HomeMy WebLinkAbout19 APPEAL CUP & DR 06-07-99NO 19
6-7-99
DATE:
JUNE 7, 1999
Inter-Corn
TO:
FROM'
SUBJECT:
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 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. On April
12, 1999, the Planning Commission approved CUP 98-022 and 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.
Appficant: Jack Stanaland, Plaza Lafayette, LLC.
Owner:. 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 noting
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 thirty-
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 Spitz. er'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 traiiway 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 Vanderlip 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 pipeline 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
1. 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/property owner to
work with the County to provide pedestrian ingress/egress in the event that
a public 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
=
3'
.
means of transportation which may minimize the need for vehicular parking
within Plaza Lafayette.
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.
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.
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 Emmett Cooper dated June 1, 1999
Resolution No. 99-32
EXHIBIT A
MAY 3RD, 1999 CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
NO. 1
5-3-99
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 April 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 Haltman appealed the Planning" Commission's
decision (see Exhibit D).
City Council Report
Appeal of CUP 98-022 & DR 9~-026
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 Attachment 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 the 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 uo-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 residbntial 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 Ciarissa 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 parking lot, Resolution No. 99-32 includes the
following conditions:
Co'ndition 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
May 3, 1999
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 security 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.
Liqhtinq
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.
Parking 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 9,...z6
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 to 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 Clarissa 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 gate 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 III (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
countywide.
Resolution No. 3662 includes the following condition:
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 riqht-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
1. Adopt Resolution No. 99-32 approving the prOposed parking lot.
2. Modify Resolution No. 99-32 as deemed appropriate.
3. Direct staff to prepare a resolution of denial for the City Council's consideration.
J%/tina Wilikom
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
ITEM #3 .
Planning
Commission
DATE:
SUBJECT:
APPLICANT:
OWNER:
LOCATION'
ZONING:
ENVIRONMENTAL
STATUS:
REQUEST:
APRIL 12, 1999
CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING: CONDITIONAL
98-022 AND DESIGN REVIEW 98-026
USE
JACK STANALAND
PLAZA LAFAYETTE, LLC
30872 S. COAST HIGHWAY #i60
LAGUNA BEACH, CA 92651
pLAZA LAFAYETTE, LLC
30872 S. COAST HIGHWAY #160
LAGUNA BEACH, CA 92651
VACANT PARCEL TO THE' NORTH OF 13031
AVENUE AND TO THE WEST. OF 12901-12943
AVENUE (APN #401-221-04)
MULTIPLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL (R-3)
PERMIT
NEWPORT
NEWPORT
THIS PROJECT IS CATEGORICALLY EXEMPT (SECTION 15311,
CLASS t 1) 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 Exhibit A
·
Planning Commission Supplemental Report
Conditional Use Permit 98-022 & 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 agreement 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 hearing.
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 Orange
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
opportunity 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 purchase offers had been too iow to accept. These
residents also 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 the 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 Supplemental 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 I' afayette, 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 liability for 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
lrvine 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
facility 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 concerns
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 concems:
· Condition 2.1
The applicant indicated that there is an approximately two (2) foot difference
between the proposed parking lot elevation and the Woodcrest 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 Supplem~, ,tal Report
Conditional Use Permit 98-022 & Design Review 98-026
April 12, 1999
Page 4
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
The
!0'00
7'0O
p.m.
~.~.
~t..tt.v vi it,iii i,.~v viv~.~v~.l i~vl. ww~,.~.,~m I i.i iv i ivi,.di v vi · In, ii I~.,I .
1~,~i i~,d i iv ?1..,~i1~il i~ ~,,~i i1~11 i~.~v I~.llVllVW IIITbl III i !.1 IV~.~,~. I IVI~IIV.
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
~ i.,l i.i vi
on-site security h~+.,,~.., the h..,
........ p., ,"P, ............. ~ ....
. i,,~ T~,~ t. i i ~.,~ ~,.~ 1I Ii.~. i d~i..
· 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 amead enforce existing lease agreements with each
tenant which require tc require an-,.,,,~"~'"'"A""'~""~'""*,,... ,----~--,, ,,., ,, +~,~+,, ,~., employees are
reffuimd to park in the proposed parking lot and rear of the center.
--
Planning Commission Supplemu,atal Report
Conditional Use Permit 95-022 & 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 all tenants,
including all restaurant tenants, and valet service operators
~ acknowledoino the location and number of parking spaces
that may be designated and used for'valet parking in accordance
with the approved valet parking plan. Thc ,~.~.,.,,,,,~"'-~;"~"+,, ch~",~,, ~,, .... ~ .'~'~".,.,.
Jus~na Willkom
Associate Planner
Karen Peterson
Acting Senior Planner
Attachments:
Exhibit A - Staff Report dated March 22, 1999
Exhibit B - Minutes of PubliC Workshop, March 29, 1999
Resolution No. 3662
EXHIBIT B
(ITEM #3: cONrDITIONAL USE PERMIT 98-022 & DESIGN REVIEW 98-026)
5IINUTES
C051MUNITY DEVELOPMENT
· .
pLAZA LAFAY'ETTE WORKSHOP
1VL4RCH 29, 1999
CALL TO ORDER:
4:00 p.m., Clifton Miller Commtmity Center
Staff:
Elizabeth Binsack, Director of Comm .unity Development
Karen Peterson, Acting senior Planner
Justina Willkom, Associate Planner
Present:
JeffDick~an, County of orange
Sherri Miler, County of Orange
Jack Stanaland, Plaza Lafayette
PUBLIC CONCERNS:
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 thirty
seven (37) additional parking spaces north of Plaza Lafayette and west of the Woodcrest
-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 only,
closing or securing the parking lot between 10 p.m. and 7:00 a.m., requiring lighting to be
directed do~-nward, and prohibiting public address systems. Justina further noted that if the trail
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
a~eement. She clarified that the preferred alternative for the Tustin Branch Trail is an on-street
trail along Newport Boulevard between Warren Avenue and Irvine Boulevard and noted that this
project would not preclude the continuation of the trail.
·
Jeff Dicknnan, Orange County Chief of Public Facilities & Resources Department, indicated that
the 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 fi.om Intermodel Surface
Transportaion Act to buy the remaining fight-of-way fi.om Warren north to the Santa Aha River,
Plaza Lafayette Workshop'
March 29, 1999
Page 2
tes
with some discussion 'of including the portion between Irvii~e Boulevard and Warren Avenue.
After the ~ant application was denied, 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 shown to
be the preferred trail choice. He had been 'involved with several meetings with the property
9wrier 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
fight-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 bet~veen
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 will happen with the trail
between Warren and Plaza Lafayette. He also noted that he recalled that at the time a portion of
the raikoad right-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 Mlling to install a gate and had been trying to get a
written a~eement from the County to outline each party's responsibility since last May.
An unidentified woman in the audience commented that people are already walking throu~ the
property, tiding bicycles on the property, and accessing the shopping center.
Christy Jones, resident 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 currently
required to park in the rear of the complex but park in the front of the shopping center and
indicated she does not th/nk employees would be willing to park in the proposed parking lot
either.
Plaza Lafayette Workshop'
March 29, 1999
Page 3
~es
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 from the Union Pacific Railroad and had
been told that they could purchase the property in the future. He noted that kids play in the
abandoned fight-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, Union Pacific Raikoad, explained that they had.not sold 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 Rarnage stated that the trail would impart a nh'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 ri~t-of-way, is concerned about potential damages, and noted that his
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 support 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 originally.
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 written
a~eement with him.
Jeff Dickman responded that the County is willing to purchase fight-of-way but not willing to
assume obligations on private property or in another jurisdiction.
George Haltman resident of Clarissa Lane, stated that he is not completely opposed to the trail
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
Denise Alaphous, Woodcrest Apartments, stated her opposition to a partdng 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 proposed parking lot. She also noted that delivery trucks for
Tustin Brewing Company park in their alley during deliveries and when she call Tustin Police
Department, they refer-her to the Orange County Sheriff.
ADJOURNMENT: 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'J' AVENUE AND
TO THE WEST OF 12901-12943 NEWPORT AVENUE (APN ~401-221-
04)
MULTIPLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL (R,3)
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.
BAC KG RO U N DIH I STO RY
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 Redevelopment 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 6.1.8 Of Resolution 3413 was included to address potential parking problems and
stated:
"If, at any time in the future, an on-site or neighborfng 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 properly is in compliance with
mitigation measures 1' through 4 above, the Community Development and Public Works
Departments may require the property owner to submit an updated parking demand
analysis and/or traffic study, at no expense to the C/ty, within the time schedule stJ'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 Departments. Said mifJ'gation may
include, but not be limited to, the following:
a) Establish alternate hours of operation, or;
Provide additional parking 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 property within 500 feet of the
property or provision of the needed parking on-site. The securing of off-site
parking would require approval of a revised Variance. Failure to adequately
respond to such a request and to implement m~'gation measures within the
time schedules established shall be grounds for initiation of revocation
procedures for Variance 95-011 and Conditional Use Permit 95-019:
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 concerns: _
Planning ~ommission Report
Conditional Use Permit 98-022 & 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 formall 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 Count}, unincorporated land to the north and east.
DISCUSSION
Project 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 Repor't
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 occupancy 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 agreemeRt with
each tenant to require an acknowledgement that employees are required to park in the
proposed parking lot and rear of the center.
The 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 during 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 park cars in
tandem to maximize space availability. Condition No. 3.12 is included to require the
following:
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 ali patrons of
Plaza Lafayette.
· Valet personnel shall park vehicles in a manner that will maximize the number of
parked vehicles.
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 staff's recommended conditions of approval.
Public Safety Concerns
To address previous City Council 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 minimum 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 security personnel 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 altematives, 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 between
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 Vandedip 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 future 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 allowing 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 bail. The sidewalk in the 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 trail 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
o ,i
LO CATI 0 N MAP ~/
....... city
Boundary
22.28.32.
14682.84
86.88.90
PLA. ZA
14752
14782 14772
__
14772
'14782
IFI Vllql::: BOULEVARD
I40 SCALE
A TT'A ('I-fMF, NT
RESOLUTION NO. 97-16
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CiTY
OF TUSTiN REVERSING THE PLAD-NING. COMMISSION'S
DECISION AND DENYING, WITHOUT PREJUDICE,
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 96-037 AND DESIGN
REVIEW 96- 051, A REQUEST TO ESTA_BLISH A
PARKING LOT ON A VACANT 50' BY 314' PORTION OF
A_N ABANDONED RAILROAD RIGHT-OF-WAY LOCATED TO
THE NORTH OF THE P!~AZA I~A FAYETTE SHOPPING
CENTER AT 13031 NEWPORT AVENUE .AND TO THE WEST
OF THE WOOD CREST APA_RTMENTS AT 1290!-!2943
NEWPORT AVENUE.
8
The City Council of the City of Tustin does hereby
9 resolve as follows:
!0 i.
The City CoUncil finds and determines as follows:
!!
12
15
That a proper application, Conditional Use
Permit 96-037 and Design Review 96-051, was
filed by C.L. Burne~t 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 13031 Newport
Avenue and to the west of the Woodcrest
Apartments at 12901-12943 Newport Avenue.
17
18
19
2O
21
m .
Ce
That a public hearing, was duly ~called, 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 request to
establish the subject parking lot.
That on December 10, 1996, Sharon Ramage,
owner of the Woodcrest Apartments, submitted
an appeal of the Zoning A~ministrator's action
on this. project.
22
23
24
25
2~
27
D.
That a public hearing was duly Galled,
- no~!ced
and held on said appeal by the Planning
Commission on January 13, 1997. The Planning
Commission adopted Planning" Commission
Resolution No. 3507, upholding the Zoning
'Administrator's actio~ and' approving
Conditional Use Permit 96-037 and Design
Review 96-051.
That on January 17, 1997, Nancy D. Ramage,
G.R. Ramage, Jr. MD, Sharon Ramage and G.R'
Ramage, III, the' owners of the Woodcrest
Apartments, 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 on said appeal by the City Council on
February 18, 1997.
G .
That the proposed use is allowed Within the R-
3, Multiple-Family Residential District 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
may be detrimental to the health, safety,
morals, comfort, or general welfare of persons
residing or working in the neighborhood of
such proposed use, or 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:
12
17
13
19
2O
21
22
23
.
·
.
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 parking 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
commercial- Parking lot may be an
appropriate use, the use of the site as
an expansion of the adjacent residential
uses would be a more optimal use of the
site than use as a commercial parking
lot.
2-I
2~
217
i .
mur~uant to Section 9272 o~ the Tustin
Municipal Code, the City Council finds that
the location, size, architectural features and
general appearance of the parking lot
expansion area have the ability to 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:
!0
12
14 j.
17
19
2O
!!. The City Council hereby reverses the Planning
21 Commission's decision and denies, without
prejudice, Conditional Use Permit No. 96-037 and
22 Design Review 96-051, a re_o~est to establish a
parking lot on a vacant S0' by 314;. portion of an
23 abandoned railroad right-of-way located to the
no_~h of the Plaza La Fayette shopping center at
2~
27
Resolution No. 97-
Page 3
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.
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 the neighborhood and public
thoroughfares. ~
o
D_v_!6pment Guide!'ines and criteria as
adopted by the City Council.
· .
This project is statutorily exempt pursuant to
Section 15270 of the California~EnQironmental
Quality'Act.
If negotiations among the property owners for
the purchase of the site.f~om 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.
2-'.
Resolution No. 97
Page ~
13031 New.~ort Avenue and to the west of the
Woodcrest Apartments at 12901-12943 Newport Avenue.
3 PASSED .AND kDOPTED at a regular meeting of the City
Council, held on the 3rd day of March, 1997.
~racy W~s Worley
Mayor
!0 Pamela Stoker
City Clerk
STATE OF CA/LIFO~_NiA ).
!2 COb.-NTY OF OR_~_NGE )
CITY OF TUSTIN )
13
!4 i, Pamela Stoker, City Clerk and ex-officio Clerk of the
City Council of'the City of Tuszin, 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
14 foregoing Resolution No. 97-16 was duly massed and
adopted at a ~egu!ar meeting of the Tustin Ci[y Council,
!7 held on the 3rd day of March, 1997, by the following
vote:
· !B
'COO~CILMEMBER AYES:
19 COD~CILMEMBER NOES:
COO~CiLMEMBER A~STAINED:
20 COUNCiLMEMBERABSENT:
21
WORLEY, THOMAS, DOYLE, POTTS, SALTARELLI
NONE
NONE
NONE
23 P-Z~MELA STOKER
CiTY CLERK
24
2S
27
2~
~o
· ,
..-
../
Z
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 ENGINEERING & PLANNING
Attachment D
Pa ul Singer, P.E.
TRAXSPORTATION ENGINEERING & PLANNING
'"163 Columbus Drive · Anaheim Hills, California 92807 · (714) 281-3222
December 10, 1998
Mr. John Stanaland
Plaza LaFayette, LLC.
30872 So. Coast Highway
Suite 160
Laguna Beach, Ca. 92651
Ref. No. 9810.03
Dear Mr. Stana!and:
The' following is the requested parking demand study and the
circulation study for the Plaza LaFayette in the City of Tustin.
The project is located at the northwest corner of Irvine Blvd. and
Newport Ave.
The parking study was conducted commensurate 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 center 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 adequate 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 =s
currently configured within the Plaza LaFayette Center.
The Center currently experiences 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 Page 1
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
Circulation
Valet parking recommendations
Study Findings and Conclusions:
In conclusion
Page 2
Page 2
Page 2
Page 2
Page
Page
Page
Page
Page
Page
Page 9
Page 9
Page 9
Page 10
Page 11
Page 11
Building 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
Appendix
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 pro'ject is a mixed
use shopping center.
Project Description:
The existing center is intended to 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 available
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.
Pr°iect Parkinq SuDDI¥:
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 and
parking layout was assumed to remain with certain modifications to
accommodate additional handicap parking spaces without losing or
reducing the total parking space count. Parking and access
configuration is shown on Figure 2, Site Plan. Note: The circled
numbers shown on the site plan indicate detail Plans of the
handicap parking space configuration.
Page.2
~ L~T. VA~D£RLJP AND ~N TRAC
FLOW£R SHOP
G rA, t O.SA~ S/'
kiT. ~' 2.~'
Indicates detail handicap
parkin9 area modification
as shown on Figure 3, 4 and 5
'iRVINE 'BOULEVARD
·
·
·
Paul Singer, P.E.
TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERING & PLANNING
SFFE PLAN I Fig. 1
i
N
J
· Paul Singe5 P.E.
TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERING & PLANNING
NEW PARKING
AR~A- ADDITION
Fig.2
STUDY ELE1VIE S:
City Requirements:
·
The City of ~Tustin follows a comprehensive Parking requirement
standard. The following 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 use.
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 state' 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 !! AM through 8
PM on a Thursday and Friday, 22nd and 23~h day of October 1998. The
study survey parking dount details are shown in the parking count
field sheets included in the appendix of this report.
b.- The Plaza Lafayette Center is Composed of three buildings and
occupied by diverse uses. The building uses are summarized in Table
1 and show the square footage of each aggregate building occupancy.
Page 3
Table 1
Plaza Lafayette Center
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 Parkinq:
The City of Tustin parkin9 Code is contained within the City Zonid9
Ordinances for each land use.
Page 4
Table 2
Parking Code
City of Tusti~
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.
Kiosk: 1 space
123 spaces
32 spaces
150 spaces
1 space
Total Code required parking spaces:
306 spaces
Code re.quired 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 plus
two restriped on site parking spaces. To meet Code required parking
an additional 35 spaces are required. To mitigate this deficiency,
valet parking will be utilized during peak periods. Tandem parking
will be arranged thereby mitigating parking overflows.
The retail establishments in the Center are normally closed at peak
dinner hours at the restaurants. This fact may partially mitigate
parking overflows from the restaurant peak demand.
Page 5
Post Project Parking 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.
Parkinc Usage:
To verify adequacy of the existing parking supply, a parking
turnover survey was conducted during.the highest usage hours. These
hours were determined to be on a Thursday and Friday from 11 AM
through 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. Aggregate parking demand for the highest study hour was
compared to highest parking-occupancy. A ratio of parking, based'on
this comparison was obtained. The parking rate usage is shown on
Table 4.
Page 6
See Figure 1 .
for Location
Exqstina
65'
Sidewalk
Existing:
Currently there is only
one disabled driver
par~in~ space provided
in-this marked area.
Proposed
Sidewalk
%
65'
H
Proposed:
The currently marked handicap
parkin~ space could be mDdified
and restriped to accommodate two
handicap parking spaces within
the same area. This restripin~
will yield one additional
space to the on site parkin~
supply.
%~_ical Parkin~
Soace = 8.5'x !9'
Paul Singer, P.E.
TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERING & PLANNING
AREA 1
Parking
Fig.3
See Figure !
for Location
Sidewalk
Existing
Proposed
Sidewalk
Existing:
Currently only one handicap
psrkin~ space is provided in
this space that could accommodate
two parkin~ spaces.
Proposed:
The currently marked handicap
parkin~ space may be resfriped
to accommodate two handicap
parking spaces within the.same
area. This will yield one
additional, on-site parking
space to the parkin~ supply.
Typical Parking
Space = 8.5'x 19'
Paul Singer, P.E.
TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERING & PLANNING
AREA 2
Parking
Fig.4
Table 4
Parking Usage* and
Parking_Occupancy at
Lafayette Plaza Center
Status of Building Area:
Leasable square feet:
Total available leasable soace'=
Currently occupied units =
Currently vacant units =
~ighest 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~ey. A
.survey was conducted on Thursday and Friday October 22nd and 23rd
1998. Number indicates surplus parking spaces under worst case
scenario.
Page 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:
1 parking space per 205.83 square feet of floor area -- existing
1 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 employee parking
area will free the existing parking lots and ~reatly alleviate the
perceived parking problem.
Page 8
CIRCULATION AND ACCESS:-
Parkinq Practices:
Currently parking utilization on the project site is not Strictly
enforced. Store owners 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 owners convinced that it is in their best interest
to discourage their employees from parking 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
agreement detailing employee parking and designating the new, rear
parking area for em~!oyees only.
Access and Circulation:
Valet services provided by .the project restaurants should utilize
the-available parking area during peak parking demands at the
restaurants. In addition tandem parking for valet use only should
be provided at the main aisle that is parallel to New?orr Ave.
Valet parking processes should be provided in an orderly maD_her.
Valet drivers are to observe a maximum 15 MPH speed limit. This
fact should be posted by paint markings on the pavement at Lhe
valet parking area and the area leading towards the rear of the
buildings. Post-- SPEED LIMIT
15 MP~ - Pavement. Legend -
The existing access driveways to the project site was
The ingress and egress at the LaFayette Center via the two existing
driveways adequately ser~e the project site.
Page 9
Valet Parkinq Recommendations:
at times, the valet parking operations create a tendency to back up
traffic 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 and customers of the center, during the busiest times when
vehicles enter, and leave the premisses, directional traffic should
be sorted as follows:
Vehicles entering the project site during the ~==k restaurant
demands will avail themselves of the valet services.
bi
Valet personnel w~ll park vehicles in a manner that will
maximize the number of parked vehicles. Wherever practical,
the valet personnel will park cars in tandem to maximize space
availability.
- w
Page 10
STUDY FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS:
Stud%; Findinqs:
The study findings 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 store owners should be politely but firmly re?~ired
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 current lease agreements expire and new ones aw=
drafted, a clause could specify employee and owne~ parking will be.
restricted to the rear parking area only.
Valet employees should maximize parking opportunities by tandem
parking methodology as best suited to the area parking
configuration.
It is recommended that 15 MPH speed limit legends be painted a!on~
[he pavement of the'front parking area driveways.
Page 11
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.
Page 12
z
--I-51 Studies, Inc.
La Fayette Center
Tustin, CA.
A Traffic Data Collection Company
11:0Oam
12:00pm
01 :OOpm
02:00pm
03 :OOpm
04:00pm
05:00pm
06:00pm
07:00pm
Thursday 10-22-98
Front Back
Friday 10-23-98
Front Back
43 59 61 6g
103 121 I01 115
90 119 87 123
84' 7.9 82 89
66 72 - 70 80
67 71 77 66
87. 72 71 .75
102 100 100 105
104 117 102 110
1720 E. Garry Ave. Ste. 119. Santa Aha · CA 92705 · (949) ~552.84r30 · Fax {94g) 852-8441
· .
Sert ~y'
714 72.:' £:23;
0ct-13-38
Page 1
Community Development Deparwnent
City. of T
300 Cen:i
Tusli~,
,IOct~>ber 7, 1998
.:}.lack. Stanaland
:iPlaZa Lafayette, LLC.
i!30872 So. Coast ltighway, Suite 160
:faghna Beach, California 92651 '
I '
:iUBJECT: COMPLETENESSREViEW98_026 OF CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 95-022 & 1~1
..~e. ai' Mr. Stanaland:
i~"hank you for your application, submitted S~mber 15, 1398, for a parking lot exp~nl;ion to
.Pla~a Lafayette at 13011 Newport Boulevard. This projec! h~ been identified ~ Cohditional
Use Permit 9g-022 and Design Review 95-026.
:.The Community Development Department has reviewed your application and in confprmanc,
;.~vit.k, . Government Code Section 65943, this is notification that your submirtel is cocmdered
~complete. For your appli:ation to be considered mmpt=t¢, all information, exhibit, and
..tnat~-,'/al$ id.-ntified ia the attached Exi-fibit~ 3. and B must be provided, l -t=ns identified ~ith an
~terisk {*) ~hall be' addr~sed with my future .~ubminal$. Itc-rrm wi'th a (c) will be p~tmtizl
· ..,eondition~ of approval unI¢~ tho ~ubmitted materials addr~, ~, comment. In addmon to
;',}.,Exh~it. A, we offer fit= followh,.g co:.nm=nts: '
'[ As noted in a meeting with you cn M~Y 2g, 1998, and in con-cspondencc to you dated ugust
;SIGN
Jstin
~nnial Way
CA 92780
573-3100
-I
:] 1'0, '1998. th-. City ider.,tified a parking and circulation deficiency at Plaza Lafayette and
;I requc'sted that you provid-, appropriate mitigation in aczordance with Conditio~i6118 of
'-P,.~olution No. 3413. Approval ofyour request is subje= to the discretion of the Zoning
i Administrator, and if appealed,, the Planning Commission and City Council. Shc~uld this
'l project be dcniccl, thc obligation to mitigate th= parking and circulation deficiency w~m~d still
· , ty ' ' ,, p ' p ~ that pro?o,ed ~Id. idonaI! p.krking
l:mbli¢ hcar~g proems. We would ~trongly m¢ourag¢ you
. to me~ wirh the property:
'ii. md r,~ident~ to discu~ yaur proj,¢t m~d po~$ibty allay their concerr~ prior to a uMic
...!
~e~.t 5y
·
714 77:-' 8120; Oct-13-~-q 3'32P~;
· ' MrJ Stanaland
;i October 7, 1998 ..
·
:. Page 2
·
..
·
· $0 that thc Community Development Department may'consider you to be in ¢ompli~
.:~" Condition 6.18 of Resolution No. 3413, plea.se submit ail requested materials by
'~1998. Pleas= contact me so that I can arr~ge, to m=:t you and personally ac¢C"l
· resubmittzl.. If you have an:), questions or concerns related to this matter, plezse' contai::
'i~:(714) 573-3]23.
: .
:
·
·
_
·
·
·
·; Sinqerely,
..
~ Kaxen Peterson
'Associate Planner
.!
'Attactuncnts:
1
:i
I
"!
.,
I'
:!
1
.I
·
t~x,Sibit A- Comments and Corrections
Daniel Fox, AICP, Senior Planner
..'- with.
~er 27,
It your
mc at
i
714 754 9120; Oct-13-g8
EXHIBIT A
COMMENTS AND CORRECI'IONS
CONDITION.AL USE PERMIT 98-022 A.ND DESIGN P,.E¥IEW 98-026
COM.~UNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
·
planning Division
·
(')
(-) 1.2
1.3
1.4
1.5
1.6
Please provide eight (8) sets of revised plans, stapled and ·folded to 8 ?:" x
11".
·
·
Provide a parking analysis that evaluates how thc provision of additic
parking ,,,,'itl address the misting parking m~d circulalion deficiency.:
parking m~-lysis should be' prepared by a California Registered
Engineer and/or California Registgred Civil Engineer experienced ir~ {his
type of analysis. T,'m analysis should also identify how Conditions 6414,
6.I5, 6.16, and 6.18 of Resolution No..3413 (attached) hagc been
implemented. Be sure to include information related to pm-king op~ali~ns
and restrictions in effect for thc entir~ cen~er (e.g., valet service, 'ti'me
restrictions, etc.). This information should be provided in a narrativ~i
illustrated on a site plan. !
:I
.
Employee-only parking is a more appropriate use for the proposed pa~qng
area. Valet service may be too disruptive to adjacmt ~sidential Uses,
espex:i~y in tbs late evening hours. Please modi~ the plan
Please provide a site plan that shows the entire crater, including
~d numbers of existing ~nd proposed parking spar. es. The plan stl:o~Id
¢leariv show points of arxess ~o the retail spae. e.s from the
parking area. All masem~ts should be shown and identified on th~
plan. Provide written eviden~.e from each agency that holds an
that they support proj~t approval and implementation.
.4. four (4) foot wid, land,cape area is proposed between the ~idcwall d
p~rking ,p~. Sin¢~ this area i$ loc2ted to the rear of' ihe center, it
be appropriate to reduce tln., width of th* planter and iacrmse the wid
the 20' dr/ye aisle. A number of bollard~ could be installed to defin
boundm'y between the parking area ~nd sidewalk.
:,
The propos..~l plan shows a total of thirty-seven (37) parking ,paces Wi~ a
flime:~ion of eight (8) feet by nineteen 09) feet. If the landscape pl,ar~t~ er
is r~uced as noted in 01.4, each parking space should be 9' by 20'
no overhang.
.
I
Face 3:'~
ExJfibit A
October 7, 1998
page 2
.(*)
.
(') 1.9
(*) l.lO
(c) 1.11
Building Divi.,eion
(*) 2.1
2.2
714 734 £:2:3; Oct-13-G9 .3:33P:,~;
Provide a se.x:fion d~l of tko proposed sidewalk/multi-use trail, p~
~aee~, and drive aisle ~nd the existing parking mca. This will help cia
how the existing improvements ,,,,'ill transition into lhe proposed area.
ing
rif'y.
The County of Orange Public Facilities & R~ources Department indii: ttes
that the proposed seven (7) foot wall~'ay is of adequat,,- wid~ to
accommodate a trail use (see comment 5.1). Please indicate on th~ ;;ilo
plan where the trail would be accommodated within the remainder c~tS. the
center. [
On the site plan, indicate the location of proposed lighting fiX~'re~.
Pro'ride a separate d:ta/l of the proposed light fixtures.
On the sit, plan, indicate the location of proposed walls and pro~ a
seztion detail. Section 9271(2) requires a solid masom3' wall, six (6t '.feet
and eight (8) inchm in height, to be constructed on the boundary be~,ien
commercial ~ad r"..sidmtial prope/lies. ·
Resolution No. 3414 approved Variance 95-011 dloMng are. ducti~ or )
require~ spaces from 327 pm'king spaces to 241 parking spaces.
appm. val of Conditional Use ?ennit 9g-022 and Design Rev/aw 9~{4}26
an.cl, mst~llation of thirty-seven (37) parking spaces will pmially f~.~ll
Mmgation Measure 6.18 of R, solution No. 3414 which required j:he
pmvi,sion of additional parking up to the minimum numar require~t [for
th, aggmga~.e of shopping cent= uses. The provision of additional pa/k!ng
spaces shall not be used to increase or intensify' restsur~,-'tt scafir~ or
commerciaYretail square footage. ; r----"
Provide a sire plan that shows the number and location of parking $~aces
for the emir= commercial center and include the number of pa.-king spa[es
accessible to disabled pe~o~. Additional ac. eessible parking spaces inlay
be req ,uir~ b~ed on ~he total numbe, r of exisi/ng and proposed pa~Jng
Provme d-mis of outdoor It nn m the ar-kin ~
· .-' '. , 'gh i. g ' p "g areas, l~dsc~¢ ~zas.
on th, build~,gs ~d at ~tr'anee doors as required by the City of Tb.~tin'
Sezu~ty Ordinance. Since lighting will bo of conz.'~m to adj~c~t
residenta, it is su~ested that s--veral low watt, ge lighting bollards or ~5~
Exh/bit A
0ctobr. r 7, 1998
Page 3
(c) .2.3
(c) 2.a
li~ting smndarfls be used instead of the two lighting standards sho~V.l"n on
the plm.
When submitting for a bui!ding permit, submi~ £om- sets of plans anc~
sets ofsoils reports.
·
All ~m'zding, drainage, vegetation and circulation ~haIl comply with ".he
City of Tustin Grading Mmual. All strut sections, curbs, gun,rs,
sidewa~3:s, lighting, and. storm drains shall comply with o~-~;ite
improvement standm'ds. Any deviations shall be brought to ~hz attention
of thc Building Offichl ~d a request for approval shall be submilts'xl in
writing prior to approval..
:
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
(') 3.1 Submit a metes and bounds description of each parcel and an exla bit
which clearly shows th, configuration and dimensions of each parcel.
!
(*) 3.2 Provide v,,ritten authorization from the Ot/ange County Sanitation Di~tl'mt
that cons~maztion over their e~ement will be allowed;
ORANGE COUNTy .FIRE AUTHORITY
(*) 4.1 Plot the location of existing on-site and off-site building footpfi~ in
relation to E'~e proposed parking lot area.
·
COUNTY OF ORANGE PUBLIC FACIL_ITIES 8: R.ESOURCES DEP.M1TMEN~_
.t
(") 5.1 The proposed seven (7)' foot walkway is of adequate widt~t to
accommodate a trail use. However, it is not Clear how the existing
walkway ,,,,'itl connect to the proposed waIkway. It i$ sugge~ed p~,v'ng
part of the Im~dscaping at the north end of the existing pm'king I~ to
5.2
6.1
provide a tr-ansition betwema thc zxisting md proposed walkway,. '
A g~te should .be provided at the north end of the proposed walkwi' to
provide a future connection to the County trail.
!
I
Plezse submit 5;25.00 in conjunction with the next ~ubmittal for pa .~nt
of fee~ for przpm'ation of a Notice of Exemption.
~aGe 5!~
:1
~ExhJbit A
.October 7, 1998
Page 4
6.2
·
(l) 6.3
714 7,34 B;23; 0ct-13.~ 3:34P'-,{;
applicable fees, including but not limited to the following. Payment ~ ~all'
be required based upon those rates in effect at the time ofpayment ani:t are
subject to change. ,
,
A. Building plan check and permit fees to th-, Comrmuity
Development Department based on th= most current schedule.
:.
B. Orange County Fire Authority plan check and inspection
the Community DeVelopment Department based upon the st
current schedule.
!
V,'i~in £orty-e,.'~t (48) hours of approval of 'the subject larojectI he
applic~t shall deliver to'thc
cashier's check 5ommunity Development D~artment a
payable to th,. COUNTY CLERK' in the amou_4t of
$38.00 (thirty eight dollars) to enable the City to file th= appro~riiLte
environ.mental doc.u, memation for the project. If within such fortv-~:i
~8) ,hour peri_'od that applicant has not delivered to the Corn~u?w
~evetopmmt Department the above-noted check, the statute of limita:d
:or any interested party to =Mllenge the environmcnt~ ' '"
determination
under the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act coutd
sJgni ficantly Icngth~cd.
Pace
Communi~ Deveiopment Department
...... City
NOTICE TO
COM2~UNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT CUSTOMERS
of Tustin
300 Centennial Way
Tustin, CA 92780
(714~- 573-3100
The City of Tustin operates on a 9~80 work schedule. This schedule results in our City Hall being open from
7:30 a.m. to 5:30 p.m. Monday thru Thursday. Friday schedule will alternate: 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., one
-Friday, and offices closed on the following Friday. See back for calendar.
The Building Division holds staff meetings on Wednesdays fi-om 4:00 p.m. to 5:00 p.m.. Staffare
unavailable during this meeting. Inspectors will be available by phone from 7:00 a.m. to 7:30 a.m. with field
inspections commencing shortly after 7:30 a.m. InspeCtors may also be reached by phone at the end of the
day.
PHONE LIST
Elizabeth Bi~sar. k Director 573-3106
Rita Westfield Assistant Director 573-3106
BUILDING DIVISION TITLE PHONE
JoAnn Kang Som:~ Building Technician 573-3132
H. Leighton Muckey Building Technician 573-3131
Chuck Dcfruiter Building Inspector 573-3137
Rick Millan Building Inspector 573-3 I36
Robin Mundy Building Inspector. 573-3138
Kic Lazaro Plan Checker 573-3133
$oroush Rahbari Plan Checker 573-3120
Building Official 573-3130
BUILDING INSPECTION REQUEST LINE-RECORDER
PROVIDE PEKMIT NUMBER. JOB .M)DKESS AND TYPE OF INSPECTION NEEDED
373-3141
PL&N~ING DP,'ISION TITLE PHONE
Planning Counter General Information Line 573-3140
Dan Fox ' Senior Planner 573-3115
Loft Ludi Associate Planner 573-3127
Karcn Pcterson Associate Planner 573-313
Scott Reeksfin Associate Planner 573-3016
Minoo Ashabi Assistant Planner 573-3126
Brad Evanson Assistant Planner 573-311 g
Mark Galvan Code Enforcement Officer 573-3134
Felix Garcia Code Enforcement Officer ' 573-3135
Ran Johnson Code Enforcement Officer 573-3122
C-corec Wie~nger Code Enforcement Offimr 573-3149
REDEVELOPMENT TITLE PHONE
i-'n Drau~hon Senior Pmje~ Manager 573-3121.
Dana Ogdon Senior Project Manager 573-3116
Dave Gottlicb Senior Proje~ Man.er 573-3128,
BUSINESS LICENSE DMSION TITLE PHONE
Bva'bara Reyes 'Business License Technician 573-3144
OR.~NGE COl .'ATY FIRE AUTHORITY
L".spccfions 559-7537
C-eneral Officw'Headquarmrs 74~-0400
ORANGE COUNTY HEALTH CARE AGENCY
Environmental Health Division 66%3600
Public Health Services 66%3737
OR.M~IGE COL,'N'rY SANITATION
General Offi~ 962-2411
IRVINE RANCTI WATER DISTRICT
General Ofiee 453-5300
SOUTH COAST AIR QUALITY MA.NGEMENT DISTRICT
General Office (909)396-2000
TUSTLN WATER WORKS
General Office 573-3375
SEE BACK FOR CALENDAR
EXHIBIT A
COMMENTS .~N'D CORRECTIONS
CONDITION.&L USE PEthMIT 98-022 .~ND DESIGN REVIEW 98-026
·
·
COMSIUNITY DEVELOPIVIENT DEPARTMENT
Planning Division
(*) 1.1
Please provide eight (8) sets of revised plans, stapled and folded to 8 ½"
11".
(*) 1.3
(*) 1.4
(*) 1.5
(*) 1.6
Provide a parking analysis that evaluates how the provision of additional
parking 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 tln.is
type of analysis. The analysis should also identify how Conditions 6.14,
6.15, 6.16, and 6.18 of Resolution No..3413 (attached) have been
implemented. Be sure to include information related to parking operations
and restrictions in effect for the entire center (co.=., valet service, time
restrictions, etc.). This' information should be provided in a narrative and
illustrated 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 modify the plan accordingly.
Piece provide a site plan that shows the entire center, including location
and numbers of existing and proposed parking spaces. The plan should
clearly show. points of access to the retail spaces from the proposed
parking area. All easements should be shown and 'identified on the site
plan. Provide written 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 incre~e the width of
the 20' drive aisle. A number ofbollards could be installed to define the
boundary between the parking area and sidewalk.
The proposed plan shows a total of thirty-seven (37) parking spaces with a
dimension of eight (8) feet by nineteen (19) feet. If the landscape planter
is reduced as noted in #1.4, each parking space should be 9' by 20' with
no overhang.
·
o!uticn No
·
·
·
(!) 6.11 Authorization for the on-site sale of beer and win= '(DSC
License Type "23") is contincent upon the .use of the
subject premises remaining a r~staura~t. Should this use·
change, authorization for this use permit shall become
null and void.
(7) 6.12 There shall be no billiard tables, video ~ames, dancinc
or live entertainment on the premises at any time, unless
~p.6roval of a Conditional Use Permit is obtained for
these activities.
(7) 6.13 Ail p~rsons selling alcoholic beverages shall be 18 years
of a~e or oIder and .shall be supervised by someone 2!
years of age' or older. A supervisor shall be present in
same area as point of sale.
(2) 6~'~4 All non-disabled employees and store owe. ers/ manacers cf
the shopping center shall be required to park in t~e rear
of the shopping center to provide additional park~n~ in
the front. Notification of this requirement shall
written into all tenant'leases. ·A copy of a standard
lease form with said !an~ua~e incorporated therein shall
be submitted to. the Community Deve!oDment DeDartmenZ
prior to the issuance of a Certificate~of Occupancy fer
the proposed restaurant/microbrewery.
(2) 6.15 Prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy for
the proposed restaurant/microbrewery, direction~! si~na~e
shall be provided to inform patrons that parking is
available in the rear of the shoDDin~ center. The
installation and maintenance of dire~iona! si~na~e shall
comply with Section 9409C of the. Tustin City Code Sion
Re~u!ations. A directional 'si~na~e' plan shall ~e
submitted to the Community Deve!oDment for aD~rova!,
bui!din~ permits shall be issued D~or to tke
installation of directional si~na~e.
(2) ..~6~°i~ D~ring'peak months 'such as December or at oth=~ times
as .determined necessary in writing by-the Public Works
Director and/or Community 'Development Director, based
upon on-.site traffic and circulatioh issues, ~!et°~
Pa~king3~or ~he.proposed.Tustin Brewing Company shall~e
Dr~-~'i~?- The NieuDort·i7 Yestaurant curre~t!y has va
ser-~lce'provided from approximately 1!:00 a.m. to !0:00
p.~. daily; valet service for both uses may
consolidated. The property owner shall receive written
notice from the Public Works Director and/or Community
Development Director at such time that an increase in
valet service is deemed warranted. Said increase in
valet service .shall be provided' for the time periods ·
specified by the Public Works Director and/or Community
Exhibit A
Resolution No. 3413
~=ce 6
·
·
.
Development Director and shall be imD!emented immediately
upon notification.
(2) .6'17 ~ the time of Plan .Check submittal,. A rAvised ~'i~e-~'
~" ~'_estrlcuea' ~ ' parking plan "'shall. be submitted to"'the
Community Development Department for approval. Prior to
submittal to the Community. Deve!oDment Department, the
property owner shall provide, written notice oz the
~roDosed time-restricted parking, revisions to the
LaFayette tenants, and shall obtain written
acknow!ed~,ent from the .tenants that: 1) they have
received notification.of the proposed revisions; and 2)
that they concur with the proposed revisions. The
property owner shall then provide .the original signed
acknow!ed_cment forms to the Community' Development
Deo=r~m_n~ as evidence that a majority o. the
Lafayette tenants concur with the proposed revisions to
the parking lot time restrictions. Possible
modifications to the existing plan may include the
following:
a ·
Removing time restrictions after 6:00 p.m.
Extending ~ime restrictions on a portion of the
parking spaces located in the front-central area of
the shopping center, excluding those spaces
directly adjacent to store entrances, to one hour,
thus requiring patrons who would be in any of the
restaurants for more' than an hour to park in the
rear lot adjacent to 'the westerly property bounda-~Y
or use the valet parking.
(2) .~6{i'8%if, at any time ~n 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
traffid oroblem exists at the Plaza LaFayette shopping
denier a~ a result of the insufficient on-site parking
availability, and it has be~n confirmed that the subject
property is in compliance with mitigation measures !
through 4 above, then the Community Development and
Public Works Departments may re.c~ire the property owner
to smCmmit an uodated parking.demand analysis and/or
traffic study, a%'n0 expense, to the City, Within the time.
schedule stipulated by the City; the property owner may
delegate ~n~s respon~ibi!ity, through lease negotiations,
to any tenant operating under Conditional Use Pe-~mit 95-
019 and Variance 95-011.- If said study indicates that
the~= ~= inadequate parking or a traffic p~ob!em, the
proDer=y owner shall'be requi~ed to provide additional
mitigation measures to be reviewed and approved by the
'Community Development and Public Works Departments. Said
~ A
lution No. 3413
~ 7
mitigation may include, ~but not be limited
fol!owins:
to, the
a ·
b,
Establish alternate hours of operation.
Provision of additional parking as needed, up to
minimum number re?~ired for the aggregate of
shopping center uses pursuant to Zoning Code
standards, by purchase and/or lease of property
within 500 feet of the property or provision of the
needed parking on site The securing of off-site
Parking would recurs= aomrova! of - revi~=d
Variance· - --- -- = -_
·
Failure to ade~ruate!y r==oond to
_mp__~=~.~ m~t~gat~on measu~=s wi~- ~= ~.- - ~_=n~ to
- 'tt~ ~- 9rounes rot !n!t!at!on of revoc- '
.-oc__u__s
s5-0~9 - ~ ~-~ =~u uonGzczonal Use P=~m{t
(!) 7.1
Prior to issuance of any building permits, oayment sha!]
be -a~_ of all ]{c:%]= - -
~-~= ado ...... fees, including b~t not limited
to the fo!!owin~[ Payment shall be re_cmired based uoon
those ~ates in effect at the time of payment and 5~=
subject to change.
A.
Building plan check and permit fees to the
Community Deve!cpment Deoartment based on the most
current schedule.
(!) 7.2 Within forty-eight (48) hours of approval of the subjedt
(S) ' project, the aoolicant shall deliver to the Community
Development De~rtment, a cashier's check payable to th~
COo.--NTY CLERK 'in the amount of $25.00 (twenty-five
dollars) to enable ~'=
~n_ 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 marry to challenge the 'environmental
determinatio~ under the provisions of the California
Environmental Quality Act could be significantly
lengthened. -
· i
gmaheim
-~- A~. L RD.
0
$ :a d[urn
Tustin
Existing Trail
Branch'Trail
0
AVE..
TAFI' AW.r_. V ~ -'---"" ~ TAFT AVE.
~[~1 ~l~[~/--- _ Jl ...vi//, f~[f! --~ ........
~ Orange
Railroad Right-of-Way Purchase
ilii111111II
Railrc, ad Right--of-Way Purchase
and Bikeway Development
Pro~sed Interim On-Street
Bikeway Connection
Pro.::esed Final Off-Str~t
~ikeway Conned, ion
Major DmEnations
Schools
A:tivi~ Centers
_
Transit Centers
· o
--~'\': .... /' I .....
· -.~ ~ · . ~ ~ ~'/ -.
..
20.
Attachment F
COUNCIL EXHIBIT
MINUTES - APRIL 12, 1999
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 3662
MINUTES
TUSTIN PLANNING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
APRIL 12, 1999
CALL TO ORDER:
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE:
7:00 p.m., City Council Chambers
Commissioner Davert
INVOCATION:
Commissioner Browne
ROLL CALL:
Commissioners:
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 VVillkom, Associate Planner
Lori Ludi, Associate Planner
Minoo Ashabi, Assistant Planner
Doug Anderson, Senior Project Manager ~ Transportation
Kathy Martin, Recording Secretary
PUBLIC CONCERNS:
CONSENT CALENDAR:
(Limited to 3 minutes per person for items not on the agenda.)
1. Minutes of the March 22. 1999 Pianninq Commission Meeting.
Commissioner Davert moved, Commissioner Kawashima seconded, 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 & Desiqn
Review 98-007 a request to construct a 1,541 square foot drive-through oil change
facility with two work bays and indoor/outdoor waiting areas. 'The project is located
Council EXhibit B
Planning Commission IV,
April 12, 1999
Page 2
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
Recommendation
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:
m
Continued' Public Hearing: 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 for 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 parking 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 his concem 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 Skeiton, 14571 Beeson Lane, stated his opposition to the trail proposal due to
noise, homeless, vandalism, etc. related to a trail.
Paul Geary, 14551 Beeson 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 Mi,
April 12, 1999
Page 4
o,
Denise lidefonso, requested that the traffic stu~ly be disCarded due to mathematical errors
and asked if the Brewing Company was in violation of their resolution.
Justina Willkom noted th'at 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-
by the speaker.
Transportation, restated the errors'pointed out
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 Warren Avenue.
Paul Sapak, 14512 Ciarissa Lane, stated his opposition to the trail due to public safety
issues.
Sherri.Miiler, 2800 Keller Drive, 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 incurs by having people on his property from the County
trail and is there any proposal or plan to compensate the property owner for the eas_ement
that is being requested.
Lois Bobak stated that the question is inappropriate because Ms. Miller is attending the
meeting as a resident.
Commissioner Davert stated that the Commission should disregard all 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 29t~ as a representative of the
County of Orange.
Deann Santos, Woodcrest Apartments resident, stated her opposition 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 Sheriff's Department are
routed back and forth and deliveries for Tustin Brewing Company are conducted in the
alley next to apartments.
Planning Commission k
April 12, 1999
Page 5
~es
George Haitman, 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 parking lot and
noted that the parking is adequate.
David Knowiton, 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 iow 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 wdting. _
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 Mi,
April 12, 1999
Page 6
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 1 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 staff's observations, 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 property
owners be given a number to reach someone .if there is a problem.
Commissioner. Davert stated his Opposition to Condition 2.11 and asked the City Attomey
if the City is responsible for the safety of employees.
Planning Commission M,,..,,es
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.
Commissioner 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 M~,
April 12, 1999
Page 8
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 98-022 and Design Review 98-026. Motion
carried 3-1. Commissioner Kawashima opposed.
The Planning Commission recessed at 8:~t6 p.m.
. The Planning Commission reconvened at 8:58 p.m.
1
Conditional Use Permit 98-037 a request to establish a health club within the
existing commercial center known as El 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 ZAPPAS 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 turns from Newport Aven.ue onto E!
Camino Real would be affected.
Doug Anderson responded that there would be no turning 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.
RESOLUTION NO. 3662
]4
20
2!
22
24
25
26
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 FAYE'f-¥E
SHOPPING CENTER AT 13011 NEWPORT AVENUE AND TO THE WEST
OF 12901-12943 NEWPORT AVENUE.
The Planning Commission of the City of Tustin does hereby resOlve as follows:
The Planning Commission finds and determines as follows:
ko
Bo
C.
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.
Do
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 County
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 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.
.
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 permitted to count to
accommodate' additional parking intensive uses, such as restaurants or.
medical uses, in the shopping center.
o
The additional parking spaces wiil indirectly provide more parking for
patrons of the shopping center, thereby mitigating parking demand
10
20
26
Resolution No. 3662
Page 2
Bo
He
impacts as required by Condition 6.18 of Planning Commission
·
Resolution No.- 3413 ¢¢adance No. 95-011).
Se
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 Planning
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 Pl-~nning
Commission has considered at least the following items:
1. Height, bulk and area of buiidings~
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.
6,
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.
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.
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 Quali.ty Sub-element.
ill
The Planning Commission hereby approves Conditional Use Permit No. 98-0~ and
Design Review 98-026 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 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.
Resolution No. 3662
Page 3
PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Planning Commission of the City of Tustin at a re~:ular
meeting held on the 12"' day of April, 1999. ~
Planning Commission Secretary
12
20
2!
25
26
29
/I~_~NTIOUS
ChairlSe~r~on
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF ORANGE )
CITY OF TUSTIN )
I, Elizabeth Binsack, the undersigned, 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 98-026
GENERAL
(1) 1.1
(1) 1.2
(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 Developme.n.t
D.epartment, 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 ioL
ao
Any and ali 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 CODE/S
(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 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 wail 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)
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
Secudty Ordinance and shall provide a minimum of one (1) footcandle 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.
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 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.
Exhibit A
Resolution No. 3662
Conditions of Approval for CUP 98-022 & DR 9,8-026
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
Ali parking areas and waikways for the parking lot expansion area shall be steam
cleaned and maintained free of trash and debts 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 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.
2.9 This condition was deleted.
2.10 This condition was deleted.
(4) 2.11
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.
(4) 2.12
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 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:
ao
Reduce hours of use including, but not limited to, peak hours only.
Retain additional se~dty 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)
(1)
3.8
3.9
(1) 3.10
3.11
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.'
Within forty-five (45) days from the date of the approval of CUP 98-022 and DP, 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 agreements 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:
ao
c.
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
Exhibit A
Resolution No. 3662
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 ali 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 ~he 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:
(5) -
4.2
1994 Uniform Building Code with California Amendments
1997 Uniform Mechanical Code with Califomia Amendments
1997 Uniform Plumbing Code with Califomia 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 pe?mit), 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)
4.3
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)
4.4
4.5
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.
(5).
4.6
in compliance with the Department of Justice (Office of the Attomey General) the
designer, architect or engineers proposed grading plan must comply with the
Amedcan 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 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.
All applicable building, grading and private improvement plan check and
permit fees to the Community Development Department.
be
Orange County Fire Authority plan-check and inspection fees to the
Community Development Department based upon the most current
schedule.
C.
Within forty-eight (48) hours of approval of the subject project, the applicant
shall deliver to the Community Developme. nt 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 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.
COUNCIL EXHIBIT C
MATERIALS SUBMITTED AT APRIL 12, 1999 PLANNING
COMMISSION MEETING
HOMEOWNERS
-.
PETITION AGAINST
COUNTY BIKE TRAIL
\.VT ARE HOMEOWNERS WHO LIVE BETVcTEN THE
NORTH END OF PLAZA LAFASqET'IT'S P.~URKING LOT
EXPANSION ANT) WARREN AVENUT. THE REAR OF OUR
PROPERTIES ,ABUT THE RAILROAD PROPERTY ON WHICH
TI-~ COU'i-NTY WANTS TO BUILD A BIKE TRAIL.
WE FI~.\:fLY BELIEVE THAT BUILDING A TRAIL BEHIND
OUR HONIES WILL SUBJECT US AND OLTR PROPERTY TO
VANDALISM AND CRIMINAL ACTIVITY. WE LIVED WITH
THIS PROBLEM FOR MANY YEARS, AND %-HEN THE.
FENCES WENT UP AND STOPPED THE THROUGH
TRAFFIC, THE PROBLEM STOPPED!
SOME OF US LEASE PART OF THE tLAILROAD PROPERTY
FOR USE AS OUR BACKYARDS. WE HAVE BUILT FENCES
AND INC~D EXPENSES IMPROVING THE PROPERTY.
WHEN '~¥T PURCHASED OUR HOMES, SOME OF US VvTRE
LED TO BELIEVE THAT WE COULD PUS~.CH. ASE THIS
PROPERTY.
XYT HAVE NLADE OFFERS TO PURCHASE ~ PROPERTY
FROM THE NORTH END OF PLAZA LAFAYETTE'S
PROPOSED PARKING LOT TO WARREN AVENUE, BUT
OUR OFFERS HAVE BEEN IGNORED. IF ~ OWNTR'S OF
PLAZA LAFAYETTE LET THE TtL~.I-[. GO THROUGH THEIR
PROPERTY THE COUNTY WILL BUY THE R.A/I. ROAD
PROPERTY AND EVICT US.
UNDER NO CIRCUMSTANCES DO WE WANT THIS BIKE
TRAIL IN OUR BACK YARDS I
· Council Extfibit D
/-.//_..// ,o ,o
PEIITION SIGNITURES
NAME
ADDRESS
50~'- o-7~-o .
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 Center currently experiences occasional parking deficiencies."
"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 config'ured 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.]
Requked spaces per Code is 306, which "is not achievable on the project site as currently
configured" [even after proposed expansion].
Turnover survey conducted during highest usage hours determined hi,est parking occupancy
was 205.8 spaces, leaving 26 spaces available.
Theoretical worst-ease conditions still left 8 spaces available.
Many store owners [including TBC] currently park directly in front of their establishments.
Valet parking backs 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~ess/e~ess blocked? What about fire and emergency vehicles?]
Study suggests tandem valet parking during peak periods to achieve Code requirements, even with
expansion. [This highly theoretical solution would further congest area between building, making it
even more impossible 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 trucks 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," laz3' 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 lO: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 already 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 gnard, 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 landscape 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 writing on front wall by TBC.
Ongoin~current infractions include:
· Blocking Woodcrest's driveway with delivery trucks
· Parking in red zones
· BD employees parking in Woodcrest's driveway
· Double-parking of delivery tracks 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 "required" 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.9
· 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~ meeting, expressed an obvious
disregard for the apartment, and condo residents. He also misrepresented the facts (see Possible
Alternatives), 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 legitimate 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 vdth 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 of both.
· 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-tives to the proposed parking lot should be thoroughly explored
before appro~4ng the Conditional Use Permit..
Branch 'Trail
Extension of the Branch Trail south of 17th Street is strongly supported by the Foothill Community
Association. Although supported by many Woodcl, est 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 Elementary' School.
On the other hand, it would also subject the apartments and homes to several of the same security concerns
as the parking lolx While it 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 based on liability concerns. In the March 29~h meeting, he contemptuously
suggested the trail be routed through a (currently nonexisting) gate through Wooderest Apartments,
directly in front of our apartments and behind carports, to provide access to Newport Avenue. 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 tVoodcrest
Woodcrest Apartments are owned, not by an impersonal corporation, but by private individuals, Dr. and
Mrs. Richard Ramage. They've taken Woodcrest from near-slum conditions 25 years ago to a model of
comfortable, affordable community living. They've c0ntinuously 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.
Woodcrest 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 published a very positive story about us on December 3, 1995.
Woodcrest has never asked for, nor expected, any special considerations from 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.' If Woodcrest declines, so
does the Plaza. Further, our 100 families, who now patronize the Plaza, will likely.take our business
elsewhere, hastening the decline.
Conclusion
One look at the proposed parking lot expansion, which inserts itself like a dagger into a Residential zone
directly between high-density family homes, should make apparent the unsuitability of the project.
· · H~ 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 measures cited 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 currentparking provisions ai'e adequate.
· A reasonable alternative parking arrangement has not been pursued.
· Finally, the owners of Wooderest APartments and the homes along Clarissa and Beeson Lanes are
eager and able to purchase the right-of-way for the increased protection of and enjoyment by our
families.
Business that make bad decisions fail. The Plaza and the City of Tustin knowingly made bad business
decisions by twice approving new restaurants for a location with far fewer parking spaces than the City's
own Parking Code permits. Now they want the Plaza's neighbors to pay for these mistakes. -
Please help us protect Our li0mes~ .~.~.~ '.-. "'". ~'~
Ii:i:;:::!:;:;
· 0 0
mi
:: .: .: ..... =========================
:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
.:.:.:.; :.:.:.::'.; :.:::..::.:-;
;,:.;.:... :.:. :.....:
.:E.!'!:i:!'i:i :-! i.! ::!:':
· :.:-:.: :.:.:.:.. :.:-. :q...- ·
6~ C;'
12-
..,~:~:,,.
I I
C,
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
'?"i .......
i !
!
II
I
II
I
II
=================================
........ =============================
........================================== ==================================
::::::::": ':::: ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
:: ::. : ::::::::::::::::::::::::: :':
:::::iZ:.'.: : ~'<~::<~::~.<'?~<~:.~;'. :::....': . ~
· : .
..... 1~::'" , .
C.
.:.;...:.:.....:.:. · .:.,%..
:.:.: :.:.:.?.: :.:: :.: :.:
..:.:.:.:.:.': :.: :.:.:.:.: :.
I I
! !
Il
===================================
====================================
===================================
· :::i:i:i::!:i:!:i:i:!:i:i:E:!" ===================================
==================================== ..i!!ii~i!iii!~!!iiii!i~;!:!:i;!i:::'
=================================== ·
· ::ii: ·: ': .
:.:.:,:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.1.-.:.1...
................. ========================
::::'::: :7 ..: ~
· . =====================================
===========================
".~-,-,~,,~:.i::::::::': i: i'-':: ':'.-'~
:::::::::::::::: ;.,.:..',~%..%..,~:..~>~:::::.:.:::: ::::::: ,.~:..~
:::¢- - .: . ,~:::~:::
.~--N~',~' .%\.~.':¥:',:-..~:2::::::~.;::::;::::: :;:::::::::::::: .:.: ;,:
'~%"W~' :':'s" ..............................................
~.~×~,:v;~4-.-:::,:;:;;':,;.;,;.;.;,;.:.:,:-: + ;+;-:.: o:; ;.:::
~ ~.,,.;;.4,q ~*:::;;;. ::':, ;.';;;;;;;;;,:,:.;,:.:-:..:-:+:- - ..- - -
~i ~s,:,:.~?:-:.:.;.:.:..',;.;,;.;.::::::;;::.;:::;: :-: ;-::;:: :. -:
,,%,~,,%::~?.-'.,::~i.?.'f::YfY::? ;.:
~,,,~,..-. ....... ... .............................. .:. ~
>,X-:e.:.q--:--:.:.:-:- · .: ........ :--. -- -:: .'
: :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
=============================================================: :': ;':: I
.~.~x,~,!,:::S!:i:.:~:-'.'::~:i:~:i:i:::E:i:i:i:i:i:i:i:i:;:;:i:;.:;: ::: :-
"~x~.%~%~)'E::!.".:i:':-".iiS!:M:i::: :: 8: :?i: :: :':. 4 - ::':
~.,.,, ........ - .......................................... I
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
i;::" '~: ;':::: :":::: :;:;::::::: ::::::::::::::::::::: 5: 5:;;: :.
~i-~i:.-::-:.?::;i?:?:~::!?:::::!iiiiii~i~::f:~iii::ii!iiiii:i:::;f:!;:: :s- /
~%%%~:.~',,:::i:.~:'.-~:i0 :i~:i: :i:i:i:!:i!iiiiii!ii~;!~!:i:i:i::::.:.:-:::, '/
,~"':>"":':':':':'>>:':":'":""':"':':":::<:::::::" /
~x'~-'.,:-:b;:. - - -:-:-:.:.: ......... : ......... '- .' ......
I
,%~×*'-',.:+~ 444-;.:-;..'.."-:.;.:.;,'.;.;,;..:-:- · - -:.:.::: ::;: :
~.~-'.~&~:s~:!:?.!:: ::: ::: :i:!:i:i:~:i: :i:s: :::: :::: i! ?:: '/
'~ ~;~ .,'-:.:-:-':.,:-:.>;.:-:-:.:-'-:.:..'.>:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.: +:.:...:
~,~\\\x>~:.::~-..'..:.:.:.;.:-:.>:.:.:.:+:.:o:.:.;.:<.:.:.-+:< .:-..-.- :-
· . :...:.:-:.:.:.:OFNv
.::i:i:M:E:i:i:i>::.::i:~
::
- :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
=============================
:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
·: :::::::::::::::::::::::::::
=============================
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
· : 7: ::::::::::::::::::::
::;:: :::::::::::::::::::::::::
i: ii'i:i:i:i:i.i:i:i:!:i:i:!:!-'.'.'."
================================
· : ::::::::::::::::::::::::
.- :,:,:.: +:.:.:.;.:.:,..
:: ============================
:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
:: :!:;:!:!:i:i-:-:.:.:.:.:.:-:.,:
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
...:,:,:,:.:,:.:.;.:.:.:.:.:.:.>'q
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
· :-:-;-:-:.:-:.;.:-:oN-:.:.~-;
::.:.:.:.:.;.:.;:.:.:.:,:.:.:.:.~
:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
===================================
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
.::.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:-:.:.:.:.>
- .,:.:,:,:-:.:-:-:-:,:.:::-:-:-~,x
:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
!!i'i:::i:!:i::!:i:i:!:!:i:!:!:!:!~::
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
=====================================
:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::...._,...,~.~
:.::::: .......... .:::::::::.:.:.:.:..,~
. ===================================='""'"""
Ii
I
I
~ /I II ~ ~
II~ ~ II~
~ ~ I ~ ~I
/II ~
~ II
I ~ ~i1~ 1
/ ~ ll
I!
:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
===================================== '. ....
?'....
==============================
================================
I
II
II
I
I
II
PLAZA LAFAYETTE, LLC
13031 NEI4/PORTA VENUE, SUITE 200
T US TIN, CAL IFO RNIA '.
Telephone: (714) 734-8100
Facsbnile: (714)734-8120.
April 12, 1999
Planning Commission
City of Tustin
300 Centennial Way
Tustin, California.
COMMUNITY DEVELOPN!ENT
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 I997.
Several months thereafter 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 propert5,
to the east is in an unincorporated area of the county.
Potential uses of the parcel are extremely limited 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 boundary,
will not preclude future access to Plaza Lafayette from the proposed County Bike
Trail, if such a trail is built, nor does it effect alternate routes which are available.
We have met with county representatives Mr. Dickrnan, Ms. Miller and ~'. Hamilton on
several occasions and expressed our willingness 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 xvorkshop held on March 29th the owners, Dr. and Mrs. Ramage, 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
would 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~parating 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 facilities for
his tenants and his willingness to purchase a portion of the abandoned railroad right-of-
way to do so.
Also at the March 29t'~ 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 value of the Wood Crest Apartments. Dr. Ramage has already
indicated his willingness to install a gate. The driveways at the Wood Crest ~ apartments
are twenty-eight (28) feet wide and have a Iow volume of traffic which would be far safer.
for the bike riders than attempting to navigate the sometimes congested parking lots at
Plaza Lafayette. This alternative would alleviate the county's jurisdictional concerns
and allow it to exercise control over the entire length of the County Bike Trail.
Exhibits Attached
Exhibit 'A' County Trail Map & Proposed Alternate Route
Exhibit 'B'
Vm-ious Views of the Parcel & SurrOunding Properties
Exhibit 'C' Sample of Shopping Cans Used to Scale Walls
Planning Commission
April 1Z 1999
Page 3 of 4 Pages
Adequate Parking
A number of people have alleged that Plaza Lafayette 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
wail 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 wail. Children and teenagers currently use shopping carts to scale the
existing walls on both the east and w¢st 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 owner of the Nieuport 17 and management as to the number and
Planning Commission
.4pril 12. 1999
Page 4 of 4 Pages
location of such valet spaces. While we are willing to investigate revising the existing
parking plan, including providing valet parking for ail'patrons, we object' to these
requirements being imposed as'conditions of approval.
The Gate
We strongly object to the installation of a gate at the north boundary of the proposed
parking lot 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 Iot and their property
at risk. Such a gate would also provide an escape route should it be necessary for the
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~s between the projects
applied for and the installation of such a gate nor is there any nexus between the project
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 Plaza 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
JS:dm
stin _Branch
'Trail
·
o
COUNCIL EXHIBIT D
APPEAL LETTERS
FOOTHILL COI~[ML~'ITIES ASSOCLtTION
Secving "
~e 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 sou~t 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 agree.
The staff report to the Planning Commission makes no mention of that prior referral or
the results thereof. In fact, discussions between 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 extends south along Newport Avenue. The
present owner should l, unow all conditions of the property including the trail access zate
commitment. The design approved by the Planning Commission specifically delete~ that
access gate.
The staff report proposes to divert the trail onto Warren Avenue and along Newport
Avenue. This proposed trail diversion was 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
analyzed that trail diversion, it would be evident that Warren Avenue cannot prox4de a
safe trail location and that segment of Nev,-port Avenue cannot prox4de an area for trail
use. The Warren and Nevq~ort Avenue deficiencies are exacerbated by the two real estate
orr'ices at the comer of Warren and Newport which produce extensive on-street parkSng.
The approved design thwarts the trail traffic along the old railroad right-of-way and
infringes on the prescriptive easement that the surrounding community enjoys from the
many 3'ears of trail use on that right-of-way even before the 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 pa-king 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 shifts
at the various restaurants.-The adverse impacts from the hours of operation must be ·
considered and mitigated.
This appeal incorporates all previous written and verbal comments on this project.
In summation, the following minimal design modification are needed to partially reduce
the impacts of the commercial parking lot:
1.. 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.
41 Provide limits on the operating hours of the parking lot that pragmatically
reflect the businesses it serves and considers the adjoining properties.
Sincerely,
FOOU-~_ -L CO~SL~-ITIES ASSOCIATION
April 19, 1999
To: Tustin City Council
Regarding Planning Commission Meeting Meetings of April 12, 1999
Appeal of Planning Commission Resolution 3662, regarding Conditional Use
Permit 98-022 and Design Review 98-026
Appeal considerations:
· Planning Commission presented false and misleading statements to the
public.
· Failed to address the Safety Concerns of the adjacent residents.
· Failed to consider recommendations made by City Council regarding this
Conditional Use Permit at a previous council meeting.
Failed to. address the jurisdictional issues for safety in regards to Law
Enforcement.
Failed to allow the Public Forum with the equal amount of time allotted to
Applicant.
i would like to appeal this decision of the Planning Commission to the Members
of the City Council so they made address the issues and concerns that were
remised by the Planning Commission.
Respectfully submitted by;
George Haltman
Resident of Clarissa Lane
COUNCIL EXHIBIT E
PREFERRED TUSTIN BRANCH TRAIL ALTERNATIVE
SECTION
oo
T~M
IIIlIImllI
SECTION D
Collin~
Walnul
Chapman
La Veta
K~tell~
Orange
Gzrden Grate Fa3,
Index of Strip Maps
Proposed Off-Road Connections
S~.c_t~on 1: Wmrrm~n Ave. to 17th ST.
Section 2: Fmrt~aYen Ave. to Prospect Ave.
E,e.c!~on 3: Hand7 St. to Gla$$eil St.
Fmirhm~en
17th Streef
Pr=posed On-Road Connections
Sec.,tion A: Irvine Blvd. to Warren Ave.
S~,c, tion B: Railroad Right of Wa), to Wan~.m Rd.
Sect, ion C: Katella Ave. to er~ of ArVn Villa Wy.
S~,.ction D: Railroad Right of Wa), to S~nta Aha River Trail
Pro:>c, sed C)ff-Rc~md Trail D~veiorx'ne~
(W=hin Railroad Right of Way)
F' r = =.os e.--j On-StreW.
IlIlII
T,'-m ii Ty;>e
Uno.e, ."."nined
OOOOOO
Ezisting Off-Road Traml
Mac no~ to scale
SECTION C
Villa '
Park
)o Blvd.
SECTION B
SECTION A
Irvine
1 st Street
01(~ T0':,n
'-"uS:in
Main
Teal
Orange
SECTION 2
'Tustin
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:
Ao
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 Apdl 19, 1999 the Foothill Communities Association and George
Haltman appealed the Planning Commission's approval of the project.
Do
That Public hearing was duly called, noticed, and held on said appeal on May
3, 1999, by the City Council.
Bo
That the proposed use is allowed within the Multiple-Family Residential-District
(R-3), with the approval of a Conditional Use Permit.
Fo
That establishment, maintenance, and operation of a parking lot in a residential
distdct 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 imsacts on
adjacent properties.
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.
"6
Resolution No. 99-32
Page 2
Ho
E.
o
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).
o
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 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:
I. 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.
5. Location and method of refuse storage.
o
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.
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.
Il.
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.
]4
20
25
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 3"~ 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-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 3~ day of May, 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
(I) 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 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.
a.
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 corrections are ready to be picked up.
-
Ali 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. Ali 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) CEO. A MITIGATION
(3) UNIFORM BUiLDiNG CODE/S
(4) DESIGN REVIEW
(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 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 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)
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 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.
(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 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.
Exhibit A
Resolution No. 99-32
Conditions of Approval for CUP 98-022 & DR 98-026
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 ti-ash 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.
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 9~-
022.
Notwithstanding the provision of additional parking spaces, ali 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. 99-32
.Conditions of Approval for CUP 98-022 & DR 98-028
Page 4
(5) 3.4
(1) 3.8
(1) 3.9
(1) 3.10
*** 3.11
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.
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 a.m.
until 6:00 p.m., Monday through Fdday, 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 Develop-merit
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.
Within forty-five (45) days of the approval of CUP 98-022 and DR 98-028, the
applicant shall provide the following:
Bo
bo
co
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 ali 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
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 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 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 prelimit~ary
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,
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.
(5)
4.6
In compliance with the Department of Justice (Office of the A~orney 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 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 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.
All applicable building, grading and private improvement plan check and
permit fees to the Community Development Department.
b.
Orange County Fire Authority plan-check and inspection fees to the
Community Development Department .based upon the most current
schedule.
C.
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 (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 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
o~. r',]~, j llr-,. /,-1''r.- ~IZU,~ May-2b-~u9 ll:07AMj Page 1/1
PLAZ,4 LAF,4 YETTE, LLC.
30872 South Coast Highway, Suite 160
Laguna Beach, California 92651
Tel: (714) 7.14-8200 Ira. r: (714) 75~-8120
Ma3' 24, 1999
Elizabeth Biasaek
Dirr, ctor of Commtmity Development
CiD' of Tustin
300 Centennial Way
Tustin, California 92780
Dear Elizabeth:
This letter shall serve to confirm our proposal to reduce the number ofernployee parking
spaces requested from thirty-seven to twenty. Parking space dimensioas would remain
the same. With twenty parking spaces taking one hundred sixty feet plus a twelve to
fifteen tbot turnaround the proposed lot would ex-tent approximately one hundred
seventy-five feet into the railroad right-of-way. We would scrape the rema/nder of the
property and cover it with 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 parking let and discuss other issues. Ms. Ramage stated that
she was on another line and would call me back. She has not. I also left several
messages, including my telephone number, on the Ramage's answering machine
requestiag one of them to contact mc. To date neither has done so.
If you have any questions, please contact me a the above number.
Very ~mly your_s,
J.q:dm
EXHIBIT C
REVISED PARKING LOT BOUNDARIES
EXHIBIT D
JUNE IsT 1999 MEMORANDUM FROM
EMMETT COOPER
STAT£ OF CALi?F,.)RN]A
· ,
T:!~ R'--SOURCES AGENCY
MEMORANDUM
TO:
Karen Peterson
City of Tusin Planning Department
6/1/1999 8:38 AM
FROM:
Emmett 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: California Government Code
Per our convemation, attached is a copy of Cslifo:nia Govemment Code 51014.6 Pipeline
easements; building, vegetation, and shielding rsstricticns.
A fence or wall does not aJlow "unimpaired surfsce sccess" to a pipeline.
51014.6 Pipeline easements' building: vegetation and shielding
restrictions.
(a) EC'ective J.:mum-v [.. it)i;/, no person, other than ~c pi.~clinc ~)pcr~tor..~h~l do any of~e follov,'bS
~ith res~-~ to ~y pipclin~ ~;~cm~nt:
(l) Build, =r¢~ or create a st~tca~r¢ or improvgm¢nt witkin ~c pi~iinc' c~cmont or pc~it ~c
building, c~ction or cr~tion ~rcof.
(2) Build, crock or c~ a stmcm~, fcv~, w~l or .~bstmczi ~n adjacent to m~y pi~lin¢ ~ement
wNch would prevent compictc ~d uNmp~rud suff~u m:ccss to thc c~<meng or ~it ~o
bulling, erection or cre~ion ~er~of.
(b) No shrubbeQ' or shielding sha21 be ~st~led on ~e F!pclinz c..mcmcnt which would ~p~r ~fi~
obsc~'~on of ~e pi~Iine e~ment. ~is mMivisi~n d~s not p~v=nt ~c mvcgc~ion of~y
l~ds~ dism~d by ~e pipeline em~ement ~g a result of ccn~~g ~e pipe~e ~d d~s not
prcvunt ~o holder of~¢ ~derlying l~e intere~ or'd:e holder s tenet from pitting and ha~cs~g
so,mortal ~ficultu~ crops on a pipeline e~mem.
(g) ~is suction d~ not prohibi~ ~ pi~iin~ o~r~or float peffo~hg ~y n:~ss~ a~Stics wi~ a
pi~Iing ~cng includi~, bm not limi~ to, ~e co~amion, rgpl~mcnt, ~l~on, ~p~r, or
operation of ~: pipeline.
TOTAL P.02
EXHIBIT E
RESOLUTION NO. 99-32
2O
26
2~
29
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:
Ao
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.
B,
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.
C,
That on April 19, 1999 the Foothill Communities Association and George
Haltman appealed the Planning Commission's approval of the project.
Do
That public hearing was duly called, noticed, and held on said app,-al on
May 3, 1999, and June 7, 1999, by the City Council.
il
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:
le
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.
14
20
24
25
2'/
29
Resolution No. 99-32
Page 2
O.
H.
.
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
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.
.
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.
l0
20
22
24
25
26
27
2~
Resolution No. 99-32
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.
'1: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 0f 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-
0.26, 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 (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.?
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.
(1) 1.8
The applicant shall be responsible for costs associated with any necessary
code enforcement action.
SITE IMPROVEMENTS
(4) 2.1
In accordance with Tustin City Code Section 9271(i) related to th'e 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 fencing may used over the petroleum pipeline
easement in accordance with Calitornia Government Code Section
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.
Pdor 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)
(5)
(4)
2.2
2.3
2.4
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.
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.
(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
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.
(4) 2.8
All 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.
2.9
2.10
The Planning Commission deleted this condition.
The Planning Commission deleted this condition.
(4) 2.11
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.
(4) 2.12
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, shall
work with the County of Orange to provide public ingress/egress to Plaza
Lafayette.
USE RESTRICTIONS
(5) 3.2
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
bstablishment 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
(1) 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 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.
Exhibit A
Resolution No. 99-32
Conditions of Approval for CUP 98-022 & DR 98-026
Page 5
*** 3.11
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.
3.12 Within forty-five (45) days of the approval of CUP 98-022 and DR 98-026,
the applicant shall provide the following:
ao
b.
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)
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
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.
Exhibit A
Resolution No. 99-32
Conditions of Approval for CUP 98-022 & DR 98-026
Page 6
(5) 4.3
-.
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)
4.4
In compliance with the City of Tustin's grading manuall 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,
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.
(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).
(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.
__
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
$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 for any interested party to challenge the
environmental determination under the provisions of the California
Environmental Quality Act could be significantly lengthened.
Qs/eh ` .soL ) dsvpQ 1/1/16'11 7 ,'1,L/ c'"&'(
�G Z� /Y'26-01
--r _ if • C r161'1 r Yr
p &L219 v' rr€-!,1 1`2
4 -05 / `^ - l Cl # aA +J e. dry ?-\10 [Abel N H2I17 2Q rv-yWW-11
Z bfrp / c/ kObtf
0
OVA
ACV
/ ?/ H/
0-:PZ .1°d NifS�?_ d' e fern N / 6 t/
1/f/
g' sL°6c/ v4: / //
✓V
If
i
/i 7/ // //
/2"}7'7/ / 6 C/
o� LZ u, fi777 _ ° dc7 Div 5 � 5--r 1
b �-s�� a /hbci
>d i' >�' TV N
O L21� u y5 �'' �`'v "nr (yd b zl
o�2-21J ys„1a mod 9NDLC- /
117 P' ''erN s42el
0,SGrhni4)nt ho-1/41--t-iv 0-)tov,
93 coo /y[ts■l, a A pr; 49 ^24)(V'7 L,VV =L1
afr
---2,-a-/
v -j0y
vt 0/ fits z t
\`'
Os/if b 1 0 tj - >/11 -fit (d 01 >G U ht /
) t c7vm4) I
upsnl
jo Ally ayl uniuM 1re.0 Suusixa .Apea.ye of /Dauuoa 01 Enid a11aXeddtq ySnou.p uauEM
jo ylnos Xent 3o -1ySu peo.IiiEJ alp uo yaualg uusnljapEuuldsd Suils!xa 041 pualxa
of aSuEJO3o £QunoJ 041 puE uusn13o ,Cud ayl lsanbai 'pauSisiapun ay1 'am
NOISN31X3
11%111 HDNV}19 NIIS111/ 3QVNIrIdS3 2103 NOI1113d
66'G-�
• •
PETITION FOR ESPLANADE /TUSTIN BRANCH TRAIL
EXTENSION
We, the undersigned, request the City of Tustin and the County of Orange to
extend the existing Esplanade/Tustin Branch Trail on the railroad right -of -way south of
Warren through LaFayette Plaza to connect to already existing trail within the City of
Tustin.
7c, v:) ,IJh
)zi M Vb Tkh\,(7 )
,A/h S'{t'uarf-
"E 7 shr! CA- 9 a7Ko
r -.?' II %>r
X2939 7'tv9A 77 tap te//t tL, ( fl Pt?
A/\
WAVY/ we&,
/2137 AravPogf nu( - m ru.c w rig S91170
4114 Csco a2
/293, /7Na /orTi ✓e #r %Ss rl (82720
129 3
I
•
au/ frn 64)
N b ills -ken °p is
/4219%/ i-v'l ir/1217e 721- J9 76c
T /Gnn , &t12 - / 9 9A/tinpnj'f e 77-/ s/772 9a7B0
/2/-7g r/ A F:A/p/7rf /93/e, 727S/7 /9 % 7Bo
� 0 -4 /.93/ L2ettpor7AVe IF 4,zigLD
% 2724 T± ti 72-78'3
i'
J'
f24 ?cf Net° orP 4v F uSfl v� 92 0
oC ap}-C AU Wit- Pate 7\m--51-A\(
(,Y
'sr Z°fZS k,ec, Tut v_ 92 O
• •
PETITION FOR ESPLANADE /TUSTIN BRANCH TRAIL
EXTENSION
We, the undersigned, request the City of Tustin and the County of Orange to
extend the existing Esplanade/Tustin Branch Trail on the railroad right -of -way south of
Warren through LaFayette Plaza to connect to already existing trail within the City of
Tustin.
,,�
1,2.' i // //i - — J- // ,-,_
,any- Mar / °9s Obvi /la W Y D \Six /4f CA ciao(
Cherry erry c 4 (`(r /(ice X22 z� FGC,Set tt+,. t_+') . I G1.�7/"1 h (A- q 2130
\ - 1"Atb- et-C -c I Go 1-cciado ?tom t.t5±ibu CA 93-767-d
1^ n(l
/to //A, )J&V) /`lolfd Ge cL P1 C-- 6937o7
JJ� u
../ sca-n /,,,-or /4 7 v �.„,r/ ,707a %use, 9 z
�—_
p- r7 c & 'iJ ?i= f/ 1cic
92700
r
r--- f16q/ Minnc Lc i,sAH
1-791A t,Vrc{- ,votit . Tv54-0n 9 ?.`7 ?0
ai Frei, u. V r. Tu,2.11 h e 9 `! n.9 u
�j Q �i c ✓ acv oZ 89 este purz,te_- o�Q .ate/ PS 9 -2 gr/
JA, , c-& /R'oW .r6ecP- 1 k m mti, (A 4,;7 ?0
R t 9o-crsh Ki,Jr) Z V6\ Scat l t, /d5 N 04(3 Las
/R2Cp r ?Oft& 7i4 sib-) (.4 931`630
'Ma 4_At 1777J- A /at) r/C 5-11,/c. 9) 7k
Q^3 - /46c,2— f 0 �z 77
U
• A —iL �So� ona IS too_ tut /virus%ey, ,3-150
• •
PETITION FOR ESPLANADE /TUSTIN BRANCH TRAIL
EXTENSION
We, the undersigned, request the City of Tustin and the County of Orange to
extend the existing Esplanade/Tustin Branch Trail on the railroad right -of -way south of
Warren through LaFayette Plaza to connect to already existing trail within the City of
Tustin
:
717-1111 trPcirl
/ a )/ i 3 7a-c-cati Cf 9 .7, 7 � C
+y7 ,.4-xe -721:<17 4 ( (z» —)
fir s fit . l
railtraraMIPArr
sLP, t(t4 qa R ,s-c
1z (7c[ f9 A=ca--eThe Af `t27cSd
r cF4 @otent
t� °I F QCt .Dcti C1u.‘Q- cia1
;r(-1-ran kcpc vsyl 101361 New
t i uS}- n ct
r>�ioN i2 -`IaI tiaulrcr_ 'C-nrs h h (/
7 ?C;
1 :5�r! I) + Newx.ek 11\ie 1 osi-in Cr'-
1.Vnt,K= d 120.51 Ply Ni'"' pout 4u€ . l "St "1 , CA
• •
PETITION FOR ESPLANADE /TUSTIN BRANCH TRAIL
EXTENSION
We the undersigned request the City of Tustin and the County of Orange to
extend the existing Esplanade/Tustin Branch Trail on the railroad nght -of -way south of
Warren through LaFayette Plaza to connect to already existing trail within the City of
Tustin
"g7779? if; ,z /f Z 5;2 G
/S(,7? i -Cr'�, 1 *,- n C „4 CI77 -(1
/271 I 90411(0 71
S.
M/ 7b rut) i e Lis
an,..L, 9-zi
t -6((& � ft z
/Z73t /)2 4 t.1 S/
( % ' y 7 _ a- s--1i
.'a ,I, [:267Z MaCt l
7
a
3G„
z7,k6
/tn
/ uci (/ 1,20,--> c? 31
cfrcfr 11:277
I y �Sa {�% v v �
l u(A) 0 ∎ M e. -,i,-/ e. T011--
Wit I C,lcc(ic7c, /»
V° , L (J I4022 Glatt lkr( i 1. kin ( @zoo
iCuutA 1 ` ((x11 /iti'(5�4. 4, 4
/�--
1 v S C,2 (' »� (ti TQrhh 75°
004-64 ')PR1-6 o7? t (12) s 4 2-7l
•
PETITION FOR ESPLANADE /TUSTIN BRANCH TRAIL
EXTENSION
We, the undersigned, request the City of Tustin and the County of Orange to
extend the existing Esplanade/Tustin Branch Trail on the railroad right -of -way south of
Warren through Lafayette Plaza to connect to already existing trail within the City of
Tustin.
J!
/c)29->// 1Jtate_
I ii 1L Abe- -J 4,t-
L v
0
4
L
A
11Tl�P , a), /_ 51,37 )p.//
G(_
/Z% Z S 4t.'
/9961/ f/Jj,rf 74Uc-= A47)
/2 D) /lz.,Lc tzj (7.tte A-
r/ / Z 96 1 % t.'1
{ #-E IUSI ,7
C'0.11 - o Tu - h n
12. 93' ■ rv: \t'c'4- T' 6 s� iv
la, 607 i icrn r�
.lam J/1 /%cZ Ony
}7
/ r>7.2 /l 1 M /.JS "" j/�/y* i dicJ C 1-11M /
C.., )7Gi 11 Nip,„\r '.fthl'f' 4�TT 1 �fln.(�I C1 /7pu
PAL-
NA\K A
■��k" 1101\5 rdf IJ Yv 0171bP
5 ,-AL J/- - 12w 7 4/,_;.-ti j-- (D iu / ,/1 72 ?rd
BEG EN ED
• •
JUN - 7 1999
TRP�TIO�ETITION FOR ESPLANADE /TUSTIN BRANCH TRAIL
ApMINIS EXTENSION
We, the undersigned, request the City of Tustin and the County of Orange to
extend the existing Esplanade /Tustin Branch Trail on the railroad right -of -way south of
Warren through LaFayette Plaza to connect to already existing trail within the City of
Tustin.
Signature
Print Name
sAwiffs...
b f-i (yL �vn✓+..-)
I, ✓lvt bf I D iar✓G1aVGL-L: c-('
C l 2_ 13162 mOkla Pr i.ts-h",
Address Date
c &4y
cioAA/ , 6ran5_924Cs
9�.S5'
1`jc(0 / /,1 w OYe G `le
666L.10sizizildeilvirati. z°
---- LIbun-t4 -- Q .0 gad 5
Chr_ _s_Aceerlt lh__1E3_s1 -Q6rc /fd �r �u CA R°2a-r
1 tO 1_s \CC) \K"->#f l 5 FS 16
12. ( -11, •
13 ,f _l___ 1 CLI/La
-5 c ei At. t-72269
LC) \ L-0■\1C `V)-7 U 5
I..°1444-✓- Lc 92-)o1
14
15
16
17
18
11�
19.2701
'cg;
• •
304 - 7 1999
Nowt ISm PT1OtiETITION FOR ESPLANADE /TUSTIN BRANCH TRAIL
EXTENSION
We, the undersigned, request the City of Tustin and the County of Orange to
extend the existing Esplanade /Tustin Branch Trail on the railroad right -of -way south of
Warren through LaFayette Plaza to connect to already existing trail within the City of
Tustin.
/Sii nature Q Print Name Address Date
t C.." -C& -i 6e, ( /w.,1 %414t/kio/z.C/Q 6
\i‘ is r_i. 5&c br,,r
a */ /RSA s Plv-r owe 6 *161/6 M
2. 1N"'k_
4 _ he M kc, Leon ?1C1
- - --
�'� -dam I111�11� __L 5 /4S kJ -1 rsf &PIM
5
L F (vl6 /F7
6
7
8
9
10
11
12.
13
14
15
16
17
18.
• •
PETITION FOR ESPLANADE /TUSTIN BRANCH TRAIL
EXTENSION
We, the undersigned, request the City of Tustin and the County of Orange to
extend the existing Esplanade /Tustin Branch Trail on the railroad right -of -way south of
Warren through Lafayette Plaza to connect to already existing trail within the City of
Tustin.
Signature
Print Name
Address Date
1 i 5912 Cuh4Ntl4T 1;(ZJC C
1 G _ -_ - 6 KEY/Sib LOS ___XaSC4rLJtb4_GA_ _�j2o% 6 199 -
130 -3 CcinifirrA al on;,5
010\O _snrivo, Clara vwk
3 , " = -N -- —^ 1` =! 64A4 74 _ Ric iov "i S1 c/l ?z 70/
tr -N 23%7Ni. tb4-420,i SA of f129
�r;re Lithct f 9 '1
. s 1J1,2 c 4- 1612 _1_cxzi__k S A q2
8
IgtlLe4c1TIO v=as a ocksa SA q - 4
7a,e1 .l_- i �/s__ � xi
(C #ji `£z Kl ! >< U Io „d ?7 %z%frAz/ 1� 46199;::5/
11 -
�y� 6ccky Li v.c PcL To tidbeck
12. --� ' cw ��, vl direct_ `i u iL 7 1 j t7 r C &' 1 I g v t r ,L se jite
13 - f3YGQ� �N L / l'A L 9 N - / P��-t�_ �1� j0 -�i LY(°�' 7
14 ll_�� t� /l / /!� s 6A 7Ci�/� 7
15 �'•ctinin ----- 3` -d11 yot"hc,_:-Ik\ c !7,- ct % c
JtrmdLLyew3 0 2 -I U(,te, 36 at 1zg`t/ 6
�V<<(',M1k Znm a 3
.hQJL ([iei?125or1 �% C' tt& Ave YotLL,hL *la
apt - 6-1-- Earhde -,Lv ti -4- - z'keg g
•
N - 1 1g99 SAO TITION FOR ESPLANADE /TUSTIN BRANCH TRAIL
3\3 EXTENSION
We, the undersigned, request the City of Tustin and the County of Orange to
extend the existing Esplanade /Tustin Branch Trail on the railroad right -of -way south of
Wan-en through LaFayette Plaza to connect to already existing trail within the City of
Tustin.
Signature
Print Name
Address Date
51/A) off_ ST "g7u�0 lll z ISS&n� .gJc 3 ?
AIM/69C- %232 " Lext 1 itkartvu"{_
U°iPyc L[325 T frj kAp f t-e b/74
LFcuk". 17Zc7 hle,F1D015') Pv& - rfrSnk/
5 .71/7 i ! reef
6
8
jot
/ v L02101n
c1¢c e�
9
air) /S7) 5 4446'44 76to
/336/ / OWE C, ,
J3ta6 e p9.56. ra
a
137;77 Cet1/4 9l
S LeS7C°
v2L� i c
'7 70/
(t o5 qz hiraan 35oE&0ux112?ysi!o-- -_22 _ 6 -7 -79
16 -- � ._LU 6100Y1e‘Ucof (85 11 I) flee 11Us4∎n 12126
17 Gtr_ " 1LA- --- 1 g3`W l iota 9,175
i"/) /04401^-- / . 37/ /.1/CN2l/YI A-//'/ iJ CZ
18 = --- - - - -72
kec
JV 1999 0 PETITION FOR ESPLANADE /TUSTIN BRANCH TRAIL
PO`�s�RP�� EXTENSION
M
• •
We, the undersigned, request the City of Tustin and the County of Orange to
extend the existing Esplanade /Tustin Branch Trail on the railroad right -of -way south of
Warren through LaFayette Plaza to connect to already existing trail within the City of
Tustin.
Sign • tie Pri t Name
Address Date
J `$13/__ ilI?!_f L_1 u e° co/! _! l
/t /S/ acrOt G /h9�
(,_4 2- /9/14-c',-z 1;7" 6 - 2
a! /5
5
i arel4t 4t /W,6
/V /Y/
t<dzot. 64799
/ yie/l
tf-
R q V 617/ 41
3 � birth %_ x-,54 >, 27,,
22;81 S _CL u_G, _� 9'- °4-
1g3(ri SoiciA
C�r_o_Aye _SI_ y27 Ali
gr6 �E3 C3A-rtG2(.D6-- 5-7 ?2 MS
{5_ -f )k�Jb �'/7/7
SLl_ 7oS 6/7/7 /
Grim.
baa-tee
Pt- ACT" 4tsJ E(L 5rPF 70S6'
16 _ 8,222./zA!_ e6 J /st n ✓ ��, %z�0C
17 n (JLILN VAZt41 ire 2Z6771 rirmyia LS2 ciz7o3 p