property has been vandalized by the children who play in the raikoad rip, bt-of-way, is concerned about potential damages, and 'noted that h/s insurance will only cover three incidents per year and questioned who would be liable for the damages should he e 'xhaust his insurance coverage. He also noted that he does n6t suppo~ the parking lot because it would erode the residential character of the area. · A member of the audience asked why a parking variance was approved orig/nally. Elizabeth Binsack responded that a parking study had been prepared to show that there would be sufficient parking and that if a parking problem arose, a condition of approval required the property owner to mitigate the problem. -- Carol McCauley requested a gate that can be opened and closed by the property owner be built to allow for pedestrian access to honor the prior verbal a~eement. Jack Stanaland reitierated that he is willing to install a gate if the County will enter into a ~tten a~eement with him. Jeff Dick:mm responded that the' County is willing to purchase right-of-way but not wilt/ng to assume obt/gations on private property or in another jurisdiction. · . George Halrman resident of Clarissa Lane, stated that he is not completely opposed to fn, u'. ail but is opposed to the parking lot because there is no justification in the parking study. Chris Ernst, resident of Clarissa Lane stated opposition to the trail and noted that this is the second time they have opposed the trail. She noted that an on-street trail would be dangerous. Plaza Lafayette Workshop March 29, 1999 Page 4 'es Den/se Alaphous, Woodcrest Aparanen~, stated her opposition to a parkSng lot and noted that employees do not park in the rear of the center as they are required to do. She is concerned that there may be too much lighting in the proposert parking lot. She also noted that delivery trucks for Tustin Brewing Company park in their alley dining deliveries and when she call Tustin Police Department, they refer her to the Orange Coun~ Sheriff. ADJOURNME~: 5:10 p.m. Report to the ITEM#3 Planning Commission DATE: SUBJECT: APPLICANT: OWNER: LOCATION: ZONING: ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: REQUEST: MARCH 22, 1999 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 98-022 AND DESIGN REVIEW 98-026 JACK STANALAND PLAZA LAFAYETTE, LLC 30872 S. COAST HIGHWAY #160 LAGUNA BEACH, CA 92651 PLAZA LAFAYETTE, LLC 30872 S. COAST HIGHWAY #160 LAGUNA BEACH, CA 92651 VACANT PARCEL TO THE NORTH OF 13031 NEWpOR~ AVENUE AND TO THE WEST OF 12901-12943 NEWPORT AVENUE (APN fi401-221- 04) MULTIPLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL (R-3) THIS PROJECT IS CATEGORICALLY EXEMPT (SECTION 15311, CLASS ii) PURSUANT TO THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT. ESTABLISHMENT OF A COMMERCIAL PARKING LOT IN A 50' BY 314' PORTION OF AN ABANDONED RAILROAD RIGHT-OF-WAY LOCATED IN THE MULTIPLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL (R-3) ZONING DISTRICT: RECOMMENDATION Adopt Resolution No. 3582 approving Conditional Use Permit 98-022 and Design Review 98-026. BACKGROUND/HISTORY Introduction The applicant is requesting authorization to establish a parking lot in a vacant 50 foot by 314 foot portion-of an abandoned railroad right-of-way located to the north of the Plaza LaFayette shopping center at 13031 Newport Avenue and to the west of the Woodcrest Apartments located at 12901- 12943 Newport Avenue (see Location Map). The parking lot would be utilized for employee parking only. The site is zoned Multiple Family Residential (R-3). The proposed use, when adjacent to a commercial district, is' permitted in the R-3 district subject to a Conditional Use Permit (Tustin City Code Section 9226 (a) (1), 9225 (a) (1) and 9223 (b) (4)). EXHIBIt A Planning Commission Report Conditional Use Permit 98-022 & Design Review 98-026 March 22. 1999 Page 2 The project is located in the Town Center Redevelopmeni area; therefore, final design review approval rests with the Redevelopment Agency. However, Tustin City Code Section 9299 (b) (3) (c) grants authority to the Zoning Administrator to approve Design Review applications within the City's Redevelopment Areas in lieu of the Redevelopment Agency. The Zoning Administrator may forward the design review to the Planning Commission for action when deemed appropriate. Given previous actions on a similar project, the Zoning Administrator has forwarded the subject proposal to the Planning Commission. Prior Approvals The shopping center was constructed in 1986. In 1988, the Planning Commission approved Variance 88-05 to allow Plaza Lafayette to deviate from the Tustin City Code parking requirements to accommodate the establishment of three restaurant tenant spaces having a total of 337 seats. Variance 95-011 was approved to accommodate the establishment of a fourth restaurant. The two variances reduced the parking required for the center from 327 spaces to 241 spaces. Condition No 6.18 (~f Resolution 3413 was included to address potential parking problems and stated: "If, at any time in the future, an on-site or neighboring tenant or customer advises the City, or if the City is otherwise made aware and' concurs, that a parking and/or traffic problem exists at the Plaza Lafayette shopping center as a result of the insufficient on-site parking availability, and it has been confirmed that the subject property is in compliance with mitigation measures 1 through 4 above, the Community Development and Public Works Deparfments may require the property owner to submit an updated parking demand analysis and/or traffic study, at no expense to the City, within the ~ime schedule sb'pulated by the City; the property owner may delegate this responsibility, through lease negotiations to any tenant operating under Conditional Use Permit 95-019 and Variance 95-011. if said .study indicates that there is inadequate parking or a traffic problem, the property owner shall be required to provide additional mitigation measures to be reviewed and approved by the Community Development and Public Works Deparfments. Said mitigation may include, but not be limited to, the following: a) Establish altemate hours of operation, o/7, Provide additional partdng as needed, up to the minimum number required for the aggregate of shopping center uses pursuant to Zoning Code standards, by purchase and/or lease of properly within 500 feet of the property or provision of the needed parking on-site. The securing of off-sire parking would require approval of a revised Variance. Failure to adequately respond to such a request and to implement mitiga~'an measures within the ~me schedules established shall be grounds for initiation .of revocation procedures for Variance 95-011 and Conditional Use Permit 95-0~ 9: Since ,the approval of the second variance, the center has experienced parking problems. On December 3,. 1996 and January 13, 1997, the Zoning Administrator and Planning .Commission ?espectively approved a proposal to construct an employee/valet parking lot within the same portion of abandoned railroad right-of-way. On March 3, 1997, the City Council reversed the Planning Commission's decision and denied Conditional Use 'Permit 96-037 and Design Review' 96-051 (see Attachment B - Resolution No. 97-16) based on the following co,qcems: _ Planning ~ommission Report Conditional Use Permit 95-022 & Design Review 98-026 March 22, 1999 Page 3 Without restrictions, the parking lot expansion area has the potential .to create noise and other nuisance impacts on adjacent properties; The use of the employee parking lot between the hours of 10 p.m. and 7 a.m. has the potential to disturb the comfort and general welfare of persons residing adjacent to the proposed use; An unsecured employee parking lot area would permit acCess to non-employees, which could increase the potential for noise impacts on adjacent properties; and · Although the use of the site as a commercial parking lot may be an appropriate use, the use of the site as an expansion of the adjacent residential uses may be a more optimal use of the site. -. Since March 1997, the City has continued to receive complaints regarding parking at the center. In response, the City's Traffic Engineer directed the preparation of a parking survey. The survey was conducted in April of 1998. The parking survey found the following: During peak periods, additional parking spaces appear to be needed;. The valet parking area is not clearly marked as being available for_all Plaza Lafayette patrons. Signs could be posted to indicate that the valet service is available for all Plaza Lafayette patrons; and A more detailed parking study is needed to assess the need and potential strategies for addressing the periodic parking shortages. As a result of the parking survey, staff required the property owner to submit an updated parking demand analysis and propose mitigation measures' to resolve the situation at the center.. Consistent with Condition No. 6.18 of Resolution No. 3413, the applicant is requesting approval to Provide additional parking within 500 feet of the existing center. Site and Surrounding Properties The vacant parcel is 15,700 square feet in size and is located directly north of the northwest corner of the Plaza LaFayette shopping center. Surrounding land uses include multiple family residential to the east and west the existing Plaza LaFayette shopping center rear parking area to the south, and the remaining portion of the abandoned railroad right-of-way to the north. The site is bordered by County unincorporated land to the north and east. DISCUSSION P~°Ject Description The parking lot expansion would accommodate 37 compact spaces measuring eight (8) feet in width and' twenty (20) feet in length (see Site Plan - Attachment C). To accommodate as many spaces as possible, all of the spaces are proposed to be developed'as compact spaces. Landscaping is not proposed within the parking lot expansion area since the area is not visible from the remainder of the shopping center and would only be used by shopping center employees. Planning Commission Report Conditional Use Permit 98-022 & Design Review 98°026 March 22, 1999 Page 4 · Further, the width of the property and the parking lot layout would not provide adequate width to provide parking, access, and significant landscaping such as trees. Parking and Circulation The applicant conducted a parking demand study to determine if the proposed additional number of on-site parking spaces will be adequate to serve the parking demand for the entire center (Attachment D). The parking demand study assumed a parking supply that includes the 37 new spaces and 2 spaces gained by re-striping the existing parking lot for a total of 271 spaces. The study was conducted for a period of eight (8) consecutive hours from 11:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. on Thursday and Friday in October 1998. The study's findings conclude: The highest parking demand was for 224 spaces at 12:00 noon on Friday, with a total occupancy of 47,753 square feet (the center is a total of 54,126 square feet). At peak hours, one (1) parking space per 205.83 square feet of floor area must be provided to accommodate the parking demand. Once the proposed parking lot is complete, the parking demand ratio would be one (1) parking space per 199.72 square feet of floor area. The aggregate parking supply at project' completion will satisfy the minimum parking requirements for the current oc.cuPancy of the center as projected by the study. However, the center will still be deficient in parking since the zoning code would require a total of 327 parking spaces for maximum occupancy of retail, office, and restaurant uses as documented in Variance 95-11. Condition No. 3.1 restricts the additional 37 spaces from being used to establish more intensive uses such as restaurant or medical uses. .. .. The current parking utilization on the project site is not strictlY enforced. Store owners and employees have a tendency to occupy the premium parking spaces. The study recommended that this practice be discouraged by including an acknowledgement at lease renewals that employees Will be required to park in the proposed employee parking area. Condition No. 3.11 is included to require the applicant to amend the lease agreemer~t with each tenant to require an acknowledgement that employees are required to park in the proposed parking lot and rear of the center. i--ne current valet service operation often creates traffic overflow onto Newport Avenue. In addition, the City's parking survey noted that the valet service needs to service all of the uses in the center. The study suggested the valet traffic be modified as follows: 1) Vehicles entering the project site dudng the peak restaurant demands should avail themselves of the valet services; 2) Valet personnel will park vehicles in a manner that will maximize the number of parked vehicles. Whenever practical, the valet personnel will part~ cars in tandem to maximize space availability. Condition No. 3.12 is included to require the following: i--ne applicant shall provide a valet service for ali patrons of Plaza Lafayette and shall post signs in visible locations stating that the valet service is available to all patrons of Plaza Lafayette. · Valet personnel shall park vehicles in a manner that will maximize the number of parked vehicl~. Planning Commission Report Conditional Use Permit 98-022 & Design Review 98-026 March 22, 1999 Page 5 · The applicant shall provide a valet parking plan for review and approval by the Community Development Department to designate permanently the number and location of valet parking spaces in accordance with Attachment E. The applicant shall amend the existing lease agreements with restaurant tenants to restrict the location and number of parking spaces that may be designated and used for valet parking in accordance with the approved valet parking plan. The City's Traffic Engineer reviewed' the parking demand study and concurs with its recommendations and sta~s recommended conditions of approval. Public Safety Concerns To address previous City Coundl concems, and potential impacts regarding noise, theft, and vandalism, the following conditions are recommended: Condition No. 2.1 requires installation of a 6'8" high solid masonry wall measured from the adjacent residential property. With approximately two (2) feet difference in elevation between the parking lot and the adjacent residential properties, it would be difficult for a person to climb over the wall. ~ Condition No. 2.3 requires a mlnimum of one (1) foot candle of illumination through out the site and light fixtures be directed 90 degrees down so that no direct light or glare is projected onto the adjacent properties. Condition No. 2.7 restricts the installation and/or operation of out-door public telephones or public address systems in the parking lot. " Condition No. 2.9 is included to require a gate at the entrance to the new parking area to restrict access. - Condition No. 2.10 requires the gate to be closed between the hours of 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. Condition No. 2.11 requires secudty perso, nnel to patrol the proposed parking lot on a regular basis to ensure people are not loitering and that all noise is limited 'in the parking lot. Condition No. 3.1 limits the use of the proposed parking lot as employee parking only. This would limit the type and amount of traffic to and from the parking lot Condition No. 3.2 is included to provide for the future review of the parking lot expansion area. This condition requires that additional mitigation measures be implemented if deemed necessary by the Community Development Director. Tustin Branch Trail Of the two Tustin 'Branch trail alternatives, one is an off-street trail along the abandoned railroad right-of-way and Plaza Lafayette between Warren Avenue and the existing on-street trail on Planning Commission Report Conditional Use Permit 98-022 & Design Review 98-026 March 22, 1999 Page 6 Newport Avenue. A second altemative is an on-street trail along Newport Avenue be~¥een Warren Avenue and the existing trail along Newport Avenue (see Attachment F). In 1997 the County began the process to acquire the railroad property between Vanderlip Avenue and Tustin City limits to continue the trail to Plaza Lafayette. in 1998, this effort was given greater impetus when OCTA notified the County that $1.8 million from federal ISTEA funding was available to complete the Tustin Branch Trail project. However, this project has been put on hold since none of the three participating cities (Tustin, Orange, and Villa Park) nor the County has taken the project lead. if a lead agency can not be established within a reasonable time, the project funds will be re-allocated to other projects. The County of Orange has reviewed the proposed project And recommended the following: · Installation of a gate at the northerly end of the proposed sidewalk to provide access to and from the futu~'e trail; · Provision of a six (6) foot wide sidewalk at the northern end to provide a transition to the trail; · Locking of the gate from sunset to sunrise to mitigate concerns related to security and liability. The recommendations were forwarded to the applicant, however, the applicant has declined to install'an access gate and has proposed to install a block wall separating the future trail and the proposed parking lot. Although staff met with the applicant and representatives from the County of Orange to develop a mutually acceptable solution, the applicant has security and liability concerns in allowlng the public to pass through his center. The. applicant has indicated that if the trail is implemented, he would be willing to reconsider installing a gate to'connect the proposed parking lot with the trail. The sidewalk in f~he parking lot expansion area is six (6) feet wide, a width the County has indicated would be sufficient for a trail connection. Condition No. 2.4 is included to allow the Zoning Administrator to review the amendment to the Design Review to accommodate the bail connection. Associate Planner K~ren Peterson Acting Senior Planner Attachments: Attachment A- Location Map Attachment B- City Council Resolution No. 97-16 Attachment C- Site Plan Attachment D - Parking and Circulation Study Attachment E - Valet Parking Plan Attachment F- Tustin Branch Trail Map Resolution No. 3662 _ il, . __ LOCATION MAP , 2 , ....... cir~ Boun~ i 22.28..32. 3.~.42.48.52 14G72.74. 76.78.B0 14~82.84 PLAZA '147.52 1 ~,7E2 14772 ' 14782 IRVINE BOULEVARD NO SCALE RESOLUTION NO. 97-!6 A RESOLUTION OF 'THE CiTY COD.~CIL OF THE CiTY OF TUSTIN REVERSING TIqE PL~_N.-NING. cOY-MISSION' S DECISION AND DEN~fING, WITHOUT PREJUDICE, CONDITIONAL USE' PERMIT 96 - 037 AND DES iGN REVIEW 96- 051, A REQUEST TO ESTg~LISH A Pg. RKING LOT ON A VACg_NT 50' BY 314' PORTION OF .~_N AB~fNDONED RAILROAD RiGHT-OF-WAY LOCATED TO THE NORTH OF THE PLAZA I~l FAYETTE SHOPPING CENTER AT 13031 NEWPORT AVENUE g_ND TO THE WEST OF THE WOOD CREST AP.~_RTMENTS. AT !290!-!2943 NEWPORT AVENUE. The City Council of the City of Tustin does hereby 9 resolve as follows: .. _~0 i. The City Council finds and d_~_m_nes~=~ ~ as fo!!ows: !! A. 12 13 15 B. 17 19 20 21 Ce 22 D. 24 2~ 27 2~ That a proper application, Conditional Use Permit 96-037 and Design Review 96-051, was filed by C.L. BurneCt to authorize- the establishment of a parking lot on a vacant 50' by'.314' portion of an abandoned railroad righz-o~-way located to the north of the Plaza La 'Fayette shopping center at 13031 Ne%~ort -- Avenue and to the West of the Woodcrest Apartments at 12901-12943 New~ort Avenue. That a public hearing, was duly ~a!!ed, noticed and held on said application on December 3, 1996 by the Zonin~ Administrator. The Zoning Administrator adopted Zoning Administrator Action 96-011, approving the re.~uest to establish the subject parking lot. That on December 10, .1996, Sharon Ramage, owner of the Woodcrest Apartments, submitted an appeal of the Zoning Administrator's action on this project. · That a public hearing was duly ~a!!ed, noticed and held on said appeal by the ~=~ning Commission on Janua_~-f 13, 1997. Th~ o~=~ning Commission adopted Planning" Commission Resolution No. 3507, uoho!ding the Zoning · . -- Administrator's action and' approving Conditional Use Permit 96-037 and Design Review 96-051. That on January ~7, 1997., Nancy D. Ramage, G.R. Ramage, Jr. ~, Sharon Ramage and G.R' Ramage, III, the' owners of the Woodcrest 3%partments, submitted an' appeal ' of the Planning Commission's action on this.project. Attachment B !0 !! Resolution No. 9 Page 2 That a public hearing was duly called, noticed and held or~ said appeal by the City Council on February 18, 1997. G · That the proposed use is allowed Within [he R- 3, Multiple-Family Residential District with the approve!, of a Conditional Use Permit. That establishment, maintenance, and operation of a parking lot in a residential district to serve an adjacent commercial s~opping center may be detriments! to the health, safety, morals, comfort, or general welfare of persons residing or work_:.g in the neighborhood o~ such proposed use, or be injurious or detrimental to ~= t.._ property and improvements in the neighborhood of the subject property, or to the general welfare' of the City of Tustin,. as evidenced by the following findings: 12 17 13 19 2O 21 22 23 o · ~ Without use restrictions, the parking lot expansion area has the potential to create noise and other nuisance impacts on adjacent properties. The use of the employee, parking lot between the hours of 10 p.m. and 7 a.m. has the potential to disturb the comfort and general welfare of persons residing adjacent to the proposed use. .~_n unsecured employee pa~king lot area would permit access to non- employees, which could increase the potential for. noise impacts on adjacent properties. Although the use of the site as a commercia! - parking lot may be an appropriate u== the us~ of the site as an expansion cf the adjacent residential . 'uses would be a more optimal use of the site than use as a commercial parking lot. 2-I 25 27 23 Pursuant to Section 9272 of the TuStin Municipal Code, ~.~._ City Council finds ~' ~ the location, size, architectural features and general appearance of the parking lot expansion area have nhe ability to impair the orderly and harmonious develops.out of the area, the present or future development therein, or the occupancy as a whole, in' making such findings, the City Council has considered at least the following items: !0 13 17 13 20. 21 22 23 2~ 27 Reso!usion No. 97- Page 3 · 1. Height, bulk and area of buildings. o Setbacks and site plannihg. o Landscaping, parking area design and traffic circulation. 4. Location, height and standards of exterior illumination. 5. Location and method of refuse storage. PhysiCal relationship of proposed improvements to existing structures in the neighborhood. · Appearance and design re!ationshiD of proposed improvements to existing structures and possible future structures in then__=~ghborhood and public thoroughfares. Development Guidelines and criteria as adopted by the City Council. Jo This project is stat~torily'exempt'pursuant to Section 15270 of the California Environmental Quality'Act. Ko If negotiations among the property owners for the purchase of the site.from Southern Pacific Railroad by the residential', property owners .are unsuccessful, the applicant would have the option to resubmit the project for review by the City's Zoning AdminiStrator. However, the resubmitted' project shall be modified to address the Council's concerns. II. The City Council hereby reverses the Planning Commission's decision and denies, without prejudice, Conditional Use Permit No. 96-037 and Design Review 95-051, a re_c~est to establish a parking'loT on a vacant 50' by 314; portion of an abandoned railroad right-of-way located to the north of the Plaza La Fayette shopping center at !0 Raso!u.~ion No. 97 Page ~ 13031 Ne%~ort Avenue and to the west o~ the Woodcrest Apartments at 12901-12943 Newport Avenue. : PASSED A_ND A,~OPTED at a regular meeting of the 'City Council, held on the 3rd day of March, 1997. Pamela Stoker City Clerk STATE OF CA_LIFOR_NiA ). 12 COb-NTY OF OP~_NGE 15 17 20 21 22 24 CITY OF TUSTiN 2~ 27 Tracy W~s Worley ~~/-/ Mayor i, Pamela Stoker, City Clerk and ex-officio Clerk of the City Council of' the City of Tustin, California, do hereby certify that the whole number of the members of the City Council of the City of Tustin is five; that the above, and foregoing Resolution No. 97-16 was duly passed and adopted at a fegu!ar meeting of the Tustin Ci[y Council, held on the 3rd day of March, 1997, by the following vote: 'CODiNCILMEMBER AYES: COO--NCi~-2z'-EMBER NOES: COO--NCiLMEMBER A~STAINED: COUNCILMEMBER A3SENT: WORLEY, THOMAS, DOYLE, POTTS, SALT.4d{ELLi NONE NONE NONE P-~-M E !~A STOKER CiTY CLERK · . · $- ,.d''/ PARKING ANALYSIS AND CIRCULATION STUDY AT PLAZA LAFAYETTE IN THE CITY OF TUSTIN, CALIF. Ref. No. 9810.03 Date: December 1998 Paul Singer, P.E. TRANSPORTATION ENGINE=_.RING & PLANNING Attachment D Pa ul Singer, R E. TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERING & PLANNING "'163 Columbus Drive · Anaheim Hills, California 92807 · (714) 281-3222 December !0, 1998 Mr. John stanaland Plaza LaFayette, LLC. 30872 So. Coast Highway Suite 160 Laguna Beach, Ca. 92651 Ref. No. 9810.03 Dear Mr.-Stanaland: The' following is the requested parking demand study and the circulation study for the Plaza LaFayette i~ the City of Tustin. The project is located at the northwest corner of Irvine Blvd. and Newport Ave. The parking study was conducted co,-~nensurate with the requirements of City codes and by specific requeSts of City. staff. Additional parking that is required by City staff has been analyzed. The following study evaluates the project parking, supply following addition of' 37 new parking spaces located at the rear of the project and two (2) additional parking spaces gained by restriping the existing parking lot fronting Newport Blvd. Parking turn-over studies were conducted at the Cehter as presently occupied. Parking usage and on site traffic circulation was evaluated. Based on the study findings, the existing plus the added parking area will be more than ade_c/uate to serve all of the uses within the Center. Based on the.findings of the existing parking' usage, City Code parking requirements and comparable facility parking demand,' adequate parking is provided to accommodate the land uses as currently configured within the Plaza LaFayette Center. The Center currently exp_eriences occasional parking deficiencieS. For this reason additional parking is hereby proposed at the rear of the buildings. This parking will be restricted-to employees and owners of the businesses. ere!y, Paul Singer, P.E. 9810.03R Pa~=e ! Table of Contents Introduction: Location Project description Project parking supply Study Elements: City requirements Code required parking Post project parking supply Parking usage Parking ratios . CirCulation and Access:' Parking practices Circu! at'ion Valet parkin§ recommendations Study Findings and Conclusions: In conclusion Page 2 Page 2 Page 2 Page 2 Page 3 Page 3 Page 4 Page 6 Page 6 Page 8 Page 9 Page 9 Page 9 Page. 10 Page 11 Page 11 ! Buildin~ occupancy Tustin Parking Code .- · . Code required, parking Parking usage List of Tables Table 1 Page 4 Table 2 - Page 5 Table 3 Page 5 Table 4 Page 7 List of Figures Location - Site Plan New Parking Area Addition Area ! - Parking Area 2 - Parking Figure 1 Figure 2 Figure 3 Figure 4~ INTRODUCTION: Location: The study project is located on the northwest corner of the intersection of Irvine Blvd. and Newport Ave.. 'known as Plaza LaFayette in the City of Tustin, California. Project location is shown on Figure 1. Currently access to the center and the existing buildings is accommodated from Newport Blvd. .. The occupancy of the project site includes retail shops, offices and restaurants and service establishments. The project· is a mixed use shopping center. Project Description: The existing center is intended t° serve the general area by providing shopping, service and restaurant opportunities to the area. The following study is a requirement of the City to provide substantial documentati6n as.to the adequacy of currently avai!aD!e parking.and with the additional parking to be provided. The City requi~es a parking study to assure the customers to the Center that adequate parking, is available. To provide this parking, an additional 37 parking spaces are proposed to.be added for employee use. This arrangement will minimize impact to the adjacent residential area as well as provide the maximum number of marked parking-spaces. Project Parkin~ Su~l¥: The parking supply on the project site consists of 232 spaces plus two additional spaces after restriping. In addition, 37 new parking spaces will be provided at the rear of the project. These additional spaces will be designated for employees of .the Center only. For the purposes of this study the existing parking supply ~.d mo~!~lc:~!ons 50 parking layout was assumed to remain with certain "=' -~' accommodate additional handicap parking spaces without losing or reducing the total parking space count. Parking and accass confiFaration is shown on Fibre 2, Site Plan. ~ote: ~ne circ!e~ numbers shown on the site plan indicate detail plans of the handicap parking space configuration. Page.2 GFA · mO.-'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'~5 SE' ,FLOWER Indicates detail handicao parkinN area modificatio.~ as shown on Fi~crure 3, 4 and 5 il I It J~Vi.N'E 'BOULEVARD .- -- Paul Singer, P.E. TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERING & PLANNING SITE PLAN Fig.1 i ! , i · Pa ul Singer, P.E. TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERING & PLANNING .. STUDY ELE1VIENTS: City Re~ufrennents: · · 'The City of Tustin follows a comprehensive Parking requirement standard. The .fol!owing Parking Demand Study will address the existing parking supply on th~ project site and will compare the supply with the demand. In addition to the above, the City Of Tustin, Conditional Us~. Permit 98-022 and design review 98-026 will be used to define existing parking requirements with the proposed building uses. The City CUP and Resolutions stats that a minimum of 241 parking spaces will be provided on the project site..This study was commissioned to determine the adequacy of the' required parking. For this reason a specific Parking demand study' was' conducted and is hereby presented. In order' to prepare a comprehensive study the following elements were included: a.- Parking turnover studies were conducted at the Plaza Lafayette Center.~ The study .was conducted for a period of eight (8) consecutive hours per City staff instruction,, from !1 AM through 8 PM on a Thursday and Friday, 22nd a~.d 23~h day of October 1998. The study survey parking ~ount details are shown in the parking count field sheets included in the aooendix of this reoort. _ b.- The Plaza Lafayette Center is composed of three buildings and occupied by diverse uses. The building uses are sun~narized in Table i and show the square footage of each aggregate building occupancy. Page 3 Table 1 Plaza Lafayette Cente~ Building Occupancy By Use. Building Use: Aggregate Square feet. Restaurants Offices Vacant Retail* Kiosk Total square feet Of buildings:' 15,301 sq. ft. 7,847 sq. ft. 6,363 sq. ft. 24,515 sq. ft. !00 sq. ft. 54,126 sq. ft. * The building use includes a specialized exercise unit of 3,050 square feet. The use is not a health spa. It is a specialized, by appointment only use. ~ The City of Tustin Parking Code for the existing and proposed building occupancies is shown on Table 2. Code Required Parking: The City of Tustin parking Code is contained within the City Zoning Ordinances for each land use. Page 4 Table 2 Parking Code City of Tustin USe: Code required parking: Retail Stores and Service, Business: 24,515 sq. ft. Vacant (retail): 6,363 sq. ft. : Re s t aurant s: 450 seats 1 space per 200 sq.ft of floor area. 1 space per 200 sq.ft. of floor area. 1 parking §pace for each 3 seats. 123 spaces 32 spaces 150 spaces Kiosk: 1 space 1 space Total Code required parking spaces: 306 spaces Code re_cuired parking was determined based On aggregate square footage of buildings and .specific land uses commensurate with the City of Tustin Code. Individual building use was compared to the specific use within' the center· Code parking was thereby summarized. A total of 306 parking spaces are required for all of the combined uses within the Center. This parking count is not achievable on the project site as currently confi .gured. A total of 232 parking spaces are currently'provided on the project site. There are 127 parking spaces at the main frontage'lot of the buildings and 105 parking spaces in the rear of the buildings with direct access to the establishments under existing conditions. - The addition of 37 parking spaces will yield a total of 271. D!us two restriped on site parking spaces. To meet Code required D~rki~g an additional 35 spaces are re_cuired. To mitigate this deficiency, valet parking Will be utilized during peak periods Tandem ~=~= will be arranged thereby mitigating parking overflows. The retail establishments in the Center are normally closed at dir~ner hours at ~=_.._ restaurants. This fact may _Dart~-ally m_=_~___ parking overflows from the restaurant peak demand. Page 5 Post Project Parkinq Supply: Site 'improvements will add an additional 37 parking spaces to be located at the rear of the complex for employee use. Restriping of the existing, main parking area, will add two (2) additional spaces. The additional two parking spaces will be gained following restriping of areas shown on the enclosed Figure 3, Figure 4 and Figure 5. A total of 232 parking spaces plus 37 'employee parking spaces and two restriped spaces for a total of 271 on site parking will be available following completion of the recommended restriping and paving of the rear parking area. .-arkin~ Usage: ?o verify adequacy of the existing parking supply, a parking ~urnover survey was conducted during.the highest usage hours. These hours were determined to be on a Thursday and Friday from !! D~ ~hrough 8 PM. each day. Data collected as required for study elements include: Parking turn-over counts, City code parking requirements, '~ On site parking supply.' Building occupancies, by square footage of all buildings was summarized. Ag-gregate parking demand for the highest study hour was compared to highest parking-occupancy. A ratio of parking, based'on · ~his comparison was obtained. The parking rate usage is shown on T~_ble 4. Page 6 See Figure !. for Location E:dstina 65' H Sidewalk Proposed S idewa!k % H Existing: Currently there is only one disabled driver parking space provided in this marked area. Proposed: The-currently marked handicap parking'space could be mDdified and restrioed to accommodate two handicap parking spaces within the same area. This restripin~ will Yield one additional space to t~e on site parkin~ supply. ~yp_ica! Parkin~ Soace = 8.5'x 19' Paul Singer, RE. TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERING & PLANNING AREA 1 Parking Fig.3 See Figure ! for Location Ex~sting Sidewalk Proposed Sidewalk H H Exis timg: ©arrent!y only one ha~ndicap parking space is provided in this soace that could accommodate two parking spaces. Propos ed: The currently, marked handicap parking space may be rest-riped to accommodate two .handicao parking spaces within the .same area. This will yield one additional, on-site parking space to the parking supply. Typica! Parking Space = 8.5'x 19' Paul Singer, RE. TRANSPOFITATION ENGINEERING & PLANNING AREA 2 Parking IFig -- .4 Table 4 Parking Usage* and Parking. Occupancy at Lafayette Plaza Center Status of Building Area: Leasable square feet: Total available leasable space = Currently occupied units = Currently vacant units = Highest parking Occupancy 12: 00 Noon Friday: Parking supply - occupancy = 54,126 sq. ft. 47,753 sq. ft. 6,363 sq. ft. 232.0 spaces Net vacant spaces worst condition: Currently Occupied Units: * 8 spaces 47,753 sq. ft. 47,753 : 224 = 205.83 Sq.ft. building, per parking space. * Parking usage reference to highest parking occupancy sur~zey. A su_~vey was conducted on Thursday and Friday October 22nd and 23rd 1998. Number indicates surplus parking spaces under worst case scenario. PaNe 7 Parkinq Ratios: The parking ratio, when the parking lot construction projeCt is completed, will be substantially improved. The post project parking ratio to square feet of building will- be improved from the existing as follows: parking space per 205.83 square feet of floor area -- existing parking space per 199.72 square feet of floor area -- proposed This ratio averages 5 parking spaces per 1,000 square feet of leasable area. Based on this reference, the ~ggregate parking supply at project completion, will satisfy the minimum parking requirements for the Center. Employee parking space addition as well as peak tandem parking arrangement will~ satisfy the parking demand. The parking on the project site was maximized. No additional parking solutions are available. The additional e~!oyee parking area will free the existing parking lots and greatly alleviate the perceived parking problem. Page 8 CIRCULATION Alhrl) ACCESS'- Parkin~ Practices: Currently parking utilization on the project site is not Strictly enforced. Store o~.m~ers and employees have a tendency to occupy the premium parking spaces. Those spaces directly in front of the establishments. This practice will be discouraged and in some manner the store o~uuers convinced that it is in their best interest to discourage th=~ employees from parkin9 in the front, premium parking spaces. it is recommended that when lease renewals for the individual businesses is negotiated, that a clause be added to the lease a~reement detailing employee parking and designating the new, rear parking area for employees only. Access and Circulation: Valet services provided by the project restaurants should utilize the-available parking area during peak parking de..~nds a.-_ the reStaurants, in addition tandem parking for valet use only should be provided at the main aisle that is parallel to Ne~7ort .Ave. Valet parking processes should be provided in an ordar!y maD_net. Valet drivers are to observe a maximum 15 MPH speed limit. This fact should be posted by paint markings on the pavement at ~he valet parking area and the area leading towards the rear of the buildings. Post-- SPE~--D LIMIT · 5 I~Pit - Pavement. Legend - The existing access driveways to the project site was evaluated The ingress a~nd e~ress at the LaFayette Center via the two existing driveways =~=~=.~=~, serve the oroject site Page 9 Valet Parkinq Recon~endations: · At times, the valet parking operations create a tendency to back up ~raffic onto Newport Blvd. It is hereby recommended that the valet service ~ersonnel be made aware of this condition and take all necessary steps from causing 'vehicular back~,' up onto the public street. As much as is practically possible, without offending prospective visitors ~nd customers of the center, during the busiest times when vehicles enter·and leave the premisses, directional traffic should ~= sorted as follows: Vehicles entering the project site during the peak restaurant demands will avail themselves of the valet services. Valet personnel w~ll park vehicles in a manner that will maximize the number of parked vehicles Wher_v__ Drac~c=~, the valet personnel will park cars in tandem to maximize space availability. Pa~e 10 STUDY FINDINGS ,&ND CONCLUSIONS: Study Findinqs: The study findin_cs indicate that following addition of the 37 parking spaces are for use by ~he employees and shop owners of the Center. Adequate on site parking will therefore be available for the shopping center customers and visitors. Employees and s~o.~_ owners should be politely but firmly requ~ to park at the rear of the stores. This practice is to their own benefit as it encourages clientele convenience. As an optional item, as the curren5 lease agreements expire and new ones are drafted, a clause could specify employee and owne~ parking will be. restricted to the rear parking area only. Valet employees should m~_ximize parking opportunities by tandem parking methodo!o~cy as best suited to the area parking configuratiOn. wt is recommended that 15 MPH speed limit legends be painted a!cn~ ~he pavement of the-front parking area' driveways. Pa~e !1 in Conclusion: The project currently and certainly following completion of the new 37 parking spaces, will have much improved parking and parking distribution to .provide convenient, services to the visitors and shoppers of the center. It was determined by 'the above detailed study, that adequate parking will be provided, as shown within the parking demand study described above, the parking area when used to its most effective level will be adequate to accommodate the parking demand. That valet parking practices will be improved and that the public streets adjacent to the project site will. not be detrimentally effected by traffic entering or departing the center. PaNe 12 ' TS I Transpo~ation Studies, Inc. La Fayette Center Tustin, CA. A Traffic Data Collection Company 11 :O0am 12:00pm 01 :OOp.m 02:00pm 03 :OOpm 04:00pm 05:00pm 06:00pm 07:00pm Thursday 10-22-98 Front Back 43 59 Friday 10-23-98 Front Back 6I 68 103 12l I01 115 90 119 87 123 84' 79 82 89 66 72 · 70 80 '67 71 77 66 g7- 72 71 -75 102 100 100 105 104 117 102 110 1720 E. Garry Ave. Ste. 111~. Santa Aha - GA ~12705 · (94V) e52-8450 · Fax [a4g) E52-B4~l . . Community Development Depr-,rtment -:1 :!October 7, 199g '1 .. · :Jack S~anaIand :?la/.a Lafayette, LLC. ' i130972 So. Coast ltighw~y, Suite I60 ?a=~Ltna Beach, California 92651 · I City. of T 300 Ce n'., Tusti~ (71~ SUBJECT: COMPLETENESS OF CONDITION.a,&, USE PERMIT 98-022: '& i[ REVIEW 98-026 · '1 I .Dca/- Mr. Stznaland: -t -, · .i"Fnank you for your application, submitted September 15, 1998, for a parking lot expi~'at;ion to Plaza Lafayette at 13011 Newport Boulevard. This projec! hex be:n identified as Cohc~itio~l Use Permit 98-022 and Design Review 98-02.6. 5Thc Communi~ Developm:nt Department has reviewed your application and in confp.,manc= t, atrr Government Code Sec. tian '65943, this is notification that your submittal is cc~-~idcred ~neo.rnplete. For your appli=ation to ,be. considered complete, ali informal/on, exhii~i~, and .~at .~als id=tiffed in the attached Exhibits A and B must b-~ provided. I-tv. ms id=tiffed ,ith an ~lerisk (*) shall b¢'addrzssed with any future .,mbminals. Items wi'th a (O will be · Fond/ttons of approval u~.les~; tho submitted materials acldt~:~ ~e com.,-nent. In Exh~it A, we offer fl~e followh:g co:nm-.nm: " -i : ' "t :1 . o . '' . ' ' .*,As noted m a meeting ',ath you on May 28, 1998, and in correspondence to you dat*d Jku~ust 'i 10. '1998, th.. C~ty ~d..r:t~fied a pa.-~ng an~ cn'culauon defic~macy at Plaza Lafav~e and :~ requested that you provide appropriate mitigation in a¢corcl~nc¢ with Conditioni~18 of i '-Resolution No. 3413. Approval of your requ~t is subjez:t to the discretion of'the Zoning it Adm'.mismtor, and if appealexk th, Planning Commission end City Council. Shciutd INs '1 pr0jzc! be denied, .the obligation to miti§at: the. parking aml circulation d-,.ficiency w~>~d still be in :ff~t . .As you kn,w, the City Council d=ni~ a previou~ proj~t that pr°po,=d ~clition~I5 Rkrking lean-hind Plaza Lafayette. Residents of the Woodcrest Apm'tmcnts actively parid¢ipatedlin the l:/ublic h-.,..-:mg proems. W, would ztrongly e'ncom-ag¢ you to m.-~ wir. h thc prop:ny owners md reside, nLq to dis~zs y=ur project and possibly allay their Conc-..ms prior to h=m'ing on Ca= proj~t ' Jstin i~nnial Way CA 927'80 573-3 i O0 ;SIGN 714 7~:-' ~120; Oct-13-g8 gx~h. ibit A- Comments a, nd Corrections I · :j Mr.' StznaI~nd }! October 7, 1998 . ::[Page 2 . ' · i]So that the Community ,Development Dc?art]neat may'consider you to be in ¢omplia~F= with '~:lCoridition 6.18 of Resolution No. 3413, please submit ail requested materials by OctOber 27, i11199i~. Please contact me so that I can arrz.ag-,, to mc:t 'you and personally acc~t yeur ;!!rcsubmitzl.. If you hav~- any questions or concerns related to this matter, plea. ge' cont~, mc at 'i~:(714) 573-3123. ' ;iSincerely, , . 'llC~=n Peterson ~,ssociate Plarm ~ .! . ~ttachrr'.ents: i Daniel Fox, AIC?, Senior Planner (-) (-) EXHIBIT A COMMENTS AND CORI:LE~IONS CONDITION.-~L USE PERAIIT 98-022 AND DESIGN REVIEW.ge-026 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT · .Planning Divixion · (') 1.1 Please. provide eight (8) sets of revised plans, gtapIed and folded to 8 11". (9 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5 1.6 ;i Provide a parking analysis tha evaluates how the provision of additic hal pm'king will Mdress the existing pa-king md zirculaIion deficiency. ~ "he parking analysis should be'prepa,--:d by a California Registered T~a!'.fic Engine-..r and'or California Resist=red Civil Engineer experienced ir~ {his type of analysis. 'F, ae analysis should also identify how Condition~ 6!1~., 6..I5, 6.16' and 6.18 of Resolution No..3413 (attached) ha'Oz b'.een implemented. Be sure to include information rel:,ted to pm-king op~ai,bns nd resections in effect for the entir~ cch;er (e.g., valet service, 'ti'me mstrictions, etc.). This info,orion should be provided in a narrativd itlus,'rated on a site plan. Employee-only pa.4dv..g is a more appropriate use for the proposed paxI~ng area. Valet sen'ice m~y be too disruptive to adjac~t msidentiaI ia~es, espeeizlly in th-.. late evening hours. PI:use mofli~ the plan ' ', · - - · ! Please provide a m~¢ plan ~at snows the ennre center, including io¢lat~on and numbers of existing ~d proposed parking spar. es. The plan clearly show poin:s of ar.x:ess to the retail spa~s from lhe pro .l:{O~ed pm'Ring ~re~ All :as~'n~ts should be shov,,a and id~nti:'ied on th~ plan. Provid..- written eviden;e from each ag.,-x:y that holds a,,a that they support proj;t approval and implementation. A four (4) foot wid, land~g~pe area is proposed between the sidew~.Ikl nd .i parking spar. es. Sine: this are~ is located to the rear of uhe center, ~tin ay be appropriate to reduce ~e wi&h of the plmater and i,"m'rgage the wid[:h of the 20' drive aisle. A numb~ of bollards could be installed to boundary i:~w,ve~ the pm'king ar~a mhd sidewalk. . ' ]'he proposed plan ~;h~',v~., total of thirty-sev~ (37) p~rking spaces 'Xi a dime,-',xion ~f eight (8) feet by ninm~ (19) feet. If th.e landi;eape pI,m,~ er is r~uced ?.s noted in #1.4, ca~'.h pa-'king space should be 9' by 20' !w~th no ovezhe, ng. Exhibit A October 7, 1995 .Page 2 1.7 .- 1.9 (*) I.I0 (c) I.I1 Building Division (') 2.~ 2.2 Provide a sccfion d~a.il of the proposed sidewalk/multi-use ertl, pa[.t ~accs. and drive aisle ~d th,, existing parking mca. This will help ch how thc existing impmvdm=n~ will transition into !he proposed area. ing ?i fy. ~ace ~1~ Provide a site -lan that shows the number ~nd i at' y , - ' oc Ion o~ pancmg ~aces for the e.nlir= ~mmer-..i~ c=nter and includ, th, number of parking sp'a~¢; acc.~ble to dizialed pemo~. Additional ar~sibl¢ parking ~paccsirday be r,q ,uir~ b-_t...q on ~he total number of exis~g and propcs=d spa~s. - ' · . Provid= d-milsz .- of outdoor Iign' tin-,_,, in the ,.t~arkin~,~ ar,~', Imads....r¢ on th, butldmgs and at =intone= doors as required by th-. City of T{J_~tin' .: Se:ufity Ord.in~-_,a,¢. Sin:-.-lighfi=g will b,~ of con:.~-n to ~dj~.c~t residen:z, it is suggested ~a! sew. ral low.wattage lighting boliards or The County of Orange Public Facilities & Resources D:partrnent indiLatcs thZt the proposed seven (7) foot walkway is of aScquate width to accommodate a trail usc (sec comment 5.1). Please indicate on th~ ;itc. plan where the trail would be accommodated within the remainder o~' thc c='nlcr. [ On thc sit.c pla.n, indicate the location of proposed lighting fiX~ "e~. Pray/de a sep~at-, dct,.il of th= proposed li~t fixtures. On the site plan, indicate the Io~t. ion of proposed walls and prov~ a se-etlon detail. Section 9271(2) requim~ a solid m~om3, wall, six (6t i'.eet and eight' (8) inch~ ia height, to be constructed on the boundary bc~,ien commcrcisl ~ r=sidmtial propci:tics. · ,,! Resolution No. 3414 approved VaHm** 95-011 dloiving s rcductiC~ of ) rcqUire~ spaces fi'om 327 parking spaces to 2~1 parking spaces. 2The [ . ap~m.,?tl .o.f .Condi. ti~.gal Use P~,-'rmit PB-022 and Design Review 9t{-(}26 aha m~'.~llat~on o! th:riy-seven (37) parking sp;~:,e.~ ~ill pmi~lly Fulfill Mitigafioa M-..=ur¢ 6.18 of Resolution No. 3414 which requir~ lhe "~ provision or' ~ditional parking up to th, minimum 'num~r require3 [for ( th= aggmga'te of'shopping ten;=' ~e~, The provision of additional pa/k ng \ I spar:es shall not be used to in:,-'eas= or intensify rcst~ur,.at scati..~g or ...j commcrciaVret~il square footage. ; r---" ; -- I ! J ..- i. -I ! i I i. ('; i '1 -! · · '1 Exh/bit A Octob:r 7, 1998 Page 3 li~ting standards be used .instead of the two lighting standards shm~!r the plan. on (c.) ' ·2.3 When submitting for a building permit, submit four sets of plans m'a~ ~'o sels of'soils reports. ' ' I · . (c) 2.,t. All ~m-ading, drainage, vegetation and circulation shall ~mply witt~ Ih: 't City of Tustin Grading Manual.- All strut sections, curbs, gui?rs, sidewaB:s, lighting, and. sto,.-n drains shall comply with oq-~ite improvement standards. Any d:viations shall be brought to ;he artc{;tion of the Building Official and a request for approvM shall b: submitt~ in wri£ing prior to approval.. ~ [ PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT ' ! 3.2 Submit a metes and bo~ds description of each parcel and an e~Jbit which clearly shows the configuration and dimensions of each parcel, i I 21. Provide wr/rten authorization from the O~ange County Sa.n/ts;ion District that cons,Tustion over their e~ement will be allowed; ' J 1 . (*) 4.1 Plot hhe loc~on of eximing on-site ~nd off-;~le b~Id~g foo¢fi~ in rcla~on m thc propos~ p~k:ng lot ~a.. COUNTY OF OK~NGE PUBLIC FACILITIES & ~SOURCES DEF.~TM~ (*) 5.1 Thc propo~d seven (7)' foot war,ay is of ad,ustc widt~ to a~mmodate a trail use. However, it is not ele~ how ~e ex~ng wM~ay ~4!1 comeet to ~e pro,sea walkmy. It i, ,u~eg~ v~v~ng ~ of the I~caping at ~e north end of ~o existing ~kdng'I~1 lo 5¸.2 · · · 6.1 · provide a transition betwe~ the :xistifig and proposed walk'ways. ' A gate should .be provided at the north end of the proposed walk'w/' to pravide a future connection to the County trail. Please submit g25.00 in conjunction with the next submittal for paint of fees :'or preps, ration of a Notice of Exemption. .. : ] · t :t Exhibit A .Octcb~ 7, 1998 Page 4 ¢) · (1) 6.3 ;14 ~34 5~23; Oct-13-ga 3:34P;:~; · Prie, r to_ :ss_uance of any_building permits, payment shail be .' p. cz.b,e fe~.s, :ncludmg but not hm~ted to the foltowinv p,,~-,~,,~, az ,i ' ,. · . . . madeo all subj~t ;o change. P i A. Building plan check and permit fees to the Comra~.l'ty · Development Department bas~ on th= most cu~ent s:hedule. ~ B. Orange County Fire. Authority plan check md inspection fe&~ to the Community Development Department b~ed Upon the ~:~gt cun'ent schedule. V,'/~in forty-ei~t (48) hours of approval of the ~ubject projectl he appliczn, t si'all deliver to'thc Community Developm~t D~a,m'nent a c~hief; ch~k payable to ',.he COUN'I~ CLERK' in the amou_4t of 5;38.00 (thirty eight dollars) to enable the C;ty to file th- a ro ir5 it.' envi,"on:n:n~! documentation for the r, miect. 'If w:t~.:- _._5~ ~P P.'.~,~. Deve'opm~t Depav'anent the abo~;e noted _ ' '" ' - check, the statute of limitations zor ~-~y interested party to challenge the environment~ ' ' 's determm~tmn under ~e provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act could signifcznfly Iength~med. Communit'y Deve'ioDment Dep~rtment' .City of Tustin NOTICE TO . 300 Centennial \¥~_y COM-MD~ITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT CUSTOI~ERS Tustin, CA 92780 -- t7~" ~ ,~573-3100 l%uc CiW of Tustin operates on a 9/S0 work schedule. This schedule rcsulis in our CiW Hall being open from 7:30 a.m. to 5:30 p.m. Monday &m ~u~day. Friday schedule will alternate: Se00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., one Friday, ~d o~ces closed on ~ following F~day. Se~ back for calends. The Building Db,'ision holds staffmestings on Wednesdays from 4:00 p.m. to 5:00 p.m.. Staffare unavailable during this masting. Inspectors will be availabls by phons from 7:00 a.m. to 7:30 a.m. with field inspections commencing shortly aier 7:30 a.m. InspeCtors may also be rsachgd by phons at the end ofths · cay. PHONE LIST 5iizabcth Bi~sz:k Director 573-3106 Ki:a Wcstfiald Assistant Director 573-3106 BUILDING DI¥I$ION TITLE PHONE JoAnn Kang Som::'s Building Technician $73-3132 H. Leighton Mu:k:y Building Technician 573-3131 Chuck Dcfrui:= Building Inspector 573-3137 Ki:k Millan Building Inspector 573-3136 Robin Mundy Building Inspector. 573-3138 ~i: Lazaro Plan Chcakar 573-3133 $omush Rahb-_-i Plan Chock= 573-3120 Building Official 573-3130 BUILDL\'G LNSPECTION REQUEST LLNE-RECORDER PROVIDE PER.MIT NUMBER. JOB .&DDKES$ AND TYPE OF INSPECTION NEEDED 373-3141 PL&N,~ING DI%'I$ION TITLE PHONE Planning Count= Gancral Information Lin: 573-3140 Dan Fox ' Sanior Pla, un= 573-3115 Loft Ludi Associate Plann=r 573-3127 Kzren Paterson Associate Plann= 573-3123 Soon Racks'tin Associate Pl~nn= 573-3016 ~finoo Ashabi Assistant Plann= 573-3126 Brad Evanson Assistant Plann= 573-311 g Mark C-~Ivan _. Code Enforcement Officer 573-3134 F:lk Ga'cia Code Enforcement O~."r ' 573-3135 Ron Johnson Coda Enforccm:nt O~,.r 573-3122 C.-:-'o~c Wics..~g= Coda Enforc.,m:nt Offi~r 573-3149 KEDEX~ELOFMENT TITLE PHONE J%m Draughon S:nior Proj:= Manag= 573-312 I. Da.aa Ogdon S:nior Proj:~ Ma.nag= 573-31 ] 6 Dave Gottlieb S:nior Proj:= Man~= 573-3128 BUSINESS LICENSE DMSION TITLE pHONE Bz-bz,-a Ra.v:s Busings Lic.:nsa Tachni:ian 573-3144 ORA.NGE COL.'ATY FIRE Au'rHORt ~-i'T' imT:,-zions 559-7537 C-.nc:al Offim_,':k~quan:rs 7/d,-fgOD ORAN G E COL.'NTY SA.NFi'ATI ON C-m- =al Ofii= 962-'~411 IRVINE RA.N~ WATER DISTRICT C-'~ -.'~-al Ofi~ 453-5300 ORA_\'GE COUNTY HEALTH CARE AGENCY Environmental Health Division 667-36D0 Public H:akh $=.wic=s 667-3737 SOUTH CO.~'T AIR QUALITY MA.NGEM~\-r DISTRICT Gzn~ 0~= (909)396-2000 TUSTLN WATER WOKKS Gan:roi 0~= 573-3375 SEE BACK FOR C.&LENDAR EXHIBIT A COMMENTS .~N'D CORR_ECTIONS CONDITION.kL USE PEI:h. MIT 98-022 .kNI) DESIGN REVIEW 98-026 COM3Ib~'ITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT Plam2b:x Divlxion (*) 1.1 Please provide eight (8) sets of revised plans, stapled and folded to 8 V,_" x 11". (*) (*) (*) 1.2 1.3 1.4 !.5 1.6 Provide a parking analysis that evaluates how the provision of additional paring will address the existing parking and circulation deficiency. The parking analysis .should be prepared by a California 'Re~stered Traffic Engineer and/or California Registered. Civil Engineer experienced in this type of analysis. The analysis should also identify how ConditiOns 6.14, 6.15, 6.16, and 6.18 of Resolution No. 3413 (aaached) have been implemented. Be sure to include information related to parking operations and restrictions in effect for the entire center (eo.=., valet service, time resections, etc.). This information should be provided in a narrative and illus,'--areal on a site plan. Employee-only parking is a more appropriate use for the proposed parking area. Valet service may be too disruptive to adjacent residential uses, especially in the late evening hours.. Please modi~ the pi.an accordingly. Ple~e provide a site plan that shows the entire center, including location and numbers of existing and proposed parking spaces. The plan should clem~iy shoW. points Of access to the retail spaces from the proposed parking area. Ail easements should be Shown and identified on the site plan. Provide ',wit'ten evidence from each agency that holds an easement that they support project approval and implementation. A four (4) foot wide landscape area is proposed between the sidewalk and parking spaces. Since this area is located to the rear of the center, it may be appropriate to reduce the width of the planter and increase the width of the 20' drive aisle. A number of bollards could be installed to define the bomud~.-y between the parking area and sidewalk. Tn-- proposed plan shows a total of thirty-seven (37) parldng spaces with a dimension of eight (8) feet by nineteen (19) feet. If the l~,-,dscape planter is redu:ed a~ noted in #'1.4, each parking space should be 9' by 20' with no ov~.g. !uticn No. 3413 · (!) 6.11 Authorization for the on-site sale of beer and wi.~e'(A_~C License Type "23") is contincent_ upon the .use of the subject premises~ ~m~.~__..__.._..= a restaurant. Should_ this use. change, authorization for this use permit shall become null and void. (7) 6.12 There shall be no billiard tables, video, games, dancin~ --. or live entertainment on the premises at any time, unless ~D6roval_~ _ of a Conditional Use Permit is oo~=ined' ~- for these activities. (7) 6.13 Ail pe. rsons selling alcoholic beverages shall be 18 years of age or oIder and .shall be supe_~vised by someone 21 years of age' or older. A supervisor shall be present in same -~=~ poi.~t =--= as _.. of sale. . (2) 6['l-~ All non-disabled employees and store owners/ manacers ef the shopping center shall be recuired to Dark in t~e rear of the shopping center to prov£de additi-ona! D=rk_...~- ~ .in the front. Notification of this recuiremen2~ sha]~ written into all tenant'leases. 'A copy of a standard _~ease form with said language incorporated tn___in'=~ sha!~_ be submitted to. the Community Development Department prior to the issuance of a Certificate .of Occupancy for the proposed restaurant/microbrewery. . (2) 6.15 Prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy for the propos~_d restaurant/microbrewer¥, directional signage ~ shall be Provided to inform patrons that parking is available in the rear of the shopping center. The installation and maintenance of direc-t-iona! signage shall comply with Section 9409C of the. Tustin City Code Sign Regulations. A directional 'signage' D!an shall be submitted to the Community Deve!oDment fo~ approve!, -md building permits shall be issued, prior to the installation of directional signage. (2) .-;6~'i~ b~ring'peak months, 'such as December, or at other times as .determined necessa_~-y in writing by-the Public Works Director and/or Community 'Development Director, based.= upon on-site traffic and circu!atioh issues, ~'~!et ma~king :for .the. orooosed.Tustin Brewing Company shall'be p.r.o.v!~ea~ The N~_euport !7 restaurant currently has valet s~2_~-vice'provided from approximately 11:00 a.m. to !0: 00 p .'m. daily; valet service for both uses may be c~.~=~3 ~-.~=~ T:~= ~n~=~.~v owner she!3 receive writ,~=~ notice from the Public Works Director and/or Community _op,,._,.= Director at such time that an increase ~ valet se_~-~ice is deemed warranted. Said increase in valets=_rv_c' ~ ~_ .shall be provided' for the time periods - specified by the .~!ic ~orks Director and/or Community Exhibit k Resolution .~o. 3413 : Deve!ooment Director and shall be implemented immediately uoon notification. (2) .6-!7 At the time of Plan .Check submittal,. ~ rgvised ~'%~e-;° ~'~ restricted parking plan "'shall. be submitted to" the Community Development Department for approval. Prior to _- ~ ~ ~ the submittal to the Community. Development Deo=r~m_nu, nO~_C_ orooerty o~er shall provide, written ~ = = the - - _ restricted parking, revisions to the ~=za orooo=ed time- ~ ' ~ --- -- LaFayette tenants, and shall obtain written acknow!e_~2~=n~ from the .tenants that: 1) they have . _ r_v_s_o..s; received notification.of the ~rooosed = ~ ~ ~ and ~2) that they concur with the proposed revisions. The property owner shall then provide .the original signed acknowledgment forms to the Community' Development Deoartment as evidence that a majority of the Plaza Lafayette tenants concur with the proposed revisions to the parking lot time restrictions. Possible "=' -~iens to the existing ~an may ~u~= the mO~!~!C=~ ~- following: Removing time restrictions after 6:00 p.m. Extending ~ime.restric{ions on a portion of the oarking spaces _oca~ed in the front-centre! area of the shopping center, excluding those spaces directly adjacent to store entrances, to one hour, thus re?~iring patrons who would be in any of the restaurants for. more'~than an hour to park in t~= rear lot adjacent to the westerly properny bounda~--f or use the valet parking. · (2) -~6{i'8%~f at any time ~_n the future an on-site or n=~=b'.-oo~'~ '::'-~' ~=--~ or' customer advises the City or ~ t~= City othe~ise made aware and concurs, that a parking and/or exzsus at the Plaza LaFayette shooo~nc traffid orob!em ' ' aenter as a result of the insufficient on-s~t= marking avai~abi!ity and it has be~n confi~ed that the s~jecn orooertv is in como!iance with mitigation measures - through ~ above, then the Community Development Public Works Departments may re,ire the property owe. er to s'~mit mn uodated oarking, demand analysis znd/cr traffic study, al'n0 =~=s= to the City, ~~ the time schedule stiou!ated by the City; the proper~y o~.er'mzy de!ecmte thi~ resoon~ibi!ity, through !emse ne~otimtions, to a~y tenant ooermtin~ under Conditional Use Pea. mt 019 tuna Variance 95 0!1 if said study ~name~==~e omrkin~ or a traffic =~ob!em, there is ' ' '-' - orooer:y o~er ~ha!!' be re~i~ed to provide additional ~iti~mtion measures to be reviewed ~nd approved by the 'Comm~.ity Development and P~!ic Works Depm~ments. sai5 ilution No ~3 ~ 7 mitigation may include, .but not be limited to, followinG: - _.._ --- a · b. Establish alternate hours of operation. Provision of additional parking as needed, up to minimum numbe~ re~u~red for the aggrecat~ slopping center u~es pursuant to Zoni~ s?f~aras, by purchase and/ r w!~nzn SOO feet of the ~ lease of orooe~ty orooer~y or provision of the needed parking on site. The securing of off-site Parking would recuire aooroval of a revised Variance. - -- - . ~=!!ure ~o aae?uate!y resoond to such a eau=st and to · mp!emen~ m!t~cation m==su~=s w' f ~'= r O~ ~= = ' - .......... ~' --=VO - g~ n~ ...... ~ u~ =n~ ~ona!t!onal Uce D~ (!) 7.1 Prior to issuance of any building permits, payment shall (5) be made of all applicable fees, including but not limited to the following. Pa)nnent shall be rec-uired based upon those rates in effect at the time of payment and are subjec~ to change. Building plan check and permit fees to the Community Deve!cpment Department based on the most current schedule.' - (~) 7 2 Within ~ - - . · -or~y-eicht (~S) hours of aoorova~ of ~, - -_ - ~.n_ subject (5) · oroject ~.ne applicant sha~l deliver to ~n_ Commun{ty Development Department, a cashi=~'s check ~ayabN ~ to tb.~ CO~y C=m~K in the amount of $25 00 (twenty-five . do!~a~s) to enab! -' = ' - - e ~n_ City to file the aoorooriate Y -_- (- _ ..ou_ =--_od ~na~ aooT~c~t has delivered to the Commun{ty -- ' ' - Development- ~epartment ~ove-~ot=d check, t~= .... ~= - ---- " - ---- =~=~u~_ or limitations for any interested oarty to chal 1 =n~= t~= '=~v~ de~=~--- ~.n_ ~rovis~ ons of the Ca!ifo~i~ ~nv~ronmenta! Quality Act could be s{ _. ..... =~.~_y !en~thened. -~4 ~{ ../ An~h~hn · Tustin Trail Railroad Right--of-Way Purd',.=se R~iir-.,~d Right-of-Way PurgMs.~ an~ Bikew-ay Do ,, ', ,- · Prg~sed Interim Dr.-Street 5ika.~,-ay Connection · ?rep=seal F'ina] Off;-S~r~[ _.= :Xev.'ay Conn~bn Kr. tivi,5, · / i= o~t:.'=' -~- ~.' ~ / '~ - /1 He/gh= "~' ~ / "x " 20. Attachment F COUNCIL EXHIBIT B MINUTES- APRIL 12, 1999 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 3662 MINUTES TUSTIN PLANNING COMMISSION .. REGULAR MEETING APRIL 12, 1999 CALL TO ORDER: PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: INVOCATION: ROLL CALL: Commissioners: 7:00 p.m., City Council Chambers Commissioner Davert Commissioner Browne Chairperson Pontious, Browne, and' Kozak Davert, Kawashima Present: Vice Chair Kozak Browne Davert Kawashima Absent: Chairperson Pontious Staff: Elizabeth A. Binsack, Director of Community Development Karen Peterson, Acting Senior Planner Lois Bobak, Deputy City Attorney Justina Willkom, Associate Planner · Lori Ludi, Associate Planner Minoo Ashabi, Assistant Planner Doug Anderson, Senior Project Manager'- Transportation 'Kathy Martin, Recording Secretary PUBLIC CONCERNS: (Limited to 3 minutes per person for items not on the agenda.) CONSENT CALENDAR: 1. Minutes of the March 22. 1999 Planninq Commission Meeting, Commissioner Davert moved. Commissioner Kawashima seconder,l, to approve the minutes. Vice Chair Kozak abstained due to his absence at the March 22, 1999 meeting. Motion carried 3-0. Continued Public Hearinq for Conditional Use Permit 98-007 & Desion Review 98-007 a i'equest to construct a 1,541 square foot drive-through oil change facility with two work bays and indoor/outdoor waiting areas. 'The pr_oject is Cotmcil Exhibit B Planning Commission IV, April 12, 1999 Page 2 ~S at 12972 Newport Avenue within the Retail commercial District C-1 zone, Town Center Redevelopment Project Area. AppLICANT:' EZ LUBE . MICHAEL J. DOBSON PROPERTY OWNER: KC/OB PARTNERS, LLC TIM O'BRIEN Recommen~lation That the Planning Commission adopt Resolution No. 3664 recommending that the City Council approve Conditional Use Permit 98-007 and Design Review 98-007. Vice Chair Kozak complimented staff and the applicant for their work on the EZ Lube project. - · .. Commissioner Davert moved. Commissioner Kawashima seconded, to adopt Resolution No. 3664 recommending that the City Council approve Conditional Use Permit 98-007 and Design Review 98-007. Motion carried 4-0. PUBLIC HEARINGS: e Continued'Public Hearinq: Conditional Use Permit 98-022 and Design Review 98-026 a request to establish a commercial parking lot in a 50' by 314' portion of an abandoned railroad right-of-way. ' The project is located at a yacant parcel to the north .of 13031 Newport Avenue and to the west of. 12901-12943 Newport Avenue in the Multiple Family Residential (R-3) zoning district. APPLICANT: JACK STANALAND PLAZA LAFAYETTE, LLC OWNER: PLAZA LAFAYETTE, LLC Recommendation. That the Planning Commission adoPt Resolution No. 3662 approving Conditional Use Permit 98-022 and Design Review 98-026. Justina Wilikom presented the subject report. The Public Hearing opened at 7:06 p.m. Planning Commission M, April 12, 1999 Page 3 Jack Stanaland, applicant, stated that he did not believe the proposed trail was a good idea and noted his disagreement with the following items: · Resolution item 1.D.3 in that the additional parking spaces should count towards the required parking for the center; COndition 2.1 the wall should be 6' 8" from the parking lot grade; 2.11 security issues can be handled by signage and occasional patrols as opposed to .hiring security personnel; 3.11 noted difficulty with enforcement of employee parking and valet parking all day is not cost effective but he would be willing to do a study; 3.12 C noted that the area designated for valet parking is part of the lease for the Nieuport 17 restaurant and is under control of the owner and cannot be used fcJr the rest of the center patrons; and, the lease does not give him the authority to require a written response from tenants. He displayed pictures of trash in the empty lot and noted that the parking lot would be a good addition to clean the area. Commissioner Browne noted that hours for valet service were nOt indicated in' Condition 3.12.A The Director indicated that the next section within that condition requests a.valet parking plan submittal and noted staff's concern that the valet, where currently located, ,. discourages other individuals from par. king in the rear. Commissioner Davert asked staff for a response to issues raised by the applicant. -. , The Director indicated that it would be acceptable to modify the finding to exclude '"as required parking spaces for the shopping center," staff wants to ensure that these spaces are not going to provide for more intensified uses i.e. another restaurant.. Regarding Condition 2.1 - she stated that the wall should be constructed at 6' 8" from the highest grade to mitigate any noise or negative impacts: Regarding Condition 2.11 - she indicated that this condition mitigates issues such as noise, safety and to protect patrons and surrounding properties from nuisance conditions. Commissioner Davert asked if staff could accept an affidavit from the property manager that all tenants have been notified and asked if valet parking plan submittal would be handled at the staff level and noted hi~ concern with requiring the property owner to hire a full time seCurity person. The Director indicated that staff would be willing to accept an affidavit and affirmed that the valet parking plan would be handled at staff level. David Skelton, 14571 Beeson Lane, stated his opposition to the trail proposal due to noise, homeless, vandalism, etc. related to a trail. Paul Geary, 14551 Bee. son Lane, stated his opposition to a trail and noted that he and several homeowners had submitted an offer to the railroad to purchase the property. He submitted a petition against the trail. Planning Commission April 12, 1999 Page 4 o. · Denise Ildefonso, requested that the traffic stu~Jy be discarded due to mathematical errors and asked if the Brewing Company was in violation of their resolution. Justina Willkom noted that at the time the variance was approved for the Tustin Brewing Company, the site plan indicated 241 spaces but the actual parking spaces at the site currently is at 232 spaces. Doug Anderson, Senior Project Manager- Transportation, restated the errors'pointed out by the speaker. ~ Vice Chair Kozak stated that the Commission would revisit the issue to allow staff the . opportunity .to review the noted errors. Brett Howard, 14472 Clarissa Lane, stated his opposition to the trail due to noise and safety issues. He suggested that the trail be located along Waken Avenue. Paul Sapak, 14512 Clarissa Lane, stated his opposition to the trail due to public safety issues. h.. Sherri.Miller, 2800 Keller Ddve, County of Orange Trail Planning employee and resident, stated that the County has been working to make the trail a reality and is poised to purchase the property from the railroad authority. She further stated that the property owner of Plaza LaFayette is declining to install a gate and asked the Commission to require the installation of a gate. . . Commissioner Davert asked if the County' of Orange is prepared to indemnify the property owner for any liability he incJurs by having people on his property from the County trail and is there any proposal or plan to compensate the.property owner foe the eas_ement that is being requested. ,. Lois B0bak stated that the question is inappr°pdate because Ms. Miller is attending the meeting as a resident. Commissioner Davert stated that the Commission should disregard ali of Ms. Miller's statements regarding the County's plans for the trail and noted that Ms. Miller did appear at the Community Development Workshop on March 29th as a representative of the County of Orange. Deann Santos, Woodcrest Apartments resident, stated her oppos~ion to the parking lot due to safety concerns and there is no justification for additional parking; and indicated her frustration that phone calls to the Police Department or Sherifr"s Department are. routed back and forth and deliveries for Tustin Brewing Company are conducted in the alley next to apartments. Planning Commission April '12, 1999 Page 5 ;S George Haltman, 14592 Clarissa Lane, stated his Opposition to the parking lot and presented overheads showing trash, broken gate, 'monitoring well and sewer access on the vacant lot. Christy Jones, W0odcrest Apartments resident, stated her support for a trail citing the benefit to the community. Deborah Johnson, Woodcrest Apartments resident, stated her support for the trail and opposition to the parking lot. Nell Harkleroad, 10562 Mira Vista Street, stated his support for the trail and opposition to . a parking lot and further noted that there have been no complaints from adjoining neighbors on the Seventeenth Street and Fairhaven trail system. Dick Ramage, owner of Woodcrest Apartments, st&ted his opposition to a pari(ing lot and noted that the parking is adequate. David Knowlton, owner of Tustin Branch trail, stated that he is in. negotiations with the County of Orange to acquire the right of way and acquisition should occur sometime this year and suggested that Mr. Stanaland should live up to the promise made by the previous property owner to install a gate. He further stated the County homeowners' offer to purchase the property was received but was so low the'offer was not transmitted to him. Commissioner Davert asked if there was an enforceable Covenant in existence that would compel the property owner to install the gate. David Knowlton stated that it was a verbal agreement and nothing was in writing. _ Nancy Ramage, owner of Woodcrest Apartments, stated her support for the trail and the installation of a gate. · · · Eddie Burch, Executive Director, Tustin Chamber of Commerce, stated his support for allowing the property owner to do as he wishes with his property. Commissioner Davert stated that he has received many phone calls and visited the site and noted that the Commission is only considering the application for a parking lot expansion. He further stated that the property owner is entitled to reasonable development of the property and this is a good opportunity to expand the parking capability. The trail is not on the County's general plan and the County maintains the ability to condemn the property, if necessary. . · Commissioner Browne stated that the proposed use for the property is reasonable as long as impacts to surrounding residents can be mitigated. Planning Commission M,, April 12, 1999 Page 6 ~S Commissioner Kawashima stated his concern for the safety of center employees and noise from rollerskating or skateboarding and Condition 2.11 should remain. Vice Chair Kozak asked Doug Anderson for a response to the errors in the traffic study. Doug Anderson, Senior Project Manager- Transportation, responded that in reference to the 241 parking spaces indicated on Page 3 he would have to look at the previous parking study done in conjunction with the approval of the Tustin Brewery to find out if the number is valid and where the number came from. He noted that there are actually 232 marked parking spaces on site. The table in the Appendix of the study indicates that there are 105 marked parking spaces at the rear of the building, however, the counts that. are provided, in some cases, exceed that because they do include valet parking which in many cases are tandemly parked 2 cars to I space. Page 7 - Table 4, the 205.8 spaces was actually 224 and staff corrected the error with permission from the traffic engineer. The 224 figure comes from the appendix which was the highest counted number of . vehicles parked at the time. The 205.8 spaces at the bottom of the table was a calculation that was done by the engineer to come. up with how much square feet of building area was attributable to one space a. nd the number was carried erroneously. The net parking spaces worse condition if you subtract 224 from 232 leaves 8 spaces and that is the correct conclusion in the study. On six different occasions, City staff observed and provided observations on the parking at noon and evening including Saturdays and found at no time were there not at least one or two parking spaces available due to the coming and going of customers. However, the report does fail to count the six additional parking spaces that were added on street by staff. Staff included those in the study as well as those that parked across the street, in the LA Fitness shopping center and walked across the street. Based upon staffs observa.tions, counting Thursday and Friday noon and evening, there was insufficient parking on site. Vice Chair Kozak stated that the facility is overparked and-the property owner has proposed a reasonable project to address the issue and further pointed out that Conditions 3.6 and 3.10 can be combined and should include reference to no skateboarding. Commissioner Davert proposed that 2.1 be taken from the high grade as staff has recommended rather than from the parking lot grade; 3.12 remain as written except for D and substitute language that the property owner would provide an affidavit; and, combine 3.6 and 3.10. Lois Bobak noted that a condition could be included that requires the adjacent prope,i'y owners be given a number to reach someone .if there is a problem. Commissioner Davert stated his (~pposition to Condition 2.11 and asked the City Attorney if the City is responsible for the safety of employees. Planning Commission lt. April 12, 1999 Page 7 Lois 'Bobak responded that the City is not responsible for employee safety but the property owner is responsible. Commissioner Browne stated that the Woodcrest Apartments and residents of Clarissa Lane would be the major beneficiaries of having someone on-site to handle disturbances. Commissioner Kawashima inquired about the cost of security guards. The Director stated that staff could modify the condition to identify that if deemed necessary by the Community Development Director and/or the Police Chief, the applicant Shall provide security. CommissicJner Davert proposed the modification as the Director has suggested. Commissioner Kawashima stated his concern for the safety of employees. Commissioner Davert stated that the safety of the employees is'the responsibility of the property owner. Commissioner Browne asked if the issue on service calls to the Tustin Police and Orange County Sheriff could be addressed. The Director stated that it Could not be addressed in the resolution 'but noted that she spoke directly to the City's Chief of Police who identified that it would be inappropriate for someone calling about a problem at Plaza LaFayette to be routed to the Sheriff and he would speak with the City's dispatchers and staff and the Sheriff's Department to ensure that this'does not occur in the future. Commissioner Kawashima stated his concern that signage will not deter skateboarding. Commissioner Davert stated that signage allows the residents to call the police who can take care of the problem. The Public Hearing closed at 8:46'p.m. Commissioner Davert moved, Commissioner Browne seconded, to adopt Resolution No. 3662 amended as follows: Section 1.D.3 delete "as required parking spaces for the shopping center or be used" " Condition 2.11 Shall read "If deemed necessary by the Community Development Director and/or Chief of Police, the applicant shall provide security personnel and/or an on-site manager to limit access to the parking, lot to employees only and to provide on-site security.~' -. Planning Commission April 12, 1999 Piage 8 ~S Condition 3.10 amended to read "No Skateboarding'' and "No Loitering" signs shall be posted on the site. with sign details and locations to be approved by the 'Community Development Department. Said signs shall include the telephone number of an on-site manager or security personnel to address and/or mitigate any violations.!' Condition 3.12 D be amended to require that the property owner need only provide notice to 'the tenants and provide an affidavit to the City. approving Conditional Use Permit 98-1~22 and Design carried 3-1. Commissioner Kawashima opposed. Review 98-026. Motion - . The Planning Commission recessed at 8:zt6 p.m. . The Planning Commission reConvened at 8:58 p.m. w Conditional Use Permit 98-037 a reqUest to establish a health club within the 'existing commercial center known as E! Camino Plaza. The project is located at 630 E! Camino Real within the Central Commercial District (C-2P), Town Center Redevelopment Project Area. APPLICANT: BALLY TOTAL FITNESS PROPERTY OWNER: WILLIAM 7_APPAS TRUST Recommendation That the Planning Commission adopt Resolution No. 3665 approving Conditional Use Permit 98-037. Lori Ludi presented the staff report. Commissioner Browne asked Doug Anderson if left tums from Newport Avenue onto El Camino Real would be affected. Doug Anderson responded that there would be no tuming impacts. The Public Hearing opened at 9:02 p.m. Art Bannick, applicant's architect, stated that the applicant reviewed the conditions and has no objections. 20 24 27 RESOLUTION NO. 3662 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN TO APPROVE CONDITIONAL USE.PERMIT 98-022 AND DESIGN REVIEW 98-026, AUTHORIZING THE ESTABLISHMENT OF A PARKING LOT ON A VACANT 50' BY 314' PORTION OF AN ABANDONED RAILROAD RIGHT-OF-WAY LOCATED TO THE NORTH OF THE PLAZA LA FAYETTE SHOPPING CENTER AT 130:il NEWPORT AVENUE AND TO THE WEST OF 12901-12943 NEWPORT AVENUE. The Planning Commission of the City of Tustin does h~reby resOlve as follows: The Planning Commission finds and determines as follows: Bo C. Do That a proper application, Conditional Use Permit 98-022 and Design Review 98-026, was filed by Plaza Lafayette, LLP. to authorize the establishment of'a parking lot on a vacant 50' by 314' portion of an abandoned railroad right-of- way located to the north of the Plaza La Fayette shopping center at 13011 Newport Avenue and to the west of 12901'-12943 Newport Avenue. That a public hearing was duly called, noticed and' held on said application on March 22, 1999, and cohtinued to April 12, 1999, by the Planning Commission since the property was not posted in accordance with the City's public noticing procedures. At the direction of the Planning CommisSion, a workshop was held on March 29, 1999, with the property owner, representatives of the ~;ounty of Orange, and interested members of the public. That the proposed use is allowed within the Multiple-Family Residential District (R-3), with the approval of a Conditional Use Permit. That establishment, maintenance, and operatiOn of'a'parking lot in a residential district to serve an adjacent commercial shopping center, as conditioned, will not be detrimental to the healthl safety, 'morals, comfort, or general welfare of persons residing or working in the neighborhood of such proposed use, nor be injurious or detrimental to the property and improvements in the neiahborhood of-the subject property, or to the general welfare of the City of ~Tustin, as evidenced by the following findings: . The parking lot expansion area will be used for employee parking only, thereby reducing the potential for noise and other nuisance impacts on adjacent properties. . Lighting will comply with the City's Security Ordinance, will be directed downward and will not produce glare or have a negative impact on adjacent properties. o The proposed parking spaces will not be pe~,-nitted to cDunt to accommodate' additional parking in[ensive uses, such as restaurants or. medical uses, in the shopping center. e The additional parking spaces wiii indirectly provide more parking for patrons of the shopping center, thereby mitigating parking demand 10 2,2 _-7 Resolution No. 3662 Page 2 e. U. impacts as required by Condition 6.18 of Planning Commission Resolution No.-3413' (Variance No. 95-011). . The adjacent residential uses will be buffered from the proposed parking lot expansion area by a solid 6'-8" block wall and/or existing garage or carport walls. Pursuant to Section 9272. of the Tustin Municipal Code, the Plsnning Commission finds that the location, size, architectural features and general appearance of the parking lot expansion area will not impair the orderly and harmonious development of the area, the present or future development therein, or the occupancy as a'whole. In making such findings, the Planning Commission has considered at least the following items: 1. Height, bulk and area of buildings; 2. Setbacks and site planning. .. . Landscaping, parking area design and traffic circulation.. · Location, height and standards of exterior illumination. 5. Location and method of refuse storage. . . Physical relationship of proposed improvements to existing structures in the neighborhood. Appearance and design relationship of proposed improvemen~ to existing structures and possible future structures in the neighborhood - and public thoroughfares. 8. Development Guidelines and criteria as adopted by the City Coundl. · This project is categorically exempt (Class 11) pursuant to Section 15311 of the California Environmental Quality Act. _ That the project has been reviewed for COnsistency with the Air Quaiity Sub- element of the City of Tustin General Plan and has been determined to be consistent with the Air Quali.ty Sub-element. I1. The Planning Commission hereby approves Conditional Use Permit No. 98-022 and Design Review 98-026 to authorize the establishment of a parking lot on a vaunt 50' by 314' portion of an abandoned railroad fight-of-way located to the north of the Pi=_.z.a La Fayette shopping center at 13011 Newport Avenue and to the west of the Wobdcrest Apar'uments at 12901-12943 Newport Avenue, subject to the c~adi~Jons contained in Exhibit A, attached hereto. Resolutioa No. 3662 Page 3 PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Planning Commission of the City of Tustin at a regular meeting held on the 12"' day of April, 1999. PONTIOUS ChairlSe~on c--"ELIZABETH A. BINS,-,(~K Planning Commission Secretary ]4 20 2! 22 25 25 STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF ORANGE ) CITY OF TUSTIN ) I, Elizabeth Binsack, the undersi ned g , hereby certify that I am the Recording Secretary of the . Planning Commission of the City of TuStin, California; that Resolution No. 3662 was duly passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the Tustin Planning Commission, held on the 12th day of April, 1999. Elizabeth Binsack Planning Commission Secretary EXHIBIT A . RESOLUTION NO. 3662'. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 98-022 AND DESIGN REVIEW 9'8-026 GENERAL (1) 1.1 (1) 1.3 (l) The proposed project shall substantially conform with the submitted plans for the. project date stamped April 12, 1999, on file with the Community Developme.n.t De. partment, except as herein modified, or as modified by the Director of Community Development in accordance with this Exhibit. The Director of Community Development may also approve minor modifications to plans during plan check if such modifications are to be consistent with the provisions of the Tustin City Code. Unless otherwise specified, the conditions contained in this Exhibit shall be complied with prior to the final inspections for any building permits for the project, subject to review and approval by the Community Development Department. The subject project approval shall become null and void' unless the use is established within six (6) months of the date of this Exhibit and substantial constrUction is underway in compliance with Condition No. 1.4 of this resolution. Time extensions may be granted if a wdtten request is received by the Communi~ Development Department within thirty (30) days prior to expiration. Within thirty i30) calendar days of the approval of CUP 98-022 and DR 98-026, the applicant shall submit to the Community Development Department all necessary plans and information needed to obtain a building permit for the improvement of the parking lot. .. a. Any and all necessary.corrections for'the construction level plans shall be resubmitted to the Community Development Department within fourteen (14) days of being notified by the City that corrections are ready to be picked up. b. All construction permits shall be obtained from the City within seven (7) days of being notified by the City that the plans are ready for permit issuance. -. c. All construction shall be completed within ninety (90) days of permit issuance. Approval of Conditional Use Permit 98-022 and Design Review 98-026 is contingent upon the applicant and property owner signing and returning an "Agreement to Conditions 'Imposed" form as established by .the Director of Community Development. SOURCE CODES (1) STANDARD CONDITION (2) CEQA MITIGATION · - (3)' UNIFORM BUILDING C0DF_JS (4) DESIGN REVIEW (5) RESPONSIBLE AGENCY REQUIREMENT (6) LANDSCAPING GUIDELINES (7) PC/CC POLICY EXCEPTION Exhibit A Resolution No. 3662 Conditions of Approval for CUP 98-022 & DR 98-026 Page 2 (1) 1.6 The applicant shall hold' harmless and defend the City of Tustin from all claims and liabilities arising out of a challenge to the City's approval of this project. SITE IMPROVEMENTS (4) 2.1 In accordance with Tustin City Code Section 9271(i) related to the required separation between commercial and residential uses, the parking lot expansion area shall be screened from surrounding residential properties and the abandoned railroad right-of-way to the north by a 6'- 8" high solid masonry wall measured from the finish grade on the adjacent residential properties. This wall shall be required on, or adjacent to, the north, east and west property lines. If the wall is built directly on the property line, the wdtten approval of the adjacent property owners -will be required at plan check. The. wall is not reqUired to be built along the rear wall of the existing garages. In the event that the garages are removed in the future, the property owner of the shopping center shall be required, within sixty (60) days of removal without further notification from the City of Tustin, to construct a 6'- 8" high solid block wall as a barrier in the exposed areas, subject to review and approval by the Community Development Director. Plans for the 6'- 8" high solid masonry wall shall be submitted to. the Community Development Department at plan check. (4) (5) 2.2 2.3 All of the parking stalls in the parking lot expansion area shall' be a minimum of eight (8) feet in width and 20 feet in length. The drive aisle shali be a minimum of 24 feet in width. The turnaround space shall be a minimum of twelve (12) feet in width and 20 feet in length and shall b& located a minimum of three (3) feet from the north property line. Lighting for the parking io[ expansion area shall comply with the City of Tustin Security Ordinance and shall provide a minimum of one (1) footcandle of 'illumination throughout the site. Ail exterior light fixtures shall be directed 90 degrees down and not produce direct light or glare or have a negative impact on adjacent properties. A photometric stUdy and manufacturer's detail of ali proposed light fixtures shall be submitted at plan check for review by the Community Development Department. (4) 2.4 2.5 A raised concrete walkway of at least six (6) feet in width shall be required along entire length of.the east of the parking lot expansion area. This condition was deleted.' 2.6 The appii~nt shall be responsible for the daily maintenance and up-keep of the parking lot expansion area, including but not limited to trash removal, painting, graffiti removal and maintenance of improvements to ensure that the facilities are maintained in a neat and attractive manner. Property maintenance equipment which is a~ended by loud or unusual noise is prohibited on Sundays and City observed federal holidays, before 7:00 a.m. and after 6:00 p.m. Monday through Friday, and before 9:00 a.m. and after 5:00 p.m. on Saturdays. All graffiti shall be removed within 72 hours of a complaint being transmitted by the City to the property' owner. Failure to' maintain said structures and adjacent facilities will be grounds for City enforcement of its Property Maintenance Ordinance, including nuisance abatement procedures.. Exhibit A Resolution No. 3662 Conditions of Approval for CUP 98-022 & DR 98-026 Page 3 .' The installation and/or operation of outdoor public telephones or public address systems in the parking lot expansion area shall be prohibited. (4) 2.8 All parking areas and waikways for the parking lot expansion area shall be steam cleaned and maintained free of trash and debds on a regular basis as needed. Ail damaged and cracked areas shall be repaired as needed. The 'use and operation of property maintenance equipment is prohibited on ali hours on Sundays and federal holidays, before 7:00 a.m. and after 6:00 p.m. Monday through Friday, and' before 9:00 a.m. and after 5:00 p.m. on Saturdays. 2.9 This condition was deleted. 2.10 This condition was deleted. (4) 2.11 (4) 2.12 If deemed necessary by the Community Development Director and/or Chief of Police, the applicant shall provide security personnel and/or an on-site 'manager to limit access to the parking lot to employees only and to provide on-site security. · if the off-street portion' of the Tustin Branch Trail between Warren Avenue and Newport-Avenue along the abandoned railroad right-of-way .is installed, an amendment to CUP 98-022 and DR 98-026 shall be considered by the Zoning Administrator to accommodate a connection between the off-street trail to the proposed 'parking lot when all issues including, but not limited to, security and liability are resolved between the property owner and the County of Orange. USE RESTRICTIONS (5) 3.2 (5) 3.3 The thidy-seven (37)'parking spa~s located in the parking lot expansion area shall not be used to establish or accommodate more parking intensive uses such as restaurants or medical uses in the shopping center. - The use of the parking lot expansion area may be reviewed by the Community Development Director on a biannual basis. If, in the future, the Community Development Director determines that no!se, securitY, and/or other nuisance problems exist on the site or in the vicinity as a result of the establishment of the parking lot expansion area, the Community Development Director may require the applicant to provide 'additional mitigation including, but are not limited to, the following: a. . Reduce hours of use including, but not limited to, peak hours only. Re.Lain additional security personnel. Failure to satisfy the above condition shall be grounds for revocation of CUP 98- 022. Notwithstanding the provision of additional-parking spaces, all conditions of approval of Planning Commission Resolution Nos. 2502 (Variance No. 88-005) and 3413 (Variance No. 95.-011 and Conditional Use Permit 95-019) shall remain in full force and effect, unless made null and void by future City approvals. Condition 6.18 of Resolution No. 3413 shall not be considered to be satisfied since Exhibit A Resolution No. 3662 Conditions of Approval for CUP 98-022 & DR 98-026 Page 4 (5) 3.4 (1). 3.8 (1) 3.9 (1) 3.10 3.11 3.12 the number of parking spaces provided omsite does not meet the minimum number required by the Tustin City Code for the development.' Within forty-five (45) days from the date of the approval of CUP 98-022 and DR 98- 026, the parcel to be used for the parking lot expansion area shall be held together with the adjacent shopping center parcel (Assessor's Parcel No. 401-281-10) as one parcel. The applicant shall file a lot line adjustment acceptable to the City of Tustin to ensure that joint use of the two lots continues for the duration of the parking lot use with said document being subject to City Attorney approval and recorded on the property prior to issuance of any permits. The use of the parking lot expansion area shall be limited to employee Parking only. Customer parking shall be prohibited. Prior to the final inspection for any building permit, "Employee Parking Only" sigr~s shall be posted at the entrance to the parking lot expansion area, with sign details and locations to be approved by the Community. Development Department. No structures shall be constructed within the parking lot expansion area. Outdoor storage shall be prohibited within the parking lot expansion area. All construction operations, including engine warm up and deliveries of materials and equipment, shall be Subject to the provisions of the City of Tustin Noise Ordinance as amended, and may take place only during the hours of 7:00 ~.m. until 6:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, and 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. on Saturday, unless the Building Official determines that said activity will be in substantial conformance with the Noise Ordinance and the public health and safety will not be impaired, subject to application being made at the time the permit for the work is awarded or during progress of the work. No Sunday or holiday construction shall be permitted. "No Skateboarding" and "No Loitering" signs shall be posted on the site with sign details and locations to be approved by the Community Development Department. Said signs shall include the telephone number of an on-site manager or security personnel to address and/or mitigate any violations. The applicant shall enforce existing lease agreemen~ with each tenant which require employees to park in the proposed parking lot and rear of the center. Within forty-five (45) days of the approval of CUP 98-022 and DR 98-026, the applicant shall provide the folloWing: so b. c. 7'he applicant shall provide a valet service for all patrons of Plaza. Lafavet'te and shall post signs in visible locations stating that the valet servi~e is available to all patrons of Plaza Lafayette. Valet personnel shall park vehicles in a manner that will maximize the number of parked vehicles. The applicant shall provide a valet parking plan for r~view and approval by the Community Development Department to designate' permanently (physically identify) the number and location of valet parking spaces in Exhibit A Resolution No. 3662 Conditions of Approval for CUP 98-022 & DR 98-026 Page 5 d. · . 'accordance with Attachment E of the staff report dated March 22, 1999, or as modified by the Community Development Depar'd'nent. The applicant shall submit an affidavit indicating that all tenants have been notified of the location and number of parking spaces that m.sy be designated and used for valet parking in accordance with the approved valet parking plan. PLAN SUBMITTAL (1) 4.1 All grading, drainage, vegetation and circulation shall comply with {he City of Tustin Grading Manual. Al! street sections, curbs, gutters, sidewalks, street lighting and storm drain shall comply with on-site improvement standards. At plan check, ,_~,..ral indicate on plans the applicable codes, City Qrdinances and the state and laws and regulations to include: (5) - (5) 4.2 4.3 1994 Uniform Building Code with California Amendments 1997 Uniform Mechanical Code with California Amendments 1997 Uniform Plumbing Code with California Amendments 1993 National Electrical Code with California Amendments T-24 California Disabled Access Regulations T-24 California Energy Efficiency Standards City of Tustin Grading Ordinance City of Tustin Landscape and irrigation Guidelines City of Tustin Private Improvement Standards City of Tustin Security Ordinance in compliance with the Uniform Building Code (application for peh-ni.t), the applicant, designer, architect or engineer must submit grading plans to the Building Division for review and approval prior to' the issuance of a grading permit. In compliance with Uniform Building Code (excavation and' grading};, the applicant shall' submit four sets of excavation/grading plans and two preliminary soil reports to the Building Division for review and approval prior to the issuance of a grading permit. (5) (5) (5). 4.4 4.5 4.6 in compliance with the City of Tustin's grading manual, ali grading, drainage, vegetation, circulation, street sections, curbs, gu~ers, sidewalks,, and storm drains shall comply with the on-site improvement standards. In compliance with the California Code of Regulations, Title 24 "'aC, 2, Accessibility Standards, and prior to the 'plan check approval, the designer, architect or engineer must provide designs for accessibility for the physically challenged to the Building Division for their review and approval prior to the issuance of a grading permit. in compliance with the Department of Justice (Office of the Attomey General) the designer, architect or engineers proposed grading plan must comply with the American Disabilities Act (ADA). Exhibit A Resolution No. 3662 Conditions of Approval for CUP 98-022 & DR 98-026 Page 6 (5) 4.7 In compliance with Tustin City Code, the project shall comply with the Security Ordinance. FEES (1) 5.1 Prior to issuance of any building permits, payment shall be made of ali required fees. Payment shall be made based upon the rates in effect at the time of permit issuance and are subject to change. ac Ail applicable building, grading and private improvement plan check and permit fees to the Community Development Department. bo Orange County Fire Authority plan-check and inspection fees to the Community Development Department based upon the most current schedule. Co Within forty-eight (48) hours of approval of the subject project, the applicant shall deliver to the Community Development Department, a cashier's check payable to the COUNTY CLERK in. th~ amount of $38.00 (thirty-eight dollars) to .enable the City to file the appropriate environmental documentation for the project, if within such .forty-eight (48) hour period that applicant has not. delivered to the Community. Development Department the above-noted check, the statute of limitations fc;r any interested party to challenge the environmental determination under the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act could be significantly lengthened. --- COUNCIL EXHIBIT C MATERIALS SUBMITTED AT APRIL 12, 1999 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HOMEOWNERS .. PETITION AGAINST COUNTY BIKE .TRAIL WE ARE HOMEOWNTRS WHO LIVE BETWTEN THE NORTH END OF PLAZA LAFAYETTE'S PA_RKtNG LOT EXPANSION AND WARREN AVENUT. THE REAR OF OUR. PROPERTIES At3UT THE R.~RO,~ PROPERTY ON WHICH TI-IE COL:i-N-fY WANTS TO BUILD A BIKE TRAIL. WE FII:LMLY BELIEVE THAT BUILDING A .TRAIL BEHIND OUR HOMES WILL SUBJECT US At'iT) OUR PROPERTY TO VANDALISM .AND CRIMINLAL ACTIVITY. %35 LIVED WITH IStlS PROBLEM FOR MANW YEARS, ANT) WHEN TI--tE . FENCES WTNT UP AtND STOPPED THE THROUGH TRAFFIC, THE PROBLEM STOPPED! SOME OF US LEASE PART OF THE tLA FI_ROAD PROPERTY FOR USE AS OUR BACKYARDS. WE HAVE BUILT FENCES AND INCUXRED EXPENSES IMPROVING 77-IE PROPERTY. WHEN '~ PURCHASED OCR HOMES, SOME OF US WTRE LED TO BELIE~ THAT ~,T COULD PU-RC~SE THIS PROPERTY. '~¥T HAVE MADE OFFERS TO PUT.CHASE THE PROPERTY FROM TIlE NORTH END OF PLAZA LAFAYETTE'S PROPOSED PAR_K.ING LOT TO WARREN AVENUE, BUT OUR OFFERS HAVE BEEN IGNORED. IF TF'2E OVv%TR'S OF PLAZA L.~AYETTE LET TP~ TRAIL GO T}LROUGH TI-lEER PROPERTY THE COU~-N'i'Y Vv-E_L BUY THE R.~LROAD PROPERTY ANT) EVICT US. UN-DER NO C1RCLm4STANCES DO WE WANT .THIS BIKE 7RAK. 12'4 OUR BACK YARDS! Council Exhibit D PEIITION SIGNITURES NAME ADDRESS " ~ .F d ?'-. ,/?i, & ? PEIITION SIGNITURES NAME ADDRESS. Issues and Concerns Regarding Proposed Expansion of Parking Lot at Plaza Lafayette Introduction '- The following information discusses, as completely yet briefly as possible, the issues regarding the proposed parking lot expansion to the north of Plaza Lafayette in Tustin, as well as the arguments and concerns raised by private residents who would be affected. Direct quotes are attributed and added emphasis is identified. The contents are divided as follows: · Introduction - Current Parking Conditions · Impact of Proposed Parking Lot on Our Homes · Parking Lot Configuration, Infrastructure, and Planned Operation · Plaza Lafayette as a Neighbor · Possible Alternatives · Branch Trail- Life. at Woodcrest · Conclusion Current Parking Conditions Businesses in Plaza Lafayette report many customer complaints about the lack of available parking spaces. The Plaza's own parking Study dated 12/10/98 reported the following. All direct quotes are from the Parking study, and all italics and bracketed material have been added. · "The Cent~ currently expc~riences occasional parking deficiencies.'' -o "Based on the fiudin~ of the existing parking usage, City Code par'king requirements and comparable facility parking demand, adequate parking is provided to accommodate the land uses as currently config'ared within the Plaza Lafayette Center." · Current parking supply is 232 spaces, plus 2 that can be gained by restriping handicapped spots, for a total of 234. [Another 7 spaces are available on Newport Avenue in front of Tustin Brewing Company, for a total of 241, the minimum required number required by City in the two Variances. This street parking has never been mentioned by the City or the Plaza.] · Kequ~ed spaces per Code is 306, which "is not achievable on the project site as currently configured" [even after proposed expansion]. · Turnover survey conducted during higher usage hours determined highest parking occupancy was 205.8 space, leaving 26 spaces available. · Theoretical worm-case conditions still left 8 spaces available. · Many store o~mers [including TBC] currently park directly'in front of their establishments. · Valet par'king bac 'ks incoming cars clear out onto Newport Boulevard and blocks access to both rear parking and the Plaza itself. [How would employes get into and out of mandated par'king lot if valet has in_m-~s/e_m-ess blocked? What about fire and emergency vehicles?] Study suggests tandem valet par'king during peak periods to achieve Code requirements, even wkh expansion. [This higkly theoretical solution would further congest area betw~n building, m 'aking it even more imposs~le for patrons and employees to access rear Parking.] Parking Lot Configuration, Infrastructure and Planned Operation · According to one fire official we spoke with, inadequate turnaround is provided for fire truc 'ks and other large emergency vehicles. · As proposed, car lights will be directly aimed toward complex and would be visible from bedroom windows. The required distance between employee parking and place of work is 500 feet or less. Proposed lot is 314' deep; adding the distance to the archway and further distance to business (especially Pain du Monde and TBC) would undoubtedly exceed the maximum allowed. "Privileged," lazy or late-running employees/owners will not walk this far. Young or female employees would be fearful of the isolation, as would owners/managers carrying the day's receipts. An informal conversation with one oWner and one female TBC employee verified they would not use the lot out of fear. Page 5 of Planning Commission Report states hours to be JO:OOp. m. to 7:00 a.m., as did Ms. Binsack and Mr. Stanaland in meeting of March 29. However, Exhibit A, Condition No. 2.10, states lot will be closed from 12:00 a.m. to 7:00 a.m. Woodcrest Apartments enforces quiet hours from 8:00 p.m. to 8:a.m. Further, Nieuport 17 stays open past 10:00 and Tustin Brewing Company is open Until midnight (employees leave considerably later) Sun-Thur and until 2:00 a.m. Fri-Sat. Where are they to park? Or will the lot actually be open later than stated? If the hours are mutable, what assurance do we have that other "insignificant" changes won't be effected at a later date, without our knowledge or input? And on what basis should we assume our objections would be considered anyway? This long, isolated,, paved strip would be, in effect, the perfect skateboard park for dozens of local Youth. They've akeady been run off from other, more open locations, but since Mr. Stanaland stated ' in the March 29t~ meeting that he has no plans for a full-time security guard, a very noisy nuisance condition could easily develop. .. Plaza Lafayette as a Neighbor Prior to the 1997 parking lot battle, the Plaza habitually violated or ignored many health and codes requirements, including but not limited to the following: · Open barrels of grain by back door of TBC, with resultant insect and rodent problems · Storage shed full of firewood at rear of TBC, presenting fire hazard · Shaggy, untrimmed palm tree adjacent to grain barrels and woodshed, exacerbating the rodent problem and fire hazard · Trash and Iandscape overgrowth by TBC · Ladders stored in alleyway within feet of Woodcrest's perimeter wall · Lamps missing lights burned out in rear lot (lamp is still missing) · Scrap wood piled in contact with main power box · Gang graffiti on door, rear comer adjacent to Woodcrest. Permit requires removal within 72 hours; it was there for months. Same with more innocuous v~u-iting on front wall by TBC. Ongoin~current infractions include: · Blocking Woodcrest's driveway with delivery tracks · Parking in red zones . · BD employees parking in Woodcrest's driveway · Double-par'king of delivery mc'ks on Newport Avenue Several lights not operating or burned out in back parking area Rear area landscaping, building maintenance, and other aesthetics neglected. Many employees and owners, although currently "requked" to park in rear, refuse to do so for previously stated reasons. What assures us the more isolated lot extension would be maintained any better than areas subject to public view? · Since it was built in 1986, Plaza Lafayette has received many special considerations and accommodations from the City of Tustin (e.g., parking variances and curb-side parking). Mr. Stanaland, in private conversations following the March 29~h meeting, expressed an obvious disremrd for the apartment and condo residents. He also misrepresented the facts (see Possible Alter~atives), contradicted the written Report with regard to planned conditions (e.g., security patrol), and otherwise has demonstrated a lack of good faith and concern for the Plaza's neighbors: Therefore, we have ongoing and l~itimate concerns that any agreements or mitigating measures would prove temporary and would be abandoned or ignored after construction starts. Once the parking lot is in, it's permanent.. We must live ~ith it forever. Possible Alternatives A business complex adjacent to the west side of the Plaza could represent an even better alternative to the proposed expansion. This solution provides the following benefits: · The businesses are closed in the evenings. · There are approximately 120 parking spaces. · The lot has its own street access, which would alleviate traffic through Plaza. · Only minor modifications would be required to link the two lots. · Could be arranged to accommodate foot traffic only, automobile traffic only, or a combination ofbotk · Could be used for valet parking, which could make an agreement more desirable for lessor and cut any costs for lessee (Plaza). · Much closer for employees and patrons of south-end businesses. Although Mr. Stanaland claims the owner of the adjacent lot was not inter- ested in a joint-use plan, that owner denies ever being contacted on the subject Because of the severe impact on surrounding residences, all viable alterna-~'es to the proposed parking lot should be thoroughly explored before apprmSng the Conditional Use Permit.. Branch Trail Extension of the Brat~ch Trail south of 17t~ Street is strongly supported by the Foothill Community Association. Although supported by many Woodcrest residents, it is also opposed by many. It is also rather strongly opposed by most owners of adjacent homes for many reasons (see letter). The trail would provide a much shorter, safer route for children attending Guin Foss Elementaxy School. On the oth= hand, it would also subject the apartments and homes to several of the same securi~' concerns as the parking lot While i~ would provide access to Plaza businesses for North Tustin residents, Mr. Stanaland vehemently rejects even gated access to the northern end of. the parking lot from the suggested Branch Trail, allegedly bas~ on liability concerns. In the March 29t~ meeting, he contemptuously suggested the trail be routed through a (currmtly nonexisting) gate through Woodcrest Apartments, directly in front of our apartments and behind carports, to provide access to Ne~]>ort ~,venue. This typifies his attitude toward his neighbors and the entire process. · In the absence of any clear benefit or detriment, Woodcrest's main concern remains expansion of the parking lot. The branch trail is a secondary issue. , Life at Woodcrest .. Woodcrest Apartments are oWned, not by an impersonal corporation, but by private individuals, Dr. and Mrs. Richard Ramage. They've taken Woo&rest from near-slum conditions 25 years ago to a model of comfortable, affordable community living. They've c6ntinuously improved the complex, the lives of tenants, the neighborhood, and their property values. They treat us well, as friends, as family, and we appreciate them immenselY. We also have great management and maintenance persOnnel, who ensure our safety and comfort while accommodating our individual tastes and lifestyles to a remarkable extent. Woo&rest was built in 1965, predating the Plaza by over two decades. Our longest residencies date from 1971. We tenants comprise a family-one that encompasses many races, ethnicities, ages, and occupations-and we love living here. Our community even caught the attention of The Orange County Register, which publish6d a very positive story about us on December 3, 1995. · Woodcrest has never asked for, nor expected, any special considerations fxom our government or our neighbors. Indeed, WoodCrest's steady improvement have helped make this a viable location for the Plaza and provide an atmosphere where its upscale clientele feel safe and comfortable.' IfWoodcrest declines, so does the Plaza. Further, our 100 families, who now patronize the Plaza, will likely take our business elsewhere, hastening'the d~line. Conclusion One look at the proposed par-king lot expansion, which inserts itself like a dagger inio a Residential zone directly between high-density family homes, should make apparent the unsuitability of the project. · . · · ~' Ha~ this situation been encountered elsewhere in the County? If so, Were four restaurants, three of - which sell alcoholic beverages, part of the equation? ".. · - The mitigation meaSur~ eked in the Report to the Planning Commission and its attachments are woefully inadequate and do not even attempt to address our most important concerns. The Plaza's own parking study reports that current'parking provisions ge adequate. A reasonable alternative parking arrangement has not been pursued. . . FinallY, the o~m~s ofWooderest Apartments and the homes along Clarissa and Beeson Lanes are eager and able to purchase the rial-of-way for the increased protection of and enjoyment by our families. Busings that make bad d~isions fail. The Plaza and the City of Tustin 'knowingly made bad business decisions by twice approving new r~taurants for a location with far fewer parking spaces than the City's' own Parking Code p~maits. Now they want the Plaza's neighbors to.pay for these rnigtakes.. · - ._,._ - ...~): ..... .. -. -~:.: . .~ · , "'"' Please help us protect Our h'om~ :.~.~. - - '-~---.:"" '''!.. ~' I I .:~ii}!::::~::~!~!:~:-~::i::::::::i~i!::~~::-!i!:::;!!i~. ..~!::!::!iiii::iiii!!i::!ii::i::!?!:::~i!i!:::: =================================================== ~' :. .:~.'-'-:::iiiiiiiiiili!i::ii!i!::iiii!::i!~!~::~!i:: · ================================== : · =============================== II II I I II -I II I I!¸ II I I ================================== (':: /11 :';';:;::::': :'¢:::::::? :.:';'::::'::.;.::' +....+::.:.:..... ;.:;.:.:.;...;- :o ,.,:... ...... .. ============================== :. .,:-;;-;;: ;:' -., .:.:.::.:.... ,. I ! i ~' Il Il Il ..::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: .;::.:::¢':::.:: :k:: _ .:i!i~!;ii!i!iii;:;!i!i!!!i;::!i;:Y ..:' :i ;:::'!?F,;.:' · :~'. ===================================================================== .... .... =: .:!: :: !? .::::::i~;.::'-.: :"'-; ::: :' ~ ....-:-:-:.:.;.: :;:.:.:.;-:-;.:.;.. ....:o....:...:...........:.,. ?:i' :' '" ..:;.:: :::-:¢:i-:;'; .::: ..~!i~::i:!~i!f.i:-:i~!:ii:i:: :{i': ::! ............ ..;;:;.;:::: ;:::; ;.:;.:.:;. ;-.:;.:; :;; ;:;';;;;:; ;,.: ======================= :.:.. ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: ·: ,/iS-',~.~'~,%'2~.-:~','*,~'~ .:':::: i "i'i:i-: :':': :',~ "."~":~'~ 'K&R~"2~':.:.::': ........ :: '::: ~ ,. Ys~'.-,",*_&.~.~ ........ .... '...,.~ ! m ' m m! m m. m m m m! mm · · -.-.o- -. -'. ;.: '-:::;: :::. ......v.-.-........... ': :-:.:.:-;-;-:.:.;-'-:-;,:,:4-:-;4 . :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: : ~: ::: ::::::::::::::::::::::::::: -: ::: ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: .' ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: :: :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: ::: ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: :: :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: -::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: :: ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: :.:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: :: ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::~:: ~,,' : '-:: :: ::: :::::::::::::::::::::: - . ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: . :-:-: : :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: ::::::::::::::::::::: · '.:.:::::::::::::::::: :::::::::..'~\'~ .- .:E:i3E:i::i:i:: ::::::i:?::::::::: :::::::::::::::::::::: ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: ================================== ====================================='... I ~ I I II ~ I I I II I I I · · I II I I ~ I I I I J I I I PLAZA L4FA YETTE, LLC 13031 NEWPORTA VENUE, SUITE 200 TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA' Telephone: (714) 73'4-8100 Facsimile: (714) 734-8120. April 12, 1999 Planning Commission City of Tustin .300 Centennial Way Tustin, California. COM,'¥1UNiTY DEVELOPr~iENT BY Re.' Conditional Use Permit 98-022 and Design Review 98-026 Plaza Lafayette Parking Expansion (37 spaces for "Employee Only" use) Honorable Commissioners:. Plaza Lafayette,' LLC acqUired the Plaza Lafayette Shopping Center in June 1997. Several months thereaRer it acquired the adjacent parcel (the "Parcel") on which it proposes to construct thirty-seven (37) "employee only" parking spaces fi.om Southern Pacific Railroad. Although the new parking area will be limited to employees only it will benefit Plaza Lafayette and its tenants by freeing existing spaces for use by shop and restaurant customers. -. The parcel, Which lies within the City of Tusti.n, is a 50' by 314' portion of an abandoned railroad right-of-way. Approximately 1,200 feet of the remainder of the right-of-way (to Warren Avenue) is in an unincorporated portion of the County of Orange. Garages, carports and driveways, which serve multiple family residential units, abut the entire 314' east and west sides of the parcel. The property to the west is in the.city and the property, to the east is in an unincorporated area of the coUnty. Potential uses of the parcel are extremely limit'ed due to its dimensions, location and surrounding uses as well being burdened with easements for such uses as jet fuel lines. Approval of the project requested, with or without a gate at its northern bounda~', will not preclude future access to Plaza Lafayette from the proposed County Bike TraiI, if such a trail is built, nor does it effect alternate routes which are available. We have met with county representatives 5fi'. Dic 'kman, Ms. Miller and Mr. Hamilton on several, occasions and expressed our Mllingness to discuss access to Plaza Lafayette. While we remain willing to engage in such discussions we believe 'there are more practical and desirable routes available. Planning Commission .4pril 12, 1999 Page 2 of 4 Pages At the workshop held on March 29th the owners, Dr. /nd Mrs. Ramfige, along with a number of residents of the Wood Crest Apartments expressed their strong support for the County Bike Trail. Included among the reasons given for such support were: 1) the trail wouId provide a recreational facility for children residing at the Wood Crest Apartments; 2) there is a shortage bf recreational facilities for children in the'area; 3) the trail would provide a place for the children residing in the Wood Crest Apartments to ride their bicycles without danger; 4) the trail would provide a safe path for the children residing at the Wood Crest Apartments to reach their schools; and 5) the trail would impart a rural feeling to the area. Dr. Ramage indicated his willingness to install a gate in the block wall s.eparating the Wood Crest Apartments from the proposed trail to provide access to the trail for his tenants and their children. At the Tustin City Council Meeting of February 18, 1997, Dr. Ramage expressed his desire to provide recreational hcilities for his tenants and his willingness to purchase a portion of the abandoned railroad right-of- way to do so. Als0 at the March 29~''' workshop Mr: Dickman set forth the county's position with reference to its' bike trail.. Mr. Dickman stated that rather than using federal funds the county would be using funds from their Landscape and Lighting District to purchase property and construct the trail.' He further stated that the county is unwilling, and, in fact in view of the source of the funds that it would be improper, to expend funds or assume responsibility related to its trail beyond the unincorporated' area of the countY 'or in' another jurisdiction. In view.of the foregoing we believe a bike trail route which connects with the Wood Crest Apartments would be more practical, desirous and safer than a connection to the plaZa Lafayette parking lot. Such a route would, at least partially, solve the ac'knoWledged need for 'recreation for the Wood Crest residents. Providing recreation would enhance the val[~e of the Wood Crest Apartments. Dr. Rama_oe has already indicated his willingness to install a gate. The driveways at the Wood C~est'apartments are twenty-eight (28) feet wide and have a low volume of traffic which would be far safer for the bike riders than attempting to navigate the sometimes congested pa-king Iots at PlaZa Lafayette. This alternative would alleviate the county's jurisdictional concerns and allow it to exercise control over the entire len~h of the County Bike Trail. Exhibits Attached Exhibit 'A' County Trail Map & Proposed Alternate Route Exhibit 'B' Various Views of the Parcel & Surr0~Jnding Properties Exhibit 'C' Sample of Shopping Carts Used to Scale Walls Plannin$ Commission April 12, 1999 Page $ of 4 Pages Adequate Parking · . · A number of people have alleged that Plaza L~.fayette suffers from a parking shortage and have accused the city of approving the shopping center and various uses therein knowing a parking shortage would result. We-strongly dispute those allegations and accusations. The design of Plaza Lafayette utilized the generally accepted concept of shared parking. While parking shortages occasionally occur they are of limited time and duration and similar to those which occur at other successful centers. For example parking at seven o'clock on a Friday evening at the Irvine Spectrum. Although.we believe adequate parking exists the additional employee parking would enhance the convenience of the center's customers during busy times. Resolution No. 3662, Item l-D-3 While we are agreeable to 'the prohibition of the additional parking being used to accommodate additional parking intensive uses, however, we believe the said parking. spaces should be counted as part of the center's required parking spaces. Conditions of Approval' Condition 2.1. 'Condition 2.1. requires solid masonry walls measured from the finish grade of the adjacent properties. This requirement would result in a parts of the wall separating the Wood Crest Apartments from the parking lot being in excess of nine (9) feet high on the parking lot side. While a 6'8" wall will discourage the average person, it will not pre. vent children and'teenagers from using items such as shopping carts to scale the wall. Children and teenagers currently use shopping, carts to scale the existing walls on both the east and west sides of the parcel. We belie~'e the excessive height of nine (9) feet along with the difference in finished grades will present a dangerous condition to the children residing at the Wood Crest Apartments. We submit that the wall height of 6'8" be measured from' the finished grade of the parking lot .. expansion. Condition 2.11 As proposed, we object to this condition as unnecessary. We suggest posting the lot for towing unauthorized vehicles and requiring employees utilizing the lot to provide management with the make, color and license number of their vehicles. The lot, when utilized, should be spot checked for unauthorized vehicles and those vehicles towed. We believe this would be a more economical method of achieving the same objective. Condition 3.12 We are unsure as to how to comply with the conditions set forth and as to whether we have the authority to require the written statements requested.. The valet spaces marked in Attachment E of the staff report are leased to and under the exclusive control of the owner of the Nieuport 17' and not available for use by other patrons of Plaza Lafayette. The spaces are delineated on site by yellow lines. A dispute exists between, the o,amer of the Nieup0rt I7 and management as to the .number and .4pril ! 2. ! 999 Page 4 of 4 ,=ages location of such valet spaces. While we are willing to investigate revising the existing parking plan, including providing valet parking for all'patrons, we object' to these requirements being imposed as conditions of approval. The Gate We strongly objeci to the installation of a gate at the north boundary of the proposed parking Iot at this time. The gate would lead to a blighted area of another jurisdiction and serve no purpose other than to put the employees using the parking lot and their property at risk. Such a gate would also provide an escape route should it be necessary for. t'he Tustin Police to pursue a suspect through the rear Plaza Lafayette parking lot. We are cognizant of the proposed County Bike Trail, however, as of March 29, 1999 there was no written agreement, according to Dave Knowlton who purports to represent the railroad, requiring the railroad to sell the right-of-way to the county. There is no guarantee the trail will be built. There is no established time frame for its completion if it is built. Further, we question the propriety of the county requesting the city impose installation of such a gate as a condition of approval when the county has in essence washed its hands of any responsibility for such a gate and the consequences of such a gate being installed. We respectively submit there is no ne.cas between the projects applied for and the installation of such a gate nor is there any nexus between the projec~ applied for and access to the Plaza Lafayette from the unincorporated area of the county. Benefits of the Project .. The project, will cure a blight in the City of Tustin. Free additional parking for the convenience of patrons of PIaza Lafayette thereby increasing, the center's desirability as a dinning and shopping destination. Provide easy access for law enforcement to an area which now has limited access. Respectively submitted, · Plaza Lafayette, LLC President of the ,, Managing Member JS:drn "i o . stin .Branch Trail COUNCIL EXHIBIT D APPEAL LETTERS FOOTHILL CO~IL~-ITIES .~SSOCLi,TION Serving" ~ne Entire Unincorporated North Tust£n Area Post Office Box 261 · Tustin. California 92781 April 19, 1999 City Council City of Tustin 300 Centennial Drive Tustin, CA 92780 Re: Conditional Use Permit 98-022 and Design Review 98-026 Dear Council Members: This is an appeal of the Planning Commission approval of Conditional Use Permit.98- 022 and Design Review 98-026 for the establishment of a commercial parking lot to the north of 13031 Newport' Avenue..As designed and operated, the parking lot will impose major adverse impacts on the adjoining neighbors and the community as a whole. Relief from those impacts is sought by design and operation changes to the Planning Commission approval of April 12, 1999. When this proposal first came before the City, it was referred back to City staff to find a satisfactory design to which both the property owner and the community could a~ee. The staff report to the Planning Commission makes no mention of that prior referral or the results thereof. In fact, discussions be~wveen the community and previous property owner led to a mutual a~eement that the north end of the proposed parking lot wall would include a gate that would be open during the day so that trail users could access the shopping center and the trail system that ex-tends south along Newport Avenue. The present owner should Know all conditions of the property including the trail access gate commitment. The design approved by the Planning Commission specifically deletes that access gate. The staff report proposes to divert the trail onto Warren Avenue and along Ne.wport Avenue. This proposM trail diversion ','as not analyzed in the staff report nor is it viable. The present parking lot design depends on the trail diversion. If the staff report had maly. zed that trail diversion, it would be evident that Warren Avenue ca~ot provide a safe trail location and ,.hat segment of Nev,-pon Avenue cannot provide an area for trail use. 'Fn~ Warren and Newport Avenue deSciencies are exacerbated by the two real estate offices at the comer of Warren and New-pon which produce ex-tensive on-street parldng. The ae.~roved desio_n thxvarts the trail traffic along the old railroad rioht-of-wav and infringes on the prescriptive easement that the surrounding community enjoys from the man3, years oftraiI use on that right-of-way even before th'e construction of Lafayette Plaza. The staff report to the Planning Commission failed to consider this prior use despite the implied recognition of this condition through discussion of the existence of the trail both to the north and south of the area under consideration. The approved plans fail to adequately address the design of parking lot lighting. The lighting design should prohibit the mounting of lighting any higher than the top of the wall surrounding the parking lot. The Planning Commission approval failed to adequately address the security of the parking lot. The approval did not require the operator to provide constant security while the parking lot is in use. Correction of this oversight is necessary not only for the safety of the lot and the safety of adjoining properties, but also to control noise generation in the lot. The hours during which the parking lot functions need to be clearly limited. As a practical matter, the parking lot cannot be closed while employees are still working shi~s at the va-ious restaurants. -The adverse impacts from the hours of operation must be considered and miti_ated. This appeal incorporates all previous written and verbal comments on tkis project. In sur~_,'nation, the following minimal design modification are needed to partially reduce the impacts of the commercial parking lot: L Installation of a trail gate that is open during the day in the north wall of the parking lot. 2. Limit lighting to no higher than the surrounding wall. 3. Provide specific security personnel who are on duty while the parking lot is open. 4~ Provide limits on the operating hours of the 15arking lot that pragmatically reflect the businesses it serves and considers the adjoining properties. S~nc .... .~, Niii Hm-kleroad, Vice ~ FOO?f..~-L COI~g~'ITIES ASSOCL-~TION [SECTION Tall IIIlIlllll SECTION D Collins Walnul Kaella Orange. Chapman La Veta Garden Gr~e Index of Strip Maps Pr~pos. ed Off-Road Connections .~,ec-tlon -~"ctio n Section Warrm~ Ave. to 17th St. Fa.ri'~,ven Ave. to Prospect, Ave. Handy St. to Gla,$ell ST. Fairhaven 17th Slree! Pr=Dosed On-Road Connections S.e-=..tion A: irvine BIvE. to Warren Ave. S,ec. tion E: Raiirc~d R~jht of Way to Wancm Rd. S~-c:ion C: Kateill Ave. to er~ of Arden ~illl ~tion D: Rmilr~d R~ht of Way to ~n~ Anm R~er Tail Prc:>osed Off-Rc~ad Trail D~vm4ol:~n~nt Railroad Right of Way) E r= .. On-Strt-,.~ Bike.way r' ~4m~ U.'.c~ermined 000000 Ezisting Off-Road Trail S~hoois Fa. ks SECTION Blvd. Villa ' Park SECTION B Orange SECTIGN 2 SECTION I i~ine · ,.310 TO'.', n Tu$:in 'Tustin i2 20 2~ RESOLUTION NO. 99-32 A RESOLUTION OF THE CiTY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN UPHOLDING T. HE PLANNING COMMISSION'S DECISION TO APPROVE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 98-022 AND DESIGN REVIEW 98-026, AUTHORIZING THE ESTABLISHMENT OF A PARKING LOT ON A VACANT 50' BY 314' PORTION OF AN ABANDONED RAILROAD RIGHT-OF-WAY LOCATED TO THE NORTH OF THE PLAZA LA FAYE'Ff'E SHOPPING CENTER AT 13011 NEWPORT AVENUE AND TO THE. WEST OF 12901-. 12943 NEWPORT AVENUE. The City Council of the City of Tustin does hereby resolve as follows: The City Council finds and determines as follows: ' Ao B. Co Do Bo F. That a proper application, Conditional Use Permit 98-022 and Design Review 98-026, was filed by Plaza Lafayette,. LLP. to authorize the establishment of a parking lot on a vacant 50' by 314' portion of an abandoned railroad right-of- way located to the north of the Plaza LaFayette shopping center at 13011 Newport Avenue and to the west of 12901-12943 Newport Avenue. That a public hearing was duly called, noticed and held on said application on March 22, 1999, and continued to April 12, 1999, by the Planning Commission since the property was not posted in accordance with the City's public noticing procedures. At the direction of the Planning Commission, a workshop was held on March 29, 1999, with the property owner, representatives of the County of Orange, and interested members of the public. That on April 19, 1999 the l~oothill Communities Association and George Haitman appealed the Planning Commission's approval of the project. ' That public hearing was duly called, noticed, and held on said appeal on May 3, 1999, by the City Council. That the proposed use is allowed within the Multiple-Family Residential District (R-3), with the approval of a Conditional Use Permit. That establishment, maintenance, and operation of a parking lot in a residential district to serve an adjacent commercial shopping center, as conditioned, will not be detrimental to the health, safety, morals, comfor[, or general welfare of persons residing or working in the neighborhood of such proposed use, nor be injurious or detrimental to the property and improvements in the neighborhood of the subject, property, or to the general welfare of the City of Tustin, as evidenced by the following findings: . The parking lot expansion area will be used for employee parking only, thereby reducing the p~tential for noise and other nuisance impacts on adjacent properties. . Lighting will comply with the City's Security Ordinance, will be directed downward and will not produce glare or have a negative impact on adjacent properties. !6 17 15 20 2~ 2~ Resolution No. 99-32 Page 2 Ho . The proposed parking spaces will not be permitted to count to accommodate additional parking intensive uses, such as restaurants or medical uses, in the shopping center. . The additional parking spaces will indirectly provide more parking for patrons of the shopping center, thereby mitigating parking demand impacts as required by Condition 6.18 of Planning Commission Resolution No. 3413 (Variance No. 95-011). . The adjacent residential uses will be buffered from the proposed parking !ot expansion area by a solid 6'-8" block wall and/or existing garage or carport walls. Pursuant to Section 9272 of the Tustin Municipal Code, the City Council finds that the location, size, architectural features and general appearance of the parking lot expansion area will not impair the ordedy and harmonious development of the area, the present, or future development therein, or the occupancy as a whole. In making such findings, the City Council has considered at least the following items: 1. Height, bulk and area of buildings. o o Setbacks and site planning. Landscaping, parking area design and traffic circulation. 4. Location, height and standards of exterior illumination. 5. Location and method of refuse storage. . Physical relationship of proposed improvements to existing structures in the neighborhood. . Appearance and design relationship of proposed improvements to existing structures and possible future structures in the neighborhood and public thoroughfares. - 8. Development Guidelines and criteria as adopted by the City Council. This project is categorically exempt (Class 11) pursuant to Section 15311 of the California Environmental Quality Act. 'l-nat the project has been reviewed for consistency with the Air Quality Sub- element of the City of Tustin General Plan and has been determined to be consistent with the Air Quality Sub-element. i--ne City Council hereby approves Conditional Use Permit No. 98-022 and Design Review 9~-026 to authorize the establishment of a parking lot on a vacant 50' by 314' portion of an abandoned railroad .fight-of-way located to the north of the PIF_.za La Fayette shopping center at 13011 Newport Avenue and to the west' of the Woodcrest Apartments at 12901-12943 Newport Avenue, subject to the conditions contained in Exhibit A,. attached hereto. Resolution No. 99-32 Page 3 PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Tustin at a regular meeting held on the 3r~ day of May, 1999. TRACY WILLS WORLEY Mayor PAMELA STOKER City Clerk STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF ORANGE ) CITY OF TUSTIN ) CERTIFICATION FOR RESOLUTION NO. 99-32 PAMEA STOKER, City Clerk and ex-off~cio Clerk of the City Council of the City of Tustin, California; does hereby certify that the whole number of the members of the City Council of the City .of Tustin is 5; that the above and foregoing Resolution No. 99-032 was duly and regularly introduced, passed, and adopted at a regular meeting of the Tustin City Council, held on the 3'~ day of May, 1999. .. coUNClLMEMBER AYES: COUNClLMEMBER NOES: COUNClLMEMBER ABSTAINED: COUNClLMEMBER ABSENT: 20 PAMELA STOKER City Clerk EXHIBIT a RESOLUTION NO. 99-32 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 98-022 AND DESIGN REVIEW 98-026 GENERAL (1) 1.1 (1) 1.2 (1) 1.3 1.$ The proposed project shall substantially conform with the submitted plans for the project date stamped April 12, 1999, on file with the Community Development Department, except as herein modified, or as modified by the Director of Community Development in accordance with this Exhibit. The Director of Community Development may also approve minor modifications to plans during plan check if such modifications are to be consistent with the provisions of the Tustin City Code. Unless otherwise specified, the conditions contained in this Exhibit shall be complied with prior to the final inspections for any building permits for the project, subject to review and approval by the Community Development Department. The subject project approval shall, become null and void unless the use is established within six (6) months of the date of this Exhibit and substantial construction is underway in compliance with Condition No. 1.4 of this resolution. Time extensions may be granted if a wdtten request is received by the Community Development Department within thirty (30) days prior to expiration. Within thirty (30) calendar days of the approval of CUP 98-022 and DR 98-026, the applicant shall submit to the Community Development Department all necessary plans and information needed to obtain a building permit for the improvement of the parking lot. ac Any and all' necessary corrections for the construction level plans shall be resubmitted to the Community Development Department within fourteen (14) days of being notified by the City that corrections are ready to be picked up. - b. All construction permits shall be obtained from the City within seven (7) days of being notified by the City that the plans are ready for permit issuance. c. All construction shall be completed within ninety (90) days of permit issuance. 'Approval of Conditional Use Permit 98-022 and Design Review 98-028 is contingent upon the applicant and' property owner signing and returning an "Agreement to Conditions Imposed" form as established by the Director of Community Development. SOURCECODES (I) STANDARD CONDITION (2) CEQA MITIGATION (3) UNIFORM BUILDING CODF_JS (4) DESIGN REVIEVV (5) RESPONSIBLE AGENCY REQUIREMENT (6) LANDSCAPING GUIDELINES (7) PC/CC POLICY *** EXCEPTION Exhibit A Resolution No. 99-32 Conditions of Approval for CUP 98-022 & DR 9~-026 Page 2 (1) 1.6 The applicant shall hold harmless and defend the City of Tustin from all claims and liabilities adsing out of a challenge to the City's approval of this project. SITE IMPROVEMENTS (4) 2.1 In 'accordance with Tustin City Code Section 9271(i) related to the required separation between commercial and residential uses, the parking lot expansion area shall be screened from surrounding residential properties and the abandoned railroad right-of-way to the no,fl.h by a 6'- 8" high solid masonry wall measured from the finish grade on the adjacent residential properties. This wall shall be required on, or adjacent to, the north, east and .west property lines, if the wall is built directly on the property line, the written approval of the adjacent property owners will be required at plan check. The wall is not required to be built along the rear wall of the existing garages, in the event that the garages are removed in the future, the property owner of the shopping center shall be required, within sixty (60) days of removal without further notification from the City of Tustin,. to construct a 6'- 8" high solid block wall as a barrier'in the exposed areas, subject to review and approval by the Community Development Director. Plans for the 6'- 8" high solid masonry wall shall be submitted to the Community Development Department at plan check. ..(4) 212 All of the parking stalls in the parking lot expansion area shall be a minimum of eight (8) feet in width and 20 feet in length. The ddve aisle shall be a minimum of 24 feet in width. The turnaround space shall be a minimum of twelve (12) feet in width and 20 feet in length and shall be located a minimum of three (3) feet from the north property line. (5) (4) 2.3 2.4 Lighting for the parking lot expansion area shall comply with the City of Tustin Security Ordinance and shall provide a minimum of one (1)foot-candle of illumination throughout the site. All exterior light fixtures shall be directed 90 degrees down and not produce direct light or glare .or have a negative impact on adjacent properties.. A photometric study and manufacturer's detail of all proposed .light fixtures shall be submitted at plan check for review'by the Community Development Department. A raised concrete walkway of at least six (6) feet in width shall be required along entire length of the east of the parking lot expansion area. 2.5 This condition was deleted. (1) 2.6 The applicant shall be responsible for the daily, maintenance and up-keep of the parking lot expansion area, including but not limited to trash removal, painting, graffiti removal and maintenance of improvements to ensure that the facilities are maintained in a neat and a~ractive manner. Property maintenance equipment which is attended by laud or unusual noise is prohibited on Sundays and City obse,~,ed federal holidaYs, before 7:00 a.m. and after. 6:00 p.m. Monday through Friday, and before 9:00 a.m. and afl`er 5:00 p.m. on Saturdays. All graffiti shall be removed within 72 hours of a Complaint being transmitted by the City to the property owner. Failure to maintain said structures and adjacent facilities will be grounds for City enforcement of its Property Maintenance Ordinance, including nuisance abatement procedures. Exhibit A Resolution No. 99-32 ' Conditions of Approval for CUP 98-022 & DR 95-026 Page 3 (4) 2.8 2.9 2.10 (4) 2.11 (4). 2.12 The installation and/or operation of outdoor public telephones or public address systems in the parking lot expansion area shall be prohibited. All parking areas and wal.kways for the parking lot expansion area shall be steam cleaned and maintained free of t~-ash and debris on a regular basis as needed. Ali damaged and cracked-areas shall be repaired as needed. The use and.operation of property maintenance equipment is prohibited on all hours on Sundays and federal holidays, before 7:00 a.m. and after 6:00 p.m. Monday through Friday, and before 9:00 a.m. and after 5:00 p.m. on Saturdays. This condition was deleted. This condition was deleted. If deemed necessary by the Community Development Director and/or Chief of Police, the applicant shall provide security personnel and/or an on-site manager to limit access to the parking lot to employees only and to provide on-site' security. If the off-street portion of the Tustin Branch Trail between Warren Avenue and Newport Avenue along the abandoned railroad right-of-way is installed, an amendment to CUP 98-022 and DR 98-026 shall be considered by the Zoning Administrator to accommodate a connection between the off-street trail to the proposed parking lot when all issues including, but not limited to, security and liability are resolved between the property owner and the County of Orange. USE RESTRICTIONS (5) 3.2 (5) 3.3 · The thirty-seven .(37) parking spaces located in the parking lot expansion area shall not be used to establish or accommodate more parking intensive uses such. as restaurants or medical uses in the shopping center.. -- The use of the parking lot expansion area may be reviewed by the Community Development Director on a biannual basis. If, in the future, the Community Development Director determines that noise, security, and/or other nuisance problems exist on the site or in the vicinity as a result of the establishment of the parking lot expansion area, the Community Development Director may require the applicant to 'provide additional mitigation including, but are not limited to, the following: ao Reduce hours of use including, but not limited to, peak hours only. Retain additional security personnel. Failure to satisfy the above condition shall be grounds for revocation of CUP 022. Notwithstanding the provision of additional parking spaces, all conditions of approval of Planning Commission Resolution Nos. 2502 (Variance No. 88-005) and 3413 (Variance No. 95-011 and Conditional Use Permit 95-019) shall remain in full force and effect, unless made null and void by future City approvais. Condition 6.18 of Resolution No. 3413 shall not be considered to be satisfied since Exhibit A Resolution No. 99-32 .Conditions of Approval for CUP 98-022 & DR 98-026 Page 4 (5) 3.4 (1) 3.8 (1) 3.9 (1) 3.10 *** 3.1.1 *** 3.12 the number of parking spaces provided on:site does not meet the minimum number required by the Tustin City Code for the development. VVithin forty-five (45) days .from the date of the approval of CUP 98-022 and DR 98- 026, the parcel to be used for the parking lot expansion area shall be held together with the adjacent shopping center parcel (Assessor's Parcel No. 401-281-10) as one parcel. The applicant shall file a lot line adjustment acceptable to the City of Tustin to ensure that joint use of the two lots continues for the duration of the parking lot use' with said document being subject to City Attorney approval and recorded on the property prior to issuance of any permits. The use of the parking lot expansion area shall be limited to employee parking only. Customer parking shall be prohibited. Prior to the final inspection for any building permit, "Employee Parking Only" signs shall be posted at the entrance to the parking lot expansion area, with sign details and locations to be approved by the Community Development Department. o No structures shall be constructed within the parking lot expansion area. Outdoor storage shall be prohibited within the parking 10t expansion area. Ail construction operations, including engine warm up and deliveries of materials and equipment, shall be subject to the provisions of the City of Tustin Noise Ordinance as amended, and may take place only during the hours of 7:00 a.m. until 6:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, and 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. on Saturday, unless the Building Official determines that said activity will be in substantial conformance with the Noise Ordinance and the public health and safety will not be impaired, subject t° application being made at the time the permit for the work is awarded or during progress of the work. No Sunday or holiday construction shall be permitted. "No Skateboarding" and "No Loitering" signs shall be posted on the site with sign details and locations to be approved by the Community Development Department. Said signs shall include the telephone number of an on-site manager or security personnel to address and/or mitigate any violations. The applicant shall enforce existing lease agreements with each tenant which require employees to park in the proposed parking lot and rear of the center. VVithin fo~,-five (45) days of the approval of CUP 98-022 and DR 98-026, the applicant shall provide the following: ao c. The applicant shall provide a valet service for ali patrons of PlaZa 'Lafayette and shall post signs in visible locations stating that the valet se~ice is available to all patrons of Ptsz. a Lafayette. Valet personnel shall park vehicles in a manner that will maximize the number of parked vehicles. The applicant shall provide a valet parking plan for review and approval by the Community Development Department to. designate permanently (physically identify) the number and location of valet parking spaces in Exhibit A Resolution No. 99-32 Conditions of Approval for CUP 98-022 & DR 98-026 Page 5 do accordance with Attachment E of the staff report dated March 22, 1999, or as modified by the Community Development Department. The applicant shall submit an affidavit indicating that all tenants have been notified of the location and number.of parking spaces that may be designated and used for valet parking in accordance with the approved valet parking plan. PLAN SUBMITTAL (1) 4.1 All grading, drainage, vegetation and circulation shall comply with the City of Tustin Grading Manual. All street sections, curbs, gutters, sidewalks, street lighting and storm, drain shall comply with. on-site improvement standards. At plan check, indicate on plans the applicable codes, City Ordinances and the state and federal laws and regulations to include: 1994 Uniform Building Code with Califomia Amendments 1997 Uniform Mechanical Code with California Amendments 1997 Uniform Plumbing Code with California Amendments 1993 National Electrical Code with California Amendments T-24 California Disabled Access Regulations T-24 California Energy Efficiency Standards City of Tustin Grading Ordinance City of Tustin Landscape and' Irrigation Guidelines City of Tustin Private Improvement Standards City of Tustin Secudty Ordinance (5) 4.2 In compliance 'with the Uniform Building Code (application for permit), the applicant, designer, architect or engineer must submit grading plans to the Building Division for' review and approval prior to the issuance of a grading permit. (5) (5) 4.3 4.4 in compliance with Uniform Building .Code (excavation and grading),, the applicant shall submit four sets of excavation/grading plans and two preliminary soil reports to the Building Division for review and approval prior to the issuance of a grading permit. : In compliance with the City of Tustin's grading manual, all grading, drainage, vegetation, circulation, street sections, curbs, gutters, sidewalks, and storm drains shall comply with the on-site improvement standards. (5) 4.5 in compliance with the California Code of Regulations, Title 24 Part 2, Accessibili~ Standards, and prior to the plan check approval, the designer, architect or engineer must provide designs for accessibility for the physically challenged to the Building Division for their review and approval prior to the issuance of a grading permit. (5) 4.6 In compliance with the Department of Justice (Office of the Attorney General) the designer, architect or engineers proposed grading plan must comply with the American Disabilities Act (ADA). Exhibit A Resolution No. 99-32 Conditions of Approval far CUP 98-022 & DR 98-026 Page 6 (5} 4.7' In compliance with Tustin City Code, the project shall comply with the Security Ordinance. FEES (1) 5.1 Prior to issuance of any building permits, payment shall be made of all required fees. Payment shall be made based upon the rates in effect at the time of permit issuance and are subject to change. ac be Ali applicable building, gr&ding and private improvement plan check and permit fees to the Community Development Department. Orange County' Fire Authority plan-check and inspection fees to the Community Development Department .based upon the most current schedule. Co \Mthin forty-eight (48) hours of approval of the subject project, the applicant shall deliver to the Community Development Department, a cashier's check payable to the COUNTY CLERK in the amount of $38.00 (thirty-eight dollars) to enable the City to file the appropriate environmental documentation for the project. If within such forty-eight (48) hour pedod that applicant has not delivered to the Community Development Department the above-noted check, the statute of limitations for any interested party to challenge the environmental determination under the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act could be significantly lengthened. EXHIBIT B MAY 24, 1999 LETTER FROM JACK STANALAND PLAZA LAFA }'ETTE, LLC. 30872 South Coast Highway; Suite 160 Laguna Beach, California 92651 Tel: (714) 734-8.100 Fax: (714) 734.-8120 May 24, 1999 Elizabeth l~insack Dirt, trot of Commtmity Development City. of Tustin 300 Centennial W'a.v Tustin, California 92780 Dear Elizabeth: This letter shall sen,e to confirm our proposal to reduce the number ofemployee parking spaces requested from thirly-seven to twenty.. Parking space dimensions would remain the same. With twenty parking spaces taking one hundred sixty feet plus a twelve to fifteen lbot turnaround thc proposed lot would ex-tent approximately one hundred sevm~W-five feet into the railroad right-o£-,,x-ay. We would scrape the remainder of the property and cover it Mth rock or gravel to keep dust down. I spoke, by telephone, with Nancy. Ramage last week and communicated our willingness to scale back the proposed parkL-~g let and discuss other issues. Ms. Ramaue stat~ that . she was on another linc and would call me back. She. has not I also lel~ several messages, including my lelephone number, on the Ramage's answering machine requesting one of them to contact mc. To date neither.has done so. If you have any questions, please conlaet me a the above number. Very ~ruly your_s, Jg:drn EXHIBIT C REVISED PARKING 'LOT BOUNDARIES STAT£ OF CAL$?ORN!~ · , .......... .T-'l:'-- .;.~.--- S'-'-~ U R C ES AGENCY MEMORANDUM TO: Karen Pel. erson City of Tusin Planning Depart .m. ent 6/1/1999 8:38 AM FROM: Eminent Cooper CDF/State Fire Marshal Pipeline safety Program 39.50 Paramount Blvd. Suite 210 Lakewood, CA 90712 Phone; Phone: FAX: (562) 497-9100 Private (562) 497-9103 (562) 497-9104 SUBJECT: Calif._____o. rnia Government Code Per our convemation, attached is a copy of C~lifomia Government Code 51014.6 Pipeline e.asements; building, vegetation, and Shielding r.=stricticns. A fence or wall does not ,=~iow unlmpa,red surface access" to a pipeline. 51014.6 Pipeline easements: bu!lding: vegetation and shielding restrictions. ~i~ res~'~ to ~y pipclin~ c:~cm~nt: (l) ~uild, ~rc~ or create ~ stmcu~ or improvement wlth[n ~c pi~inc' c~cmcnt o~ pc~it building, c~ction or cr~ion ~crcof. (2) Build, creek or c~c a stmc~m, fe~, w~'l o: .~stmczi ~n adjacent to ~ay pi~line ~emcnt w~ch wouJd prevent compictc ~d u~mp~d suff~c m:ccss to thc c~men~ or bui]~ng, erection or c~e~ion ~ereof. (b) No shrubbe~' or shielding sh~Jl be ~st~led on ~e F~pclinc c..~cmcnt wh{ch would ~p~r obsc~'~on of ~e pi~Iine e~ment. ~is ~ivisi~n d~s not prevent ~c mvcgc~ion l~ds~ dished by ~e pipeline c~em~t ~ a result of cc~~g ~e pipe~e ~d d~s not prevent ~e ho]der of ~e ~derlying fe~ in~ere~ or'tim holder s tenet ~om pi~ting and ha~csfing sc;aonal ~ficultu~ crops on a pipeline ca,merit. (:) ~is s~cfion d~ not prohibit ~ pi~line o~r~or ~om peffom~g ~}'. n~ss~ a~tics wi~ pi~Iin~ ~en~ includi~, but not limi~i w, ~e cor~action, repl~mcnt, ml~on, ~p~r, or op~fion of ~e pipeline. TOTAL P. ~ EXHIBIT E RESOLUTION NO. 99-32 ]0 ]4 2O 2! 24 26 25 RESOLUTION NO. 99-32 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN UPHOLDING THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S DECISION TO APPROVE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 98-022 AND DESIGN REVIEW 98-026, AUTHORIZING THE ESTABLISHMENT OF A PARKING LOT ON A VACANT 50' BY 314' PORTION OF AN ABANDONED RAILROAD. RIGHT-OF-WAY LOCATED TO THE NORTH OF THE PLAZA LA FAYETTE SHOPPING CENTER AT 13011 NEWPORT AVENUE AND .TO THE WEST OF 12901-12943 NEWPORT AVENUE. The City Council of the City of Tustin does hereby resolve as follows: The City Council finds and determines as follows: A, That a proper application, Conditional Use Permit 98-022 and Design Review 98-026, was filed by Plaza Lafayette, LLP. to authorize the establishment of a parking lot on a vacant 50' by 314' portion of an abandoned railroad right-of-way located to the north of the Plaza LaFayette shopping center at 13011 Newport Avenue and to the west of 12901-12943 Newport Avenue. Bo That a public hearing was duly called, noticed and held on said application On March 22, 1999, and continued to April 12,-1999, by the Planning Commission since the property was not posted in accordance with the City's' public noticing procedures. At the direction of the Planning Commission, a workshop was held on March 29, 1999, with the property owner, representatives of the County of .Orange, and interested members of the public. Ce That on April 19, 1999 the Foothill Communities Association and George Haitman appealed the Planning Commission's approval of the project. De That public hearing was duly called, noticed, and held on said appb-ai on May 3, 1999, and June 7, 1999, by the City Council. That the proposed use is allowed within the Multiple-Family Residential District (R-3), with the approval of a Conditional Use Permit. F. That establishment, maintenance, and operation of a parking lot in a residential district to serve an adjacent commercial shopping center, as conditioned, will not be detrimental to the health, safety, morals, comfort, or general welfare of persons residing or working in the neighborhood of such proposed use, nor be injurious or detrimental to the property and improvements in the neighborhood of the subject property, or to the general welfare of the City of Tustin, as evidenced by the following findings: , The parking lot expansion area will be used for employee parking only, thereby reducing the potential for noise and other nuisance impacts on adjacent properties. l0 14 20 2! 24 25 26 Resolution No. 99-32 Page 2 O. . Lighting will comply with the City's Security Ordinance, will be directed downward, and will not produce glare or have a negative impact on adjacent properties. . The proposed parking spaces will not be permitted to count to accommodate-additional parking intensive uses, such as restaurants or medical uses, in the shopping center. . That the Parking Demand Study dated December 1998 has been reviewed and approved by the City's Traffic Engineer and the additional parking spaces will mitigate identified parking demand impacts as required by Condition 6.18 of Planning Commission Resolution No. 3413 (Variance No. 95-011). . The adjacent residential uses will be partially buffered from the proposed parking lot expansion area by a solid 6'-8" block wall and/or existing garage or carport walls. The provision of future pedestrian ingress/egress from a regional trail or public park to Plaza Lafayette would provide an alternative means of transportation which would minimize the need for 'vehicular parking Ho within Plaza Lafayette. Pursuant to Section 9272 of the Tustin Municipal Code, the City Council finds that the location, size, architectural, features and general appearance of the parking lot expansion area will not impair the orderly and harmonious development of the area, the present or future development therein, or the occupancy as a whole. In making such findings, the. City Council has considered at least the following items: 1. Height, bulk and area of buildings. 2. Setbacks and site planning. . Landscaping, parking area design, and traffic circulation. 4. Location, height and standards of exterior illumination. , Physical relationship of proposed improvements to existing structures in the neighborhood. o Appearance and design relationship of proposed improvements to existing structures and possible future structures in the neighborhood and public thoroughfares. 1 Development Guidelines and criteria as adopted by the City Council. This project is categorically exempt (Class 11) pursuant to Section 15311 of the California Environmental Quality Act. 20 2! 24 2~ Resolution No. 99-3~2 Page 3 II. Jo That the project has been reviewed for consistency with the Air Quality Sub-element of the City of Tustin. General Plan and has been determined to be consistent with the Air Quality Sub-element. 'f:he City Council hereby approves Conditional Use Permit No. 98-022 and Design Review 98-026 to-authorize the establishment of a parking lot on a vacant 50' by 314' portion of an abandoned railroad right-of-way located to the north of the Plaza La Fayette shopping center at 13011 Newport Avenue and to the west of the Woodcrest Apartments.at 12901-12943 Newport Avenue, subject to the conditions contained in Exhibit A, attached hereto. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City council of the City of Tustin at a regular meeting held on the 7th day of June, 1999. TRACY WILLS WORLEY Mayor PAMELA STOKER City Clerk 'STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF ORANGE ) CITY OF TUSTIN ) CERTIFICATION FOR RESOLUTION NO. 99-32 PAMEA STOKER' City Clerk and ex-officio Clerk of the City Council of the Ci_ty of Tustin, California, does hereby certify that the whole number of the members ~)f the City Council of the City of Tustin is 5; that the above and foregoing Resolution No. 99- 032 was duly and regularly introduced, passed, and adopted at a regular meeting of the Tustin City Council, held on the 7th day of June, 1999. COUNCILMEMBER AYES: COUNCILMEMBER NOES: COUNCILMEMBER ABSTAINED: COUNCILMEMBER ABSENT: PAMELA STOKER City Clerk EXHIBIT A RESOLUTION NO. 99-32 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 98-022 AND DESIGN REVIEW 98-026 GENERAL (1) 1.1 (1) 1.2 (1) 1.3 (1) 1.5 . The proposed project shall substantially cOnform with the submitted plans for the project date stamped April 12, 1999, on file with the Community Development Department, except as herein modified, or as modified by the Director of Community Development in accordance'with this Exhibit. The Director of Community Development may also approve minor modifications to plans during plan check if such modifications are to be consistent with the provisions of the Tustin City Code. Unless otherwise specified, the conditions contained in this Exhibit shall be complied with prior to the final inspections for any building permits for the project, subject to review and approval by the Community Development Department. The subject project approval shall become null and void unless the use is established within six (6) months of the date of this Exhibit and substantial construction is underway in compliance with Condition No. 1.4 of this resolution. Time extensions may be granted if a written request is received by the Community Development Department within thirty (30) days prior to expiration. Within thirty (30) calendar days of the approval of CUP 98-022 and DR 98- 026, the applicant shall submit to the Community Development Department all necessary plans and information needed to obtain a building permit for the improvement of the parking lot. ao Any and all necessary corrections for the construction level plans shall be resubmitted to the Community Development Department within fourteen (14) days of being notified by the City that corrections are ready to be picked up. _- bo All construction permits shall be obtained from the City within seven (7) days of being notified by the City that the plans are ready for permit issuance. c. All construction shall be completed within ninety (90) days of permit issuance. Approval of Conditional Use Permit 98-022 and Design Review 98-026 is contingent upon the applicant and property owner signing and returning an "Agreement to Conditions Imposed" form as established by the Director of Community Development. SOURCE CODES (1) STANDARD CONDITION (5) RESPONSIBLE AGENCY REQUIREMENT (2) CEQA MITIGATION (6) LANDSCAPING GUIDELINES (3) UNIFORM BUILDING CODE/S (7) PC/CC POLICY (4) DESIGN REVIEW *** EXCEPTION Exhibit A Resolution No. 99-32 Conditions of Approval for CUP 98-022 & DR 98-026 Page 2 (1) 1.6 (1) 1.7 The applicant shall hold harmless and defend the City of Tustin from all claims and liabilities arising out of a challenge to 'the City's approval of this project. -. As determined by a City code enforcement officer, any violation of any of the conditions imposed by this Resolution is subject to the imposition of a civil penalty of $100.00 on the property owner and/or operator for each violation and eaCh day the violation exists. The applicant shall be responsible for costs associated with any necessary code enforcement action. SiTE IMPROVEMENTS (4) In accordance with Tustin City Code Section 9271(i) related to the required separation between commercial and residential uses, the parking lot expansion area shall be screened from surrounding residential properties and the abandoned railroad right-of-way to the north by a 6'- 8" high solid masonry wall measured from the finish grade on the adjacent.residential properties. Other types of fencin9 may' used over the petroleum pipeline easement in accordance with California Government Code Sectiod 51014.6. This wall shall be required on, or adjacent to, the north, east and west property lines. If the wall is built directly on the property line, the written approval of the adjacent property owners will be required at plan check. The wall is not required to be built along the rear wall of the existing garages. In the event that the garages are removed in the future, the property owner of the shopping center shall be required, within sixty (60) days of removal without further notification from the City of Tustin, to construct a 6'-8" high solid block wall as a barrier' in the exposed areas, subject to review and approval by the Community Development Director. Prior to issuance of building permits, plans shall be submitted to the Community Development Department and the applicant shall provide evidence of authorization from all easement holders. (4) 2.2 All of the parking stalls in the parking lot expansion area shall be a minimum of eight (8) feet in width and 20 feet in length. The drive aisle shall be a minimum of 24 feet in width. The turnaround space shall be a minimum of twelve (12) feet in width and 20 feet in length and shall be located a minimum of three (3) feet from the north property line.. (5) 2.3 Lighting for the parking lot expansion area shall comply with the City of Tustin Security Ordinance and shall-provide a minimum of one (1) foot- candle of illumination throughout the site. All exterior light fixtures shall be directed 90 degrees down and not produce direct light or glare or have a negative impact on adjacent properties. A photometric study and manufacturer's detail of all proposed light fixtures shall be submitted at plan check for review by the Community Development Department. (4) 2.4 A raised concrete walkway of at least six (6) feet in width shall be required along entire length of the east of the parking lot expansion area. (1) 2.5 The Planning Commission deleted this condition. Exhibit A Resolution No. 99-32 Conditions of Approval for CUP 98-022 & DR 98-026 Page 3 (1) 2.6 (4) 2.8 2.9 2.10 (4) 2.11 (4) 2.12 USE RESTR! The applicant shall be responsible for the daily maintenance and up-keep of the parking lot expansion area, including but not limited to trash removal, painting, graffiti removal-and maintenance of improvements to ensure that the facilities are maintained in a neat and attraCtive manner. Property maintenance equipment which is attended by loud or unusual noise is prohibited on Sundays and City observed federal holidays, before 7:00 a.m. and after 6:00 p.m. Monday through Friday, and before 9:00 a.m. and after 5:00 p.m. on Saturdays. All graffiti shall be removed within 72 hours of a complaint being transmitted by the City to the property owner. Failure to maintain said structures and adjacent facilities will be grounds for City enforcement of its Property Maintenance Ordinance, including nuisance abatement procedures. The installation and/or operation of outdoor public telephones or public address systems in the parking lot expansion area shall be prohibited. Ali parking areas and walkways for the parking lot expansion area shall be steam cleaned and maintained free of trash and debris on a regular basis as needed. All damaged and cracked areas shall be repaired as needed.. The use and operation of property maintenance equipment is prohibited on all hours on Sundays and federal holidays, before 7:00 a.m. and after 6:00 p.m. Monday through' Friday, and before 9:00 a.m. and after 5:00 p.m. on Saturdays. The Planning Commission deleted this condition. The Planning Commission deleted this condition. If deemed necessary by the Community Development Director and/or Chief of Police, the applicant shall provide security personnel and/or an on-site manager to limit access to the parking lot to employees only and to provide on-site security. _- if the off-street portion of the Tustin Branch Trail or a public linear park adjacent to the site is established, the property owner, where feasible, snail work with the County of Orange to provide public ingress/egress to Plaza Lafayette. CTIONS (5) 3.2 The thirb,-seven (37) parking spaces located in the parking lot expansion area shall not be used to establish or accommodate more parking intensive uses such as restaurants or medical uses in the shopping center. The use of the parking lot expansion area may be reviewed by the Community Development Director on a biannual basis. If, in the future, the Community Development Director determines that noise, security, and/or other nuisance problems exist on the site or in the vicinity as a result of the ~stablishment of the parking lot expansion area, the Community Development Director may require the applicant to provide additional mitigation including, but are not limited to, the following: Exhibit A Resolution No. 99-32 Conditions of Approval for CUP 98-022 & DR 98-026 Page 4 (5) 3.3 (5) 3.4 3.5 (1) 3.8 (1) 3.9 3.10 a. Reduce hours of use including, but not limited to, peak hours only. b. Retain additional security personnel. -. Failure to satisfy the above condition shall be grounds for revocation of CUP 98-022. Notwithstanding the provision of additional parking spaces; all conditions of approval of Planning Commission Resolution Nos. 2502 (Variance No. 88- 005) and 3413 (Variance No. 95-011 and Conditional Use Permit 95-019) shall remain in full force and effect, unless made null and void by future City approvals. Condition 6.18 of Resolution No. 3413 shall not be considered to be satisfied since the' number of parking spaces provided on-site does not meet the minimum number required by the Tustin City Code for the development. Within forty-five (45) days from the date of the approval of CUP 98-022 and DR 98--026, the parcel to be used for the parking lot expansion area shall be held together with the adjacent shopping center parcel (Assessor's Parcel No. 401-281-10) as one parcel. The applicant shall file a lot line adjustment acceptable to the City of Tustin to ensure that joint use of the two lots continues for the duration of the parking lot use with said document being subject to City Attorney approval and recorded on the property prior to issuance of any permits. The use of the parking lot expansion area shall be limited to .employee parking only. Customer parking shall be prohibited. Prior to the final inspection for any building permit, "Employee Parking Only" signs shall be posted at the entrance to the parking lot expansion area, with sign details and locations to be approved by the Community Development Department. __ No structures shall be constructed within the parking lot expansion area. Outdoor storage shall be prohibited within the parking lot expansion area. All construction operations, inclUding engine warm up and deliveries of materials and equipment, shall be subject to the provisions of the Ci~ of Tustin Noise Ordinance as amended, and may take place only during the hours of 7:00 a.m. until 6:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, and 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. on Saturday, unless the Building Official determines that said activity will be in substantial conformance with the Noise Ordinance and the public health and safety will not be impaired, subject to application being made at the time the permit for the work is awarded or during progress of the work. Ne Sunday or holiday construction shall be permitted. "No Skateboarding" and "No Loitering" signs Shall be posted on the site with .sign details and locations to be approved by the Community Development Department. Said signs shall include the telephone number of an on-site manager or secudty personnel to address and/or mitigate any violations. Exhibit A Resolution No. 99-32 Conditions of Approval for CUP 98-022 & DR 98-026 Page 5 *** 3.11 *** 3.12 The applicant shall enforce existing lease agreements with each tenant which require employee, s to park in the proPosed parking lot and rear of the center. Within forty-five (45) days of the approval of CUP 98-022 and DR 98-026, the applicant shall provide the following: ao be c. do PLAN SUBMITTAL (1) 4.1 The applicant shall provide a valet service for all patrons of Plaza Lafayette and shall post signs in visible locations stating that the valet service is available to all patrons of Plaza Lafayette. Valet personnel shall-park vehicles in'a manner that will maximize the number of parked vehicles. The applicant shall provide a valet parking plan for review and approval by the Community Development Department to designate permanently (physically identify) the number and location of valet parking spaces in accordance with Attachment E of the staff report dated March 22, 1999, or as modified by the Community Development Department. The applicant shall submit an affidavit indicating that all tenants have been notified of the location and number of parking spaces that may be designated and used for valet parking in accordance with the approved valet parking plan. (5) 4.2 All grading, drainage, vegetation and circulation shall comply with the City of Tustin Grading Manual. All street sections, curbs, gutters, sidewalks, street lighting and storm drain' shall comply with on-site improvement standards. At plan check, indicate on plans the applicable codes; City Ordinances and the state and federal laws and regulations to include: 1997 Uniform Building Code with California Amendments 1997 Uniform Mechanical Code with California Amendments 1997 Uniform Plumbing Code with California Amendments 1996 National Electrical Code with California Amendments T-24 California Disabled Access Regulations T-24 California Energy Efficiency Standards City of Tustin Grading Ordinance · City of Tustin Landscape and Irrigation Guidelines City of Tustin Private Improvement Standards City of Tustin Security Ordinance in compliance with the Uniform Building Code (application for permit), the applicant, designer, architect or engineer must submit grading plans to the Building Division for review and approval prior to the issuance of a grading permit. Exhibit A Resolution No. 99-32 Conditions of Approval for CUP 98-022 & DR 98-026 Page 6 (5) 4.3 (5) 4.4 (5) 4.5 (5) 4.6 (5) 4.7 In compliance with Uniform Building Code (excavation and grading), the applicant shall submit four sets of excavation/grading plans and two preliminary soil reports., to the Building Division for review and approval prior to the issuance of a grading permit. in compliance with the City of Tustin's grading manual, all grading, drainage, vegetation, circulation, street sections, curbs, gutters, sidewalks, and storm drains shall comply with the on-site improvement standards. In compliance with the California Code of Regulations, Title 24 Part 2, Accessibility Standards, and prior to the plan check approval, the designer, architect or engineer must provide designs for accessibility for the physically challenged to the Building Division for their review and approval prior to the issuance of a grading permit. in compliance with the Department of Justice (Office of the Attorney General) the designer, architect or engineers proposed grading plan must comply with the American Disabilities Act (ADA). in compliance with Tustin City Code, the project shall comply with the Security Ordinance. FEES (1) 5.1 Prior to issuance of any building permits, payment shall be made of all required fees. Payment shall be made based upon the rates in effect at the time of permit issuance and are subject to change. - a. Ali applicable building, grading and private improvement plan check and permit fees to the Community Development Department. bo Orange County Fire Authority plan-check and inspection fees to the Community Development Department based upon the most current schedule. Co Within forty-eight (48) hours of approval of the subject project, the applicant shall deliver to the Community Development Department, a cashier's check payable to the COUNTY CLERK in the amount of S38.00 (thirty-eight dollars) to enable the City to file the appropriate environmental documentation for the project, if within such forb,- eight (48) hour period that applicant has not delivered to the Community Development Department the above-noted check, the statute of limitations for any interested party to challenge the environmental determination under the provisions of the California Environmental Quaiity Act could be significantly lengthened. EXHIBIT B PLAZ. d LAFA YE TIRE, LLC. 30872 South Coast Highwa); Suite 160 £aguna Beach, California 92651 Tel.. (714} 734-81t~0 Far.' (714)734-'8120 . . Jmae 23, 1999 Elizabeth Bin.sack (714) 573-3113 Re: Findings & Conditions Conditions 1.7 & 1.8: It was my understanding these conditions would be deleted. Condition 2.1: is acceptable as rev. Tinen. Condition 2.12: is not acceptable Ibr all of the rea.sons prcviously discussed. Condition 3.12: Does not mitigate any impact of the project requested and therefore inappropriate as a condition of this project. Additionally the cost of providing valet services tbr all patrons of Plaza Lafayette would be extremely burdensome i f not prohibitive. Condition 3.11: Does not ad&ess hnpacts ofthe project. Finding G: There is no basis for such a finding and is mere speculation. Further such finding is unrelated to the project. Jack Stanaland PL~4Z~4 LAFAYETTE, L£C. 30872 South Coa~'t Highwa); Suite 160 Laguna Beach, California 92651 ret". (714)734-SLOO Far: (714)' 734-1~120 ... REVISED PROPOSAL 6/23/99 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 98-022 DESIGN REVIEW 98-026 NUM. BER OF PROPOSED SPACES REDUCED FROM TIIIRTY SEVEN (37) TO TWENTY-TWO (22). PROPOSED PARKING LOT WOI. JLD EXTEND 188 FF_.ET INTO RAILROAD RIGHT-OF-~:4.Y FROM EXISTING PARKING. 22 SPACES X 8t:'1.= 176PT PLUS 12PT TURN AROUND -~ 188!,'7. Ti-IF. BALANCE OF THE RIGHT-OF-WAY (APPROXIMATELY 126.9FT) OWNED BY PLAZ.^ LAFAY'ETIE WILL BE SCRAPED AND FENCED AI,ONG -rile NORTHERN AND SOUTHERN BOUNDARIES. I:ENCES WILL BE CHAIN LLNK WITH THE NORTHERN FENCE ItAVING SLAT LNSERIS IO OBSTRUCT VISIBILITY. BOTH FENCES WII.I, HAVE FIRE GATES OR SIMILAR OATES ACCEPTABLE TO HOLDERS OF IHE UNDERLYING . EASEMENTS. NO I,ANDSC. APiNO IS PROPOSED SINCE IT WOIiTLD NOT BE VISIBLE FROM THE WOODCREST APARTMENTS. AS AN ALTERNATIVE THE NUMBER OF PARKING' SPACES COUI.D BE REDUCED BY AN ADDITIONAL TWO (2) SPACES WI'IICH WOULD REDUCE TIIE LENGTH OF THE PARKING LOT TO 172FT. EXHIBIT C County'of Oran.of DATE: May 18, 1999 TO' John W. Sibley, Director, Public Facilities & Resources Department FROM: Manager, PFRD/Harbors, Beaches and Parks SUBJECT: Tustin Branch Trail- Vanderlip to Plaza Lafayette Per your request, following is a summary of the issues surrounding the Tustin Branch Trail project between Vanderlip Avenue in unincorporated North Tustin and Plaza Lafayette shopping center in Tustin. EXISTING CONDITIONS EsplanadeNanderlip Segment: County-owned trail between Fairhaven and V~-nderlip Avenues in North Tustin. Esplanade portion includes DG trail, landscaping, irrigation, drinking fountains, and benches. Vanderlip portion includes DG trail and partial landscaping. Union Pacific Segment: Abandoned railroad right-of-way between Vanderlip Avenue and the northSrly property and City boundary line at Plaza Lafayette. Has a we!l-worn, informal dirt path from Vanderlip to Warren Avenue. South of Warren, '(about halfway between Warren and Plaza Lafayette), several homeo?:ners have constructed fences across the right-of-way. Plaza L=fayette Segment: Formerly part of the abandoned railroad right-of- way, now owned by Mr. Jack Stanaland, owner of Plaza Lafayette. A weed-filled empty lot, which lies between the Union Pacific property and the Plaza's existing back parking lot. Mr. Stanaland is proposing to construct additional parking on this lot. . COUNTY ISSUES The County is proposing to extend the Tustin Branch Trail southward from Vanderlip Avenue to Tustin city limits by pu~'chasing the former Southern Pacific R~,ilroad right-of-way. Project funding is budgeted from the Third District Urban Parks Program Allocation funds and North Tustin Local Park In-lieu Fees. The project was originally part of a larger, project (see note below) and eligible for federal ISTEA funding. When ISTEA funds were denied, the County pursued local funding for the unincorporated portion of the larger project. ISTEA funds were recently · reinstated for the larger project. John W. Sibley Page 2 Note: The City of Orange recently agreed to serve as lead agency for the larger Tustin Branch Trail project extending to the Santa Aha River. This ISTEA-funded project may include both a DG trail and Class I bikeway, and would include some on-road segments. The proposed Plaza Lafayette project is delaying our proposed acquisition of the remaining railroad property because we are waiting to see if the City will' . condition the project to provide a gate in the proposed block wall, to allow public access to the shopping center from the trail. If the trail is not alloWed to connect to Plaza Lafayette, we woUld recommend not purchasing the railroad right-of-way between Warren Avenue and Tustin city limits because the trail would "dead-end" at the proposed block wall. if the trail terminates at Warren Avenue trail users would have to travel along unimproved Warren Avenue and along Newport Avenue to access Plaza Lafaye~e. PLAZA LAFAYE I'i-l'E ISSUES Mr. Stanaland (current owner) is proposing the construction of a parking lot and five foci.walkway on his northerly piece of undeveloped property abutting the available railroad property. Purpose: to provide employee parking and leave more spaces for. customers. Mr. Stanaland has expreSsed his unwillingness to provide a connection to the trail without assurance that he would be indemnified by the County or the 'City. At its May 3, 1999 hearing of the parking lot project, the Tustin City Council was generally supportive of a trail connection, but requested that the County and City hold further discussions regarding the indemnification issue. The City Council continued the hearing to June 7, 1999. HOMEOWNER ISSUES Some homeowners south of Warren Avenue have expressed opposition to the trail. Reasons for the opposition include 1) fear of crime, vandalism, noise, and loss of privacy, and 2) the desire to purchase the railroad property to extend ba'ckyards. John W. Sibley Page 3 Several homeowners between Warren and Plaza Lafayette have leased proped'y behind their homes from Union Pacific and have built wooden fences across the. railroad right-of-way .... Other homeowners support the trail project, because 1) it would remove one of the fenced-in areas that have become an eyesore to the neighborhood, 2) it would provide direct access to Plaza Lafayette from their neighborhood, and 3) it would improve the Condition (weeds/fire hazard) within the right-of-way immediately south of Warren Avenue. PIPELINE ISSUES Several petroleum pipelines underlie the railroad right-of-way. Staff contacted Kinder Morgan Energy Partners (KMEP) and the'state division of pipeline safety. They supplied tube following information: · The Pipeline Safety Act of 1987 prohibits construction of "a structure or improvement within the pipeline easement" and a "fence, wall, or obstruction adjacent to any pipeline easement..." A trail or parking lot is acceptable use over a pipeline easement. · KMEP said they would need to review the Plaza LafaYette plans to see if the proposed block wall would be in violation of the law. However, when the City Council asked if they needed to be concerned about the Pipeline Safety Act, the City attorney indicated that this was not a concern. · The state pipeline safety office said they would be willing to inspect the area between Warren Avenue and Irvine Boulevard to see if the existing fences are in violation of the law. WOODCREST APARTMENTS ISSUES Woodcrest Apartments (located in the unincorporated area) is bounded on the south by Plaza Lafayette and on the west by the railroad property and the proposed parking lot. · . When the original owner of Plaza Lafayette, Mr. Lynn Burnett, proposed to extend the parking lot a couple of years ago, Woodcrest Apartments (owners and tenants) turned out at the City Council hearing to oppose the project, due to John W. Sibley Page 4 concerns about noise, etc. The' Council voted against the project. Mr. Stanaland revived the project early last year. Woodcrest owners and tenants attended the May 3 Tustin City Council meeting to support the trail and oppose the parking lot. RECOMMENDED COUNTY (PFRD) POSITION 1. Follow City of Tustin Council actions on Plaza LafaYette's parking lot development project. · o . Do not accept new parking lot walkway/trail responsibility and associated maintenance and liability. If Plaza Lafayette is not conditioned to provide a public watk/trai'l access, discontinue acquisition of trail right-of-way between Warren Avenue and Plaza Lafayette. 4. Proceed with purchase of. trail easement between Vanderlip and Warren. 5. Develop #4 trail easement with DG base and place public trail signs. Attachment(s): Map, photos CC: B. Hamilton J. Dickman S. Miller Tim Miller EXHIBIT D RESOLUTION NO. 99-32 '6 ]0 ]4 ]? 20 23 24 25 26 27 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CiTY OF TUSTIN UPHOLDING THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S DECISION TO APPROVE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 98-022 AND DESIGN REVIEW 98-026, AUTHORIZING THE ESTABLISHMENT OF A PARKING LOT ON A VACANT 50' BY 314' PORTION OF AN ABANDONED RAILROAD RIGHT-OF-WAY LOCATED TO THE NORTH OF THE PLAZA LA FAYETTE SHOPPING CENTER AT 13011 NEWPORT AVENUE AND TO THE WEST OF 12901-12943 NEWPORT AVENUE. The City Council of the City of Tustin does hereby resolve as follows: The City Council finds and determines as follows: A. B. Ow P. Be Fo That a' proper application, Conditional Use Permit 98-022 and Design Review 98-026, was filed by Plaza Lafayette, LLP. to authorize the establishment of a parking lot on a vacant 50' by 314' portion of an abandoned railroad right-of-way located .to the north of the Plaza LaFayette shopping center at 13011 Newport Avenue and to the west of 12901-12943 Newport Avenue. That a public hearing was duly called, noticed and held on said application on March 22, 1999, and continued to April 12, 1999, by the Planning Commission since the property was not posted in accordance with the City's public' noticing procedures. At the direction of the Planning Commission, a workshop was held on March 29, 1999, with the property owner, representatives of the County of Orange, and interested members of the public. That on April 19, 1999 the Foothill Communities Association and. George Haltman appealed the Planning Commission's approval of the project. That public hearings were duly called,, noticed, and held on said appeal on May 3, 1999, June 7, 1999, and July 6, 1999, by the City Council. That the proposed use is allowed within the Multiple-Family Residential District (R-3), with the approval of a Conditional Use Permit. That establishment, maintenance, and operation of a parking lot in a residential district to serve an adjacent commercial shopping center, as conditioned, will not be detrimental to the health, safety, morals, comfort, or general welfare of persons residing or working in the neighborhood of such proposed use, nor be injurious or detrimental to the property and improvements in the neighborhood of the subject property, or to the general welfare of the City of Tustin, as evidenced by the following findings: . The parking lot expansion area will be used for employee parking only, thereby reducing the potential for noise and other nuisance impacts on adjacent properties. ]0 !4 20 2.4 27 Resolution No. 99-32 Page 2 O. H. 2. Lighting will comply with the City's Security Ordinance, will be directed downward, and will not produce glare or have a negative impact on adjacent properties. . The proposed parking spaces will not be permitted to count to accommodate additional parking intensive uses, such as restaurants or medical uses, in the shopping center. . That the Parking Demand Study dated December 1998 has been reviewed and approved by the City's Traffic Engineer and the additional parking spaces will mitigate identified parking demand impacts as required by Condition 6.18 of Planning Commission Resolution No. 3413 (Variance No. 95-011). SI The adjacent residential uses will be partially buffered from .the proposed parking lot expansion area by a solid 6'-8" block wall and/or existing garage or carport walls. The provision of future pedestrian ingress/egress from a regional trail or public park to Plaza Lafayette would provide an altemative means ot transportation which would minimize the need for vehicular parking within Plaza Lafayette. Pursuant to Section 9272 of the Tustin Municipal Code, the City Council finds that the location, size, architectural features, and general appearance of the parking lot expansion area will not impair the orderly and harmonious development of the area, the present or future development therein, or the occupancy as a whole. In making such findings, the City Council has considered at least the following items: . Height, bulk and'area of buildings. 2. Setbacks and site planning. 3. Landscaping, parking area design, and traffic circulation. 4. Location, height and standards of exterior illumination. . Physical relationship of proposed improvements to existing structures in the neighborhood. . Appearance and design relationship of proposed improvements to'existing structures and possible future .structures in the neighborhood and public thoroughfares. . Development Guidelines and criteria as adopted by the City Council. This project is categorically exempt (Class 11) pUrsuant to Section 15311 of the California Environmental Quality Act. ]0 ]4 ]5 ]6 20 2] 22 23 24 25 26 2? 28 Resolution No. 99-32 Page 3 I1. J. That the project has been reviewed for consistency with the Air Quality Sub-element of the City of Tustin General Plan and has been determined to be consistent with the Air Quality Sub-element. The City Council hereby approves Conditional Use Permit No. 98-022 and Design Review 98-026 to authorize the establishment of a parking lot on a vacant 50' by 314' portion of an abandoned railroad right-of-way located to the north of the Plaza La Fayette shopping center, at 13011 Newport Avenue and to the west of the Woodcrest Apartments at 12901-12943 Newport Avenue, subject to the conditions contained in Exhibit A, attached hereto. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Tustin at a regular meeting held on the 6th day of July, 1999. TRACY WILLS WORLEY 'Mayor 'PAMELA STOKER City Clerk STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF ORANGE ) CITY OF TUSTIN ) CERTIFICATION FOR RESOLUTION NO. 99-32 PAMEA STOKER, City Clerk and ex-officio Clerk of the City Council'.of the City of Tustin, Califomia, does hereby certify that the whole number of the members of the City Council of the City of Tustin is 5; that the above and foregoing Resolution No. 99- 032 was duly and regularly introduced, passed, and adopted at a regular meeting of the Tustin City Council, held on the 6th day of July, 1999. COUNCILMEMBER AYES: COUNCILMEMBER NOES: COUNCILMEMBER ABSTAINED: COUNCILMEMBER ABSENT: PAMELA STOKER City Clerk EXHIBIT A RESOLUTION NO. 99-32 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 98-022 AND DESIGN REVIEW 98-026 GENERAL (1) 1.3 The proposed project shall substantially conform with the submitted plans for the project date stamped April 12, 1999,' on file with the Community Development Department, except as herein modified, or as modified by the Director of Cor~munity Development in accordance with this Exhibit. The Director of Community Development may also approve minor modifications to plans during plan check if such modifications are to be consistent with the provisions of the Tustin City Code. Unless otherwise specified, the conditions contained in this Exhibit shall be complied with prior to the final inspections for any building permits for the project, subject to review and approval by the Community Development Department. The subject project approval shall become null and void unless the use is established within six (6) months of the date of this Exhibit and substantial construction is underway in compliance with Condition No. 1.4 of this resolution. Time extensions may be granted if a wdtten request is received by the Communi.ty Development Department within thirty (30) days pdor to expiration. ~ Within thirty (30) calendar days of the approval of CUP 98-022 and DR 98- 026, the applicant shall submit to the Community Development Department all necessary plans and information needed to obtain a building permit for the improvement of the parking lot.' ao b, Any and all necessary corrections for the construction level plans shall be resubmitted to the Community Development Department within fourteen (14) days of being notified by the City that correct;ohs are ready to be picked up. All construction permits shall be 'obtained from the City within seven (7) days of being notified by the City that the plans are ready for permit issuance. c. All construction shall be completed within ninety (90) days of permit issuance. Approval of Conditional Use Permit 98-022 and Design Review 98-026 is contingent upon the applicant and property owner signing and returning an "Agreement to Conditions Imposed" form as established by the Director of Community Development. SOURCE CODES (1) STANDARD CONDITION (5) RESPONSIBLE AGENCY REQUIREMENT (2) CEQA MITIGATION ' (6) LANDSCAPING GUIDELINES (3) UNIFORM BUILDING CODE/S (7) PC/CC POLICY (4) DESIGN REVIEW *** EXCEPTION Exhibit A Resolution No. 99-32 Conditions of Approval for CUP 98-022 & DR 98-026 Page 2 (.1) The applicant shall hold harmless and defend, the City of Tustin from all claims and liabilities arising out of a challenge to the City's 'approval of this project. -. (1) 1.7 As determined by a City code enforcement officer, any violation of any of the conditions imposed by this ReSolution is subject to the imposition of a civil penalty of $100.00 on the property owner and/or operator for each violation and each day the violation exists. 1.8 The applicant shall be responsible for costs associated with any necesSary code enforcement action. SITE IMPROVEMENTS (4) In accordance with Tustin City Code Section 9271(i) related to the required separation between commercial and residential uses, the parking lot expansion area shall be screened from surrounding residential properties and the abandoned railroad right-of-way to the north by a 6'- 8" high solid masonry wall measured from the finish grade on the adjacent residential properties, except where other types of fencing are required to be ma~ used over the petroleum p~peline easement in accordance with California Govemment Code Section 51014.6. Prior to issuance of building permits, plans shall be submitted to the Community Development Department and the applicant shall provide evidence of authorization from all easement holders. Where walls currently exist, no wall is required to be constructed in conjunction with: construction of the parking lot provided 1) the existing wall is a height et 6'-8" or more or the site is graded to create a minimum wall height of 6'-8" as measured from the finished grade of the parking lot; and 2) in the eVent that the existing walls or portions of walls are removed, the property owner of the. parking lot shall construct a masonry wall a minimum of 6'-8" in height w~thm 60 days of the removal of existing walls without further notification f,-,-,n-, th,-, ~_ifl/ nf Ttl~fin TI~i ..... II ~N~II I~ ...... iraqi /iviii I. i1~.~ vIl.~ vi /uQLIII. I IilU 1/I/Uil UllUll u~.~ II~,t~lUllVl~i viii · -,~l;~,-,.,~n+ +,-, +i~,-, n~r-I-i~ ,-,.-~c-f --~,-~,,,I ,.,,-,,-,+ n.-,-,.-,,.-,.-~, I;r~r, If +1-~,-, ,.,~!1 ;~, k..;H- I, MII ~d. Vi.i,~ Vi J LI i~,~ jJi VjJ~.~i rk,~ Iii i~.,~, I.i I~.~ 1/l i li.&~.~i I ~4j./~i ~J V ~.41 ~.'l ~l J~.' ~.A~.~j~l~.~.~i i~ J,.,I ~.Fj.~..A ~..AI ~..~ I I ~ ~-I I ~..,~ I ~=~[~1 I 1 I~,~il ~,.,~ I &l I ~,.m ~Ai~,.~ LI I I ~ ~ ~..~ I ~ ~ ~.~,a. Iii LI I ~,,.m ~,.~' ¥ ~'1 I ~ Li I~.a~ L Li I ~..m ~ ~,.,~ i La ~ ~.~ ~,~ ~.~ I ~.,m i ~.~ i I I~,.~ I ~.~A Iii ~.1 i ~.~ i ~,~ L~k~ I ~..~! ~.1 I~.~ ~..~ I ~ ~..~ '~..,~ i L] ~lll I%~1 ~.~1 ~1 I~ ~1 I~11 I~ V~I I~1 ~1 I~11 (4) (5) '2.2 2.3 All of the parking stalls in the parking lot expansion area shall be a minimum of eight (8) feet in width and 20 feet in length. The drive aisle shall be a minimum of 24 feet in width. The tumaround space shall be a minimum of twelve (12) feet in width and 20 feet in length and shall be located a minimum of three (3) feet from the north property line. ,, Lighting for the parking lot expansion area shall comply with the City of Tustin Secudty Ordinance and shall provide a minimum of one (1) foot- candle of illumination throughout the site. All exterior light fixtures shall be directed 90 degrees down and not produce direct light or glare or have a Exhibit A Resolution No. 99-32 Conditions of Approval for CUP 98-022 & DR 98-026 Page 3 (4) 2.4 2.5 (1) 2.6 (4) 2.8 (4) 2.9 2.10 . 2.ii 2.12 negative impact on adjacent properties. A photometric study and manufacturer's detail of all proposed light fixtures shall be submitted at plan check for review by the Community Development Department. A raised concrete walkway of at least six (6) feet in width shall be required along entire length'of the east of the parking lot expansion area. The Planning Commission deleted this condition. The applicant shall be responsible for the daily maintenance and up-keep of the parking lot expansion area, including but not limited to trash removal, painting, graffiti removal, and maintenance of improvements to ensure that the facilities are maintained in a neat and attractive manner. Property maintenance equipment which is attended by loud or unusual noise is prohibited on Sundays and City observed federal holidays, before 7:00 a.m. and after 6:00 p.m. Monday through Friday, and before 9:00 a.m: and after 5:00 p.m. on Saturdays. All graffiti shall be removed within 72 hours of a complaint being transmitted by the City to the property owner. Failure to maintain said structures and adjacent facilities will be grounds for City enforcement of its Property Maintenance Ordinance, including nuisance abatement procedures. The installation and/or operation of Outdoor public telephones or public address systemS in the parking lot expansion area shall be prohibited. Ail parking areas and walkways for the parking lot expansion area shall be steam cleaned and maintained free of trash and debris on a regular basis as needed. All damaged and cracked areas shall be' repaired as needed. The use and operation of property maintenance equipment is prohibited on all hours on Sundays and federal holidays, before 7:00 a.m. and after 6:00 p.m. Monday through Friday, and before 9:00 a.m. and after 5:00. p.m. on Saturdays. The Planning Commission deleted this condition.- The Planning Commission deleted this condition. if the off-street portion of the Tustin Branch Trail or a public linear park adjacent to the site is established, the property owner,,,,,,.,,,-'~'"'" ~""";~'~",,.,,~,~,,,., shall necjotiate in cjood faith wcrk with the County of Orange to provide .publi(J ingress/egress to PlaZa Lafayette except the property owner is uncler no obligation to reach acjreement except on terms mutually acceptable to th~ County and the property owner. Exhibit A Resolution No. 99-32 Conditions of Approval for CUP 98-022 & DR 98-026 Page 4 USE RESTRICTIONS (5) 3.2 (5) 3.3 (5) 3.4 (1) 3.8 The thirty-seven (37) parking spaces located in the parking lot expansion area shall not be used to establish or accommodate more parking intensive uses such as restaurants or medical uses in the shopping center. The use of the parking lot expansion area may be reviewed 'by the Community Development Director on a biannual basis. If, in the future, the Community Development Director determines that noise, security, and/or other nuisance problems exist on the site or in the vicinity as a result of the establishment of the parking lot expansion area, the Community Development Director may require the applicant to provide additional mitigation including, but are not limited to, the following: a. Reduce hours of use including, but not limited to, peak hours only. Retain additional security personnel. Failure to satisfy the above condition shall be grounds for revocation of CUP 98-022. Notwithstanding the provision of additional parking spaces, all conditions of approval of Planning Commission Resolution Nos. 2502 (Variance No. 88- 005) and 34i3 (Variance No. 95-011 and Conditional Use Permit 95-019) shall remain in full force and effect, unless made null and void by future City approvals. Condition 6.18 of Resolution No. 3413 shall not be considered to be satisfied since the number of parking spaces provided on-site does not meet the minimum 'number required by the Tustin City Code for the development. Within forty-five (45) days from the date of the approval of CUP 98-022 and DR 98-026, the parcel to be used for the parking lot expansion area shall be held together with the adjacent shopping center parcel (Assessor's Parcel No. 401-281-10) as one parcel. The applicant shall file a lot line adjustment acceptable to the City of Tustin to ensure that joint use of the two lots continues for the duration of the parking lot use with said document being subject to City Attorney approval and recorded on the property prior to issuance of any permits. The use of the parking lot expansion area shall be limited to employee parking only. Customer parking shall be prohibited. Prior to the final inspection for any building permit, "Employee Parking Only" signs shall be posted at the entrance to the parking lot expansion area, with sign details and loCations to be approved by the Community Development Department. No structures shall be constructed within the parking lot expansion area. Outdoor storage shall be prohibited within the parking lot expansion area. Exhibit A Resolution No. 99-32 Conditions of Approval for CUP 98-022 & DR 98-026 Page 5 (1) 3.9 (1) 3.10 *** 3.11 *** 3.12 All construction operations, including engine warm up and deliveries of materials and equipment, shall be subject to the provisions of the City of Tustin Noise Ordinance as amended, and may take place only during the hours of 7:00 a.m. until 6:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, and 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. on Saturday, unless the Building Official determines that said activity will be in substantial conformance with the Noise Ordinance and the public health and safety will not be impaired, subject to application being made at the time the permit for the work is awarded or during progress of the work. No Sunday or holiday construction shall be permitted. "No Skateboarding" and "No Loitering" signs shall be posted on the site with sign details and locations to be approved by the Community Development Department. Said signs shall include the telephone number of an on-site manager or security personnel to address and/or mitigate any violations. . The applicant shall enforce existing lease agreements with each tenant which require employees to park in the proposed parking lot and rear of the center. To ensure unobstructed access to existing and proposed parking spaces by patrons and employees and eliminate conflicts with the existing valet service, within forty-five (45) days of the approval of CUP 98-022 and DP, 98-026, the applicant shall provide the following: a. bo c. d. PLAN SUBMITTAL The applicant shall provide a valet service for all restaurants within' '-"--,* ..... ~ Plaza Lafayette and shall post signs in visible locations l,,,,ill ~i'ui, i vi I~,,· vi stating that the valet service is available to all patrons of restaurants within Plaza Lafayette. Valet personnel shall park.vehicles in a manner that will r~aximize the number of parked vehicles. The .applicant shall provide a valet-parking plan .for revieTM and approval by the Community Development Department to designate permanently (physically identify) the number and location of valet parking spaces in accordance with Attachment E of the staff repOrt dated March 22, 1999, or as modified by the Community Development Department. The applicant shall submit an affidavit indicating that all tenants have been notified of the location and number of parking spaces that may be designated and used for valet parking in accordance with the approved valet parking plan. (1) 4.1 All grading, drainage, vegetation and birculation shall comply with the City of Tustin Grading Manual. All street' sections, curbs, gutters, sidewalks, street, lighting and storm drain shall comply with on-site improvement standards. At plan check, indicate on plans the applicable codes, City Ordinances and the state and federal lawS and regulations to include: Exhibit A Resolution No. 99-32 Conditions of Approval for CUP 98-022 & DR 98-026 Page 6 (5) 4.2 (5) 4.3 (5) 4.4 (5) 4.5 (5) 4.6 (5) 4.7 1997 Uniform Building Code with California Amendments 1997 Uniform Mechanical Code with Califomia Amendments 1997 Uniform Plumbing Code with California Amendments 1996 National Electrical Code with California Amendments T-24 California Disabled Access Regulations T-24 Califomia Energy Efficiency Standards City of Tustin Grading Ordinance City of Tustin Landscape and Irrigation Guidelines City of Tustin Private Improvemen. t Standards City of Tustin Security Ordinance In compliance with the Uniform Building Code (application for permit), the applicant, designer, architect or' engineer must submit grading plans to the Building Division for review and approval prior to the issuance of a grading permit. In compliance with Uniform Building Code (excavation and grading), the applicant shall submit four sets of excavation/grading plans and two preliminary soil reports to the Building Division for review and approval prior to the issuance of a grading permit. In compliance with the City of Tustin's grading manual, all grading, drainage, vegetation, circulation, street sections, curbs, gutters, sidewalks, and storm drains shall comply with the on-site improvement standards. In compliance with the California Code of Regulations, Title 24 Part 2, Accessibility Standards, and prior to the plan check approval, the designer, architect or engineer must provide designs for accessibility for the physically challenged to the Building Division for their review and approval prior to the issuance of a grading permit. In compliance with the Department of Justice (Office of the Attorney General) the designer, architect or engineers proposed grading plan must comply with the American Disabilities Act (ADA). In compliance with Tustin City Code, the project shall comply with the Security Ordinance. FEES (1) 5.1 Prior to issuance of any building permits, payment shall be .made of all required fees. Payment shall be made based upon the rates in effect at the time of permit issuance and are subject to change. ao All applicable building, grading and private improvement plan check and permit fees to the Community Development Department. Exhibit A Resolution N°. 99-32 Conditions of Approval for CUP 98-022 & DR 98-026 Page 7 b. C, Orange County Fire Authority plan-check and inspection fees to the Community Development Department based upon the most current schedule. Within forty-eight (48) hours of approval of. the subject project, the applicant shall deliver to the Community Development Department, a cashier's check payable to the COUNTY CLERK in the amount of. $38.00 (thidT-eight dollars) to enable the City to file the appropriate environmental documentation for the project. If within such forty- eight (48) hour period that applicant has. not delivered to the Community Development Department the above-noted check, the statute of limitations for any interested party to challenge the environmental determination under the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act could be significantly lengthened.