Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout01 CUP 98-022 DR 98-026 05-3-99DATE: MAY 3, 1999 NO. 1 5-3-99 Inter-Com TO: FROM: SUBJECT: 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 Conditional 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). Ci~ Council Repo~ AppealofCUP 98-022 & DR 98-026 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 th'e trail or the proposed parking lot. Following is a discussion of issues raised in the appeal letters and during the public review process and how they were addressed by Resolution No. 3662 and the proposed City Council Resolution No. 99-32. Prior City CoUncil Action Residents of Woodcrest Apartments and Clarissa and Beeson Lanes questioned why the project was being proposed when the City Council had previously denied a similar application for a commercial parking lot in March 1997. They also noted that the staff report did not address this prior action. However, the staff report for March 22, 1999, discussed previous City Council actions, outlined issues associated with the prior project, and included City Council Resolution No. 97-16 for the Planning Commission's review. City Council Report Appeal of CUP 98-022 & DR 9~--026 May 3, 1999 Page 3 The previous project was denied, without prejudice based on the following concerns: Without restrictions, the parking lot expansion area has the potential to create noise and other nuisance impacts on adjacent properties; The use of the employee parking lot between the hours of 10 p.m. and 7 a.m. has the potential to disturb the comfort and general welfare of persons residing' adjacent to the proposed use; An unsecured employee parking lot area would permit access to non-employees, which could increase the potential for noise impacts on adjacent properties; and Although the use of the site as a commercial parking lot may be an appropriate use, the use of the site as an expansion of the adjacent residential uses may be a more optimal use of the site. A number of conditions discussed in following sections are included in Resolution No. 99- 32 to mitigate potential impacts and restrict access to the parking lot. With respect to expansion of adjacent residential uses, the owner of Woodcrest Apartments was not successful in acquiring the proposed project site prior to its sale to the current property owner in late 1997. In addition, the Union Pacific Railroad has refused offers of purchase to residents along Clarissa Lane who had wanted to expand their backyards into the abandoned right-of-way. . Noise Residents of the Woodcrest Apartments noted that they are concerned with potential noise that may be generated from the proposed parking lot. Residents of Clarissa and Beeson Lanes noted that a trail in the abandoned right-of-way may disrupt them and subject them to criminal activities given their proximity to a public trail. To mitigate potential noise impacts.associated with the parking lot, Resolution No. 99-32 includes the following conditions: Condition 2.1 requires installation of a 6'8" block wall to separate the parking lot and 'the adjacent properties. This wall 'also could mitigate noise impacts to adjacent properties. Condition 2.6 prohibits the operation of property maintenance equiPment which is attended by loud or unusual noise on Sundays and City observed federal holidays, before 7:00 a.m. and after 6:00 p.m. Monday through Friday, and before 9:00 a.m. and after 5:00 p.m. on Saturdays. Condition 2.7 prohibits the installation and/or operation of outdoor public telephones and public address systems in the parking lot. Condition 2.11 indicates that, if deemed necessary by the Community Development Director and/or Police Chief, the applicant would be required to provide security personnel and/or on-site manager to limit access to the parking lot City Council Report Appeal of CUP 98-022 & DR 98-026 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. Lighting 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~-,~26 May 3, 1999 Page 5 232 existing Spaces. Based on full tenant occupancy with no vacancies, a total of 254 parking spaces would need to be provided. With only 232 marked parking spaces, a total of 22 parking spaces would be required to satisfy the parking demand at full tenant occupancy. · The installation of 37 parking spaces would, therefore, satisfy the parking demand at full tenant occupancy: Resolution No. 99-32 includes the following conditions: · Con.d. 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 Ill (on-street signed) bike route and the Newport Avenue section would utilize the existing Class II (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 right-of-way and the property owner and County of Orange agree to provide a connection. Report to the ITEM #3 Planning Commission DATE: APRIL i 2, 1999 SUBJECT: CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 98-022 AND DESIGN REVIEW 98-026 APPLICANT: JACK STANALAND PLAZA LAFAYETTE, LLC .30872 S. COAST HIGHWAY #160 LAGUNA BEACH, CA 92651 OWNER: PLAZA LAFAYETTE, LLC 30872 S. COAST HIGHWAY #160 LAGUNA BEACH, CA 92651 LOCATION: VACANT PARCEL TO THE'NORTH AVENUE AND TO THE WEST. OF AVENUE (APN ff401-221-04) OF 13031 NEWPORT 12901-12943 NEWPORT ZONING' MULTIPLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL (R-3) ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: THIS PROJECT IS CATEGORICALLY EXEMPT (SECTION 15311, CLASS 11) PURSUANT TO THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL .... QUALITY ACT. REQUEST: 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 Knowlton, 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 Lafayette, Mr. Jack Stanaland, stated that he had concerns regarding the security risks and liabilities associated with accepting public access in the rear of the property. To alleviate these concerns, he had attempted on numerous occasions to obtain a written agreement with the County of Orange to define the responsibilities of each party in relation to the trail connection. However, the County declined to enter into an agreement noting that they are not willing to accept responsibility or 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 Irvine Boulevard along Newport Avenue, or an off-street trail between Warren Avenue south to the applicant's property. If a condition is added requiring public access for a trail,, a nexus between the proposed project' and the need for the trail should be included in the findings. If the County is desirous of providing a connection before the trail is implemented, then an agreement could be reached between the County of Orange and the property owner because this link would be a portion of a regional 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 concerns: · 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 Supplemental 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 A..,..";" /~ ~'"ot,.. ~';'-~' '~'"*" ..,°~"~",.~,, b".. ;,,o,.,u..,~ an,~,.. ,.,,.,;,,,~;,,,,,~ ,,,... ~......~,~"'"'-".. ?,--', ,,_. \'"l ' "~' ' ;~'"'" .... '""~"'""" ' ' '"~ .... "~' .... 2.10 The ~'**" *~'"" ~'" "~"*"'~ ~'"*"'~'"" the ~'o"m ''~ ~0'0n p.m. *~"~ '~'9n ~ ~' ~1.,.41,,~,~ ~1./I B~i,411 I1.~,~ ~,1,r1'~l/~1/%~'~,14 I,./~.~W,,.WW'~..""M,~B I B I I ~141 '~1/I B . ~.~ ",iAi I',,.a ~1 . ~ .I I I 2.11 The applicant shall provide security personnel and/or an on-site manager to limit access to ~atml the parking lot to employees only and to provide site security ~,"~'"'"" the hcurs on . ...........,, .,, ,,.vv ~,..... ,v .vv ,,,,~,,,~,,._ · 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 ameP~ enforce ex!sting lease agreements with each tenant which require +'' r=qu[r9 ""' ............ ~ ............. em oyees ace ~ to park in the proposed parking lot.and rear of the center. Planning Commission Supple~,,ental Report Conditional Use Permit 98-022 & 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.. b. co do 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 te. nants, including all restaurant tenants, and valet service operators restr4~ acknowledging the location and number of parking spaces that may be designated and used for'valet parking in accordance with the approved valet parking plan T~,-. v ! l%.4Vl ivy e,,v g,.l l v &lldr I I '~=~ V lk%,l~ I VI VVI I la II~4l IISI U V 1%ud' I VI~=/ i I I%d~ I I T, Just'ina 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) 5 HNq, JTES COM-MUNITY DEVELOPMENT -, pLAZA LAFAYETTE WORKSHOP MARCH 29, 1999. CALL TO ORDER: 4:00 p.m., Clifton Miller Community Center Staff: Elizabeth Binsack, Director of Comm .unity Development Karen Peterson, Acting Sen/or Planner Justina Willkom, Associate Planner Present: JeffDictanan, 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 Planifing 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 sec .uring the parking lot between 10 p.m. and 7:00 a.m., requiting lighting to be directed downward, 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 agreement. 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 Dicku'nan, Orange County Chief of Public Facilities & Resources Department, indicated that the county has acquired additional fight-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 right-of-way fi.om Warren north to the Santa Aha River, Plaza Lafayette Workshop March 29, 1999 Page 2 with some discussion 'of including the portion between Irvine Boulevard and Warren Avenue. After the grant 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 owner 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 agreement had been reached with Union Pacific Railroad to purchase the abandoned right-of-way between 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 railroad right-of-way was sold to the previous property owner of Plaza Lafayette, there was a verbal agreement 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 ri~t-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 greater liability on his part; and 3) he was willing to install a gate and had been trying to get a written agreement from the County to outline each party's responsibility since last May. 'An unidentified woman in the audience commented that people are already walking through the property, riding 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 oppommities 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 think employees would be willing to park in the proposed parking lot either. Plaza Lafayette Worksho[ March 29, 1999 Page 3 ates 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 Railroad, 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 Ramage stated that the trail would impart a rural feeling to the area and add business to 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 from his back window. He indicated that his property has been vandalized by the children who play in the railroad right-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 exhaust 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 agreement. 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 right-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 Denise Alaph0us, Woodcrest Apar~ents, stated her opposition to a parking 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 NEWPORT AVENUE AND TO THE WEST OF 12901-12943 NEWPORT AVENUE (APN #401-221- O4) 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 D/H ISTO 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 iot 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 6.18 Of Resolution 3413 was included to address potential parking problems and stated: "if, at any t/me in the future, an on-site or neighboring tenant or customer advises the City, or if the City is otherwise made aware and concurs, that a parking and/or traffic problem exists at the Plaza Lafayette shopping center as a result of the insufficient on-site parking availability, and it has been confirmed that the subject property is in compliance with mitigation measures 1 through 4 above, the Community Development and Public Works Departments may require the properly owner to submit an updated parking demand analysis and/or traffic study, at no expense to the City, within the time schedule stipulated 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 mib'gation measures to be reviewed and approved by the Community Development and Public Works Departments. Said mitigation 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 mitigation 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 concems: _ Planning ~ommission Rep~.. 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 for all Plaza Lafayette patrons. Signs could be posted to indicate that the valet service is available for all Plaza Lafayette patrons; and A more detailed parking study is needed to assess the need and potential strategies for addressing the periodic parking, shortages. As a result of the parking survey, staff required the property owner to submit an updated parking demand analysis and propose mitigation measures to resolve the situation at the center. Consistent with Condition No. 6.18 of Resolution No. 3413, the applicant is requesting approval to 'provide additional parking within 500 feet of the existing center. Site and Surrounding Properties The vacant parcel is 15,700 square feet in size and is located directly north of the northwest corner of the Plaza LaFayette shopping center. Surrounding land uses include multiple family residential to the east and west, the existing Plaza LaFayette shopping center rear parking area to the south, and the remaining portion of the abandoned railroad right-of-way to the north. The site is bordered by County unincorporated land to the north and east. DISCUSSION 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 Report Conditional Use Permit 98-022 & Design Review 98-026 March 22, 1999 Page 4 Further, the width of the property and the parking lot layout would not provide adequate width to provide parking, access, and significant landscaping such as trees. Parking and Circulation The applicant conducted a parking demand study to determine if the proposed additional number of on-site parking spaces will be adequate to serve the parking demand for the entire center (Attachment D). The parking demand study assumed a parking supply that includes the 37 new spaces and 2 spaces gained by re-striping the existing parking lot for a total of 271 spaces. The study was conducted for a period of eight (8) consecutive hours from 11:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. on Thursday and Friday in October 1998. The study's findings conclude: The highest parking demand was for 224 spaces at 12:00 noon on Friday, with a total occupancy of 47,753 square feet (the center is a total of 54,126 square feet). At peak hours, one (1) parking space per 205.83 square feet of floor area must be provided to accommodate the parking demand. Once the proposed parking lot is complete, the parking demand ratio would be one (1) parking space per 199.72 square feet of floor area. The aggregate parking supply at project completion will satisfy the minimum parking requirements for the current 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 Vadance 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 agreement 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 all patrons of Plaza Lafayette. · Valet personnel shall park vehicles in a manner that will maximize the number of parked vehicles. Planning Commission Repo, 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 concerns-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 concems 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 trail. 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 LOCATION City Boundary 14672.74. 76.78,80 14687~.84 86.88.90 PLAZA 14491 -; L 14752 14762 14772 14772 '14782 0 IRVINE BOULEVARD NO SCALE A TT'A C~I-IMF, NT 1 RESOLUTION NO. 97-16 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN REVERSING THE PLJLNNING.C0~ISSION,S DECISION AND DENYING, WITHOUT PREJUDICE, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT .96-037 AND DESIGN REVIEW 96-051, A REQUEST TO ESTABLISH A PARKING LOT ON A VACANT 50' BY 314' PORTION OF g~ ABANDONED RAILROAD RiGHT-OF-WAY ~OCATED TO THE NORTH OF THE P~ZA LA FAYETTE SHOPPING CENTER AT 13031 NEWPORT AVENUE AND TO THE WEST OF THE WOOD CREST APg_RTMENTS AT 12901-12943 NEWPORT .AVENUE. 8 The City Council of the City of Tustin does hereby 9 resolve as follows: 10 I. The City CoUncil finds and determines as follows: !1 A. 12 14 15 16 B' 17 18 19 2O 21 Ce 22 D. 23 24 25 26 27 28 E · 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. That a public hearing, was duly called, noticed and held on said application on December 3, 1996 by the Zoning 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 Administrator's action on this project. That a public hearing~was duly Galled, noticed 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 action 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 !! 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2O 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Resolution No. 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: · 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. · ~m unsecured.employee pa~king lot area would permit access to non-employees, which could increase the potential for noise impacts on adjacent properties. · Although the use of the site .as a 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. I . Pur~uant 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 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 13 14 15 17 la 19 .2O 21 22 23 2~ 2S 2~ 27 28 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!ationshim 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. J· This project is statutorily exempt oursuant to Section 15270 of the California~EnQironmental Quality'Act. K. If negotiations among the property owners for the purchase of the site.from Southern Pacific Railroad by the residential' property owners are unsuccessful, the applicant would have the option to resubmit the project for review by the City's Zoning Administrator· However, the resubmitted project shall be modified to address the Council's concerns. II. The City Council hereby reverses the Planning Commission's decision and denies, without prejudice,. Conditional Use Permit No. 96-037 and Design Review 96-051, a request to establish a parking lot on a vacant 50' by 314~. portion of an abandoned railroad right-of-way located to the north of the Plaza La Fay, rte shopping center at Resolution No. 9 Page 4 13031 Newport Avenue and to the west of the Woodcrest Apartments at 12901-12943 Newport Avenue. 3 PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council, held on the 3rd day of March, 1997. !0 Pamela Stoker City Clerk STATE OF CALIFORNIA !2 COUNTY OF ORANGE CITY OF TUSTIN Tracy W~s Worley Mayor 14 I, Pamela Stoker, City Clerk and ex-officio Clerk of the City Council of the City of Tustin, California, do hereby 15 certify that the whole number of the members of the City Council of the City of Tustin is five; that the above and !~ foregoing ResolUtion No. 97-16 was duly passed and adopted at a ~egular meeting of the Tustin City Council, 17 held on the 3rd day of March, 1997, by the following vote: COb~CILMEMBER AYES: 19 COb~CILMEMBER NOES: COUNCILMEMBERABSTAINED: 20 COLrNCILMEMBER ABSENT: 21 WORLEY, THOMAS, DOYLE, POTTS, SALTARELLI NONE NONE NONE 23 PAMELA STOKER CITY CLERK 2A 2S 2~ 27 2~ ./ sw// -- ! 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 Paul Singer, P.E. TRANSPORTATION 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. Stanaland: 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 as 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. erely, 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 3 Page 3 Page 4 Page 6 Page 6 Page 8 Page 9 Page 9 Page 9 Page 10 Page 11 Page 11 List of Tables Buildin~ occupancy Tustin Parking Code Code required, parking Parking usage Table i 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 1 - 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 project 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°ject Parkin.~ Su~ly: 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 LOT. VAND£RUP ,~ND ROWAN TRAC N. 8 9. 5 2.4 ?..W,//-.,-,,~ ,~, ~, /,,,-,,',,~'-,r ' #,.c,~.~.,~' ,,/.,/- .,~,~. ,v~. (. r&S~CNT Indicates detail handicap parking area modification as shown on Figure 3, 4 and 5 t 'IRVINE 'BOULEVARD .- · · Paul Singer, P.E. TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERING & PLANNING ,, SITE PLANI Fig. 1 --/ STUDY ELEMENTS: 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· 11 AM through 8 PM on a Thursday and Friday, 22nd and 23~h day of October 1998. The study survey parking Count 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. 100 sq. ft. 54,126 sq. ft. * The building use includes a specialized exercise unit of 3,050 square feet. The use is not a health spa. It is a specialiZed, by appointment only use. ~ The City of Tustin Parking Code for the existing and proposed building occupancies is shown on Table 2. Code Required Parking: The City of Tustin parking Code is contained within the City Zoning Ordinances for each land use. Page 4 Table 2 Parking Code City of Tustin Use: Code required parking: Retail Stores and Service, Business': 24,515 sq.ft. Vacant (retail): 6,363 sq. ft. Restaurants: 450 seats 1 space per 200 sq.ft of floor area. 1 space per 200 sq.ft. of floor area. 1 parking Apace for each 3 seats. Kiosk: 1 space 123 spaces 32 spaces 150 spaces 1 space Total Code required parking spaces: 306 spaces Code required 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. Parking 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. A~gregate 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 o for Location Existino~ 65' Sidewalk Existing: Currently there is only one disabl'ed driver parking space provided in this marked area. Proposed Sidewalk 65' Proposed: The currently marked handicap parking space could be modified and restriped to accommodate two handicap parking spaces within the same area. This restripin~ will yield one additional space to the on site parking supply. Typical Parking Space = 8.5'x,19' Paul Singer, P.~. TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERING & PLANNING AREA 1 Parking IFig.3 See Figure 1 for Location Existing Sidewalk Proposed 'Sidewalk Existing: Currently only one handicap parking space is provided in this space that could accommodate two parking spaces. Proposed:' The currently marked handicap parking space may be restriped to accommodate two handicap parking spaces within the.same area. This will yield one additional, on-site parking space to the parking supply. Typical Parking Space = 8.5'x 19' Paul Singer, P.E. TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERING & PLANNING AREA 2 Parking IFig.4 _ Table 4 Parking Usage* and Parking Occupancy at Lafayette Plaza Center Status of Building Area: Leasable square feet: Total available leasable space'= Currently occupied units = Currently vacant units = Highest parking Occupancy 12:00 Noon Friday: Parking supply - occupancy = 54,126 sq. ft. 47,753 sq. ft. 6,363 sq. ft. 232.0 spaces Net vacant spaces worst condition: Currently Occupied Units: * 8 spaces 47,753 sq. ft. 47,753 : 224 = 205.83 sq.ft, building, per parking space. * Parking usage reference to highest parking occupancy survey. 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 greatly 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 employees 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 Newport Ave. Valet parking processes should be provided in an orderly manner. Valet drivers are to observe'a maximum 15 MPH speed limit. This fact should be posted by paint markings on the pavement at the valet parking area'and the area leading towards the rear of the buildings. Post-- SPEED LIMIT 13 MPH - Pavement. Legend - ' The existing access driveways to the project site was evaluated. The ingress and egress at the LaFayette Center via the two existing driveways adequately serve 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 personnel 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: al Vehicles entering the project site during the peak 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. Page 10 STUDY FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS: Study 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 required 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 are drafted, a clause could specify employee and owner 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 parkin9 configuration. It is recommended that 15 MPH speed limit legends be painted along the pavement of the'front parking area driveways. Page tl 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 TS~ Transportation Studies, Inc. A Traffic Data Collection Company La Fayette Center Tustin, CA. · Thursday I0-22-98 Front Back Friday 10-23-98 Front Back 11 :O0am 43 59 61 68 12:00pm 103 121 101 115 01 :OOpm 90 119 87 123 02:00pm 84' 79 82 89 03:00pm 66 72 70 80 04:00pm 67 71 77 66 05:00pm 87 72 71 '75 06:00pm ! 02 100 100 108 07:00pm 104 117 102 110 1720 E. Garry Ave. Ste. 119. Santa Ana· CA 92705 · (949) 852.8460 · Fax (949) 852-8441 · . 714 734 5~20; 0ct-13-98 Community Development Department .:~Jack Stanaland :~laz',a Lafayette, LLC. !!30872 So. Coast lti§hway, Suite 160 -?agima Beach, California 92651 · '1 City. of T 300 Cent~ Tusti~ (71~ :~UBJECT: COMPLETENESS OF CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 98-02Z & REVIEW 98-026 : · ~3ear Mr. Stanaland- :1 '.i~-hank you for your application, submitted September I5, 19/}8, for a parking lot exp~n :ion to ,Plaza Lafayette at 13011 Newport Boulevard. This projec! has been identified as Coflttitional ,Use Permit 9g-022 and Design Review 98-~6. : i~he 'Community Developmznt Department has ' reviewed your application ?.nd in conf, pr~..anee '!vitlx Government Code Sectian 65943, this is notification that your submittal is ¢omidered ~eomple/e. For your appli=ation to be considered c~m~tete, all information ~-~'h~;~ .~atcn.als Identified m the attached Exmbits A and B must be provided. Items id=tiffed ~ith an asterisk (") shall be addr~sed with any future submittals. Items with a (c) will be pdte~ual : .~onditions of approval tm. less the submitted materials address the comment. In addil~on "Exh~it A, we offer file followh~g commits: .! ;SIGN Page 1 . stin mnial Way CA 92780 573-3 ~ O0 As noted in, a meeting with you on MaY 2g, 1998, and in correspondence to you dated ugu,t 10. '1998, ire City identified a parking and circulation deficiency at Plaza Lafay¢~e and .r~:lUeSted that you provid-, appropriate mitigation in accordance with Condifioni6[18 of Resolution No. 3413. Approval of your request is subje:t to the discretion of' the ~'oning Administrator, and if appealed,, the Planning Commission and City Council. Sh~U d th/s project be denied, th, obligation to mitigate the parking and circulation deficiency ',v~>u d still be in effect. · .As you know, the City Council denied a previous proj~t that proposed additional:-p irking behind Plaza Lafayette. Residents of the Woodcrest Apartments actively participated .in the public hearing process. We would strongly encourage you . to me~ with the property. ~ers and residents to discuss your project and possibly allay their Concerns prior to ~avubiiC hearing on the project. ' ~ · 714 73~ 8120; Oct-13-eR 3'32PM; ':1 ':. Mr.i Stanaland ;i October 7, 1998 :' Page 2 :. · .. . :;lS~o that the Community Development Department may'consider you to be in compliah :c with ::[Condition 6.18 of Resolution No. 34t3, please submit ail requested materials by' Oct'} ~er 27, i:~I1998. Please contact me so that I can mange to meet you and personally acc0t yeur ::;resubm]tta].. If you hay,, an) questions or concerns related to this matter, plca, e' conta~ me at ]I(714) 573-3123. :1 · :[Kar~n Peterson i[Associate Planner .! iAttachments: I :i .-.; I I. 'i t I' I ! I '1 I i '~.l Exhibit A- Comments and Corrections Daniel Fox, AICP, Senior Planner Fage 2/6 Se~ ~y: : · 714 734 8120; Oct-l.q-98 3'32Pkt; EXIIlBIT A COMMENTS AND CORRECTIONS CONDITIONAJ... USE PERMIT 98-022 AND DESIGN REVIEW 98-026 UOMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT planning Division · (') ~.i .1 I .I :. ! · 'I ! ' :! 'l (.D. ;! .-i! : , . ~;~1 ..el .. : Please provide eight (8) sets of revised plans, stapled and folded to 8 :/ 11". , 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5 1.6 Provide a parking analysis that evaluates how the provision of additicnal parking will address the misting parking and circulation deficiency.: ~h¢ parking analysis should be' prepared by a California Registered T~affic Engine. er and/or California Resist:red Civil Engineer experienced ir~ {his _t?e or analysis. Uae analysis should also identify how Conditions 6~14, .6.15, 6.16, and 6.18 of Re.~olution No..3413 (attached) huge b~en xmplem-..nted. Be sure to include information related to pr~king op~alibns and restrictions in effect for the entire center (e.g., valet service, 't~rne restrictions, etc.). This information should be provided in a narrativ~ ina illustrated on a site plan. 't Employee-only parking is a more appropriate use for the proposed pa~k}ng area. Valet service may be too disruptive to adjacmt residential Uses, especi'~lly in th= late evening hours. Ple~e modi~ the plan according.151. Please provide a site plan that show, the entire center, including Ioci~tlon and number$ of existing and proposed parking spaces. The plan clearlv show points of access to the retail spacez from the prol~o~ed parking area. All easemmts should be shown and identified on thg {itc plan. Provide written evidenc, e from each agency that holds an that they support proj~t approval and implemgntat/on. A four (4) foot wide fan,cape area is propo$ed between the sidewalk! d pm'king spazes. Since this area i$ located to the rear of the center, iti4ay be appropriate to reduce ~e width of the planter and increase the wi~l'~ of the 20' drive aisle. A number of bollarda could be irmtalled to defink the boundary between the parking area and sidewalk. . ' t ; The proposed plan shows a total of thirty-seven (37) parking $pace$ Wi a dimermion of eight (8) feet by nineteen (19) feet. If the landscape pl.~ter is reduced as noted in #1.4, each parking $pace should be 9' by 20' !w~th no overhang. ' · . Fage 3/8 714 7~4 6;23~ Oct-13-~_R 3:~3,:!d[ Erdtibit A October 7, 1998 page 2 1.7 !.8 1.9 (*) 1.10 a section d~ail of the proposed sidewalk/multi-use trail, partiing Provide spaces, and drive aisle and the existing parking ama. This will help c~ .~rify how the existing improvements will transition into the proposed area. The County of Orange Public F,'cilities & Resourges D t _ , epartmen indib~tcs that the p_roposed seven (7) foot walkway is of adequate wid.~t~ to accommodate a trail use (see comment 5.1). Please indicate on tM ;itc plan where the trail would be accommodated within the remainder oil the center. · On thc site. plan, indicate the location of pmpos~t lighting Provide a separate deta/l of the proposed light fixtures. On the site plan, indicate the location of proposed walls and prov{d~ a section detail. Section 9271(2) requires a solid masm'a7 wall, six (6t '.feet (c) I. 11 and eight (S) inches in height, to be construct~ on thc boundary be~,ien · commercial a.nd resid~fial prope/ties. · Resolutwn No. 21414 approved Vananc~ 95-011 allowmg a reduchorJ required spaces from 327 parking spaces to 241 parkh,,g s'paees, i'i'he / ap?oval of Conditional Use Permit 98-022 and Design Review 9~26 ami ins~allation of th-:rty-sevea (37) parking spaces will partially ~Iftll Mitigation Measure 6.18 of Resolution No. 3414 which requir~ thc provision of additional parking up to the minimum number required for ( the aggregate of shopping center uses. The provision of additional pa/l< ing spaces shall not be used to increase or intensify restaurm'~t scatiag or commercial/retail square footage. ; Building Divi. vion (*) 2.] 2.2 Provide a site plan that shows the number and location of parking d~es for the entire commercial center and include the number of parking spaces accessible to disabled persons. Additional accessible parking spaces i~ay be required based on the total number of existing and proposed pa~_g Provide d~mils of outdoor lighting in the parking areas, landscape ~eks, on tho bulldogs and at entrance doors as required by the City of T.~l~tin' Security Ordinance. Since ,lighting will be of concern to adjae, q'nt residents, it is suggested that s,.verai iow wattage lighting bollards or 3: E×hibii A October 7, 1998 Page 3 .2.3 (c) 2.4 lighting standards be used instead of the two lighting standacds shoTM the plan. ' When submitting for a building permit, submit four sets of plans am ~o sets of soils reports. All grading, drainage, vegetation and circulation .~hall comply wifl' the City of Tustin Grading M. anual. All street sections, curbs, gu x?rs, sidewalks, lighting, and. storm drains shall comply with improvement standards. Any deviations shall be brought to the azte of the Building Official and a request for approval shall be aubmitt v,'riting prior to approval. PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT Submit a metes and bounds description of each parcel and an exla which clearly shows the configuration and dimensions of each parcel.: ; ! Provide written authorization from thc O~ange County Sanitation Di~t that construction over their easement will be allowed; ('"') 3.~ (*) 3.2 ORANGE COUNTY FI~RR AUTHORITY (*) 4.1 Plot the location of existing on-site and off-site building footprin}~ relation to the proposed parking lot area. ; · {2OUNTY OF ORANGE PUBLIC FACI_L!TIE$ & RESO~:RCES DEPARTIvIF~ (*) 5.1 5.2 6.1 The proposed seven (7)foot walkway is of adequate widt~ accommodate a trail use. However, it is not clear how the exist walkway will cormeet to the proposed walkway. It is suggested part of the landscaping at the north end of the existing pm'king provide a transition between the existing and proposed walkways. A gate should .be provided at the north end of the proposed waLkw~, provide a future connection to the County trail. Please submit $25.00 in conjunction with the next submittal for paY~.' of fees for preparation of a Notice of Exemption. (*) orl bit 'icl in to ng mg to to eat Pa§e 5/~ Sect 9y (1) Exkibit A .October 7, 1998 Page 4 (c) 6.2 · 6.3 714 734 8~23; 0ct-13-98 3:34P~ Prior to issuance o£ any building permits, payment shall bc made 6.' all .app lcab,e fees, ,nclud,ug but not limited to the following. Payment afl' be. r.¢quircd based upon those rates in effect at the time o£payment an~ilarc subJeCt to change , · A. Building plan check and permit fees to the Comrn~ity Development Department based on the most current schedule. B. Orange County Fire. Authority plan check and inspection fe~s to the Community DeVelopment Department based upon the ~n~:~st current schcduI¢. , Wie. in forty-eight (48) hours of' approval of the subject projectI he applicant shall deliver to thc Community Development Department a cashier's check payable to the COUNTY CLERK' in the amour~t or $3g.00 (thirty eight dollars) to enable the City to file the appro~ri~,te envimn.-ncntal documentation for the project. If within such forty-~i (48) hour period that applicant has not delh,.ered to the Commm-r ty .Dcvel0pm~t Department the above-noted check, the statute of iimitaiions tot any interested party to challenge the environmental · determination under the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act could ~e s~gnificantly lengthened. , ! ! Page 6/6 Community Deveiopment Department - City NOTICE TO COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT CUSTOMERS of Tustin 300 Centennial Way Tustin, CA 92780 (71 *' · .,? 573-3100 Ute 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 ',,,'ill 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 from 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 Binsack Director 573-3106 Rite Westfield Assistant Director 573-3106 BUILDING DIVISION TITLE PHONE JoAnn Kang Som::'s Building Technician 573-3132 H. Leighton Muzkey Building Technician 573-3131 Chuck Defruiter Building Inspector 573-3137 Rick Miilan Building Inspector 573-3136 Robin Mundy Building Inspector 573-31311 Ric Lazaro Plan Checker 573-3133 Soroush Rahbari Plan Checker 573-3120 Building Official 573-3130 BUILDING INSPECTION REQUEST LrNE-RECORDER PROVIDE PERMIT NUMBER. JOB ADDRESS AND TYPE OF rNSPECT1ON NEEDED ~73-3141 PL&N,'NING DI¥ISION TITLE PHONE Planning Counter General Information Line 573-3140 Dan Fox ' Senior Planner 573-3115 Lori Ludi Associate Planner 573-3127 Karen Peterson Associate Planner 573-3123 Scott Recksfin Associate Planner 573-3016 Minoo Ashabi Assistant Planner 573-3126 Brad Evanson Assistant Planner 573-3118 Mark Galvan Code Enforcement Officer 573-3134 Felix Garcia Code Enforcement Officer ' 573-3135 Ron Johnson Code Enforcement Officer 573-3122 George Wiesenger Code Enforcement Officer 573-3149 REDE~,rELOPMENT Jim Draughon Dana Ogdon Dave Gottlicb BUSINESS LICENSE DMSION Barbara Reyes TITLE PHONE Senior Project Manager 573-3121. Senior Project Manager 573-3116 Senior Project Manager 573-3128 'rrrLs rHONE Business License Technician 573-3144 OR.~NGE COL.'NTY FIRE AUTHORITY Inspections 559-7537 General Offica,'H:adquaners 744-0400 ORANGE COUNTY HEALTH CARE AGENCY Environmental Health Division 667-3600 Public Health Services 667-3737 OR.ad~GE COL~'rY SANITATION General Office 962-2411 IRVINE R.~NCH WATER DISTRICT General Oficc 453-5300 SOUTH COAST AIR QUALITY MANGEMENT DISTRICT General Office (909)396-2000 TUb'TIN WATER WORKS General Offi~ 573-3375 SEE BACK FOR CALENDAR EXHIBIT A COMMENTS .4uN'D CORRECTIONS CONDITION.&L USE PE.RxMIT 98-022.4d'~q) DESIGN RE¥'IEW 98-026 · · COMSIUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT Planning Division (*) 1.1 Please provide eight (8) sets of revised plans, stapled and folded to 8 ½" x 11". Provide a parking analysis that evaluates how the provision of additional parking will address the existing parking and circulation deficiency. The par'king analysis should be prepared by a California Re~stered Traffic Engineer and/or California Registered Civil Engineer experienced in this type of analysis. The analysis should also identify how Conditions 6:14, 6.15, 6.16, and 6.18 of Resolution No..3413 (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. (*) 1.3 Employee-only park/ng 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. (*) 1.4 Please 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. (*) 1.5 A four (4) foot wide landscape' area is proposed between the sidewalk and parking spaces. Since this area is located tothe rear of the center, it may be appropriate to reduce the width of the planter and increase the width of the 20' drive aisle. A number of bollards could be installed to define the boundary between the parking area and sidewalk. (*) 1.6 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. .it A o!utien No. 3413 !'":' (1) 6.11 AuthOrization for the on-site sale of beer and wine'(ASC License Type "23") is contincent uoon the .use of the subject premises remaining a r~staur~nt. Should this use. change, authorization for this use permit shall become null and void. (7) 6.12 There shall be no billiard tables, video games, dancinc or live entertainment on the premises at any time, un!es~ Jp~roval of a Conditional Use Permit is obtained for these activities. (7) 6.13 Ail p~rsons selling alcoholic beverages shall be 18 years of age 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 owners/ manacers of the shopping center shall be recruited to park in t~e rear of the shopping center to provfde additional oarkina in the front. Notification of this re~uiremen[ sh~!~ be written into all tenant'leases. 'A ~o~y of a standard lease form with said language incorporated therein shall be submitted to the Community Develoom=nt Department prior to the issuance of a --~!flc=t_.of Occupancy for C~" · ~ ~ the proposed restaurant/microbrewery. (2) 6.15 Prior to'the issuanCe of a Certificate of Occuoancy for the proposed restaurant/microbrewery, directional signage shall be provided to inform patrons that parking is available in the rear of the shoooing center. The installation and maintenance of directional sicnage shall comply with Section 9409C of the. Tustin Cit~ Code Sign Recu!ations. A directional signage' plan sha!~ be submitted to the Community Development for aooroVa! and building permits shall be issued, przor to the installation of directional signage. (2) .-:6~'16 D~ring'peak months 'such as December, or at other times as .determined necessary in writing by-the Public Works Director and/or Community Development Director, based upon on-site traffic and circulatioh issues, 9~!et'~ pa~k.%ng~or the.proposed.Tustin Brewin~ Company shall~'b~ ~ P.~OW~ded.- The Nleuport 17 restaurant currently has valet sez-vlce'provided from approximately 1!:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.~. daily; valet service for both uses may be 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 Psge 6 DeveloPment Director and shall be'imPlemented immediately upon notification. (2) .6;17 At the time of Plan Check submittal, ~" reStricted parking plan "'shall. be submitted t6"'the Community Development Department for approval. Prior to submittal to the Community. Development Deoartment, the orooerty owner shall provide written notice oz the ~ro~osed time-restricted parking-revisions to the Plaza LaFayette tenants, and shall obtain written acknowledgment 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 acknowledgment forms to the Community Development Department as evidence that a majority of the Plaza LaFayette tenants concur with the proposed revisions to the parking lot time restrictions. Possible modifications to the existing plan may include the following: Removing time restrictions after 6:00 p.m. be Extending time restrictions on a portion of the parking spaces located in the front-central area of the shoooina center, excluding those spaces directly'~dja~ent 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 boundary or use the valet parking. (2) .Y6{l~lIf, at any time in the future, an on-site or neighboring '~'~' tenant or customer advises the City, or if the City is otherwise made aware and concurs, that a parking and/or traffid problem exists at the Plaza LaFayette shopping denter as 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 require the property owner to submit an uodated parking.demand analysis and/or traffic study, a['n© expense, to the City, Within the time · schedule stipulated 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 p~oblem, the prooerty owner shall'be requi~ed to provide additional mitigation measures to be reviewed and approved by the 'Community Development and Public Works Departments. said 'lution No. 3413 ~ 7 mitigation may include, but not be limited to, the following: a . be Establish alternate hours of operation. Provision'of additional parking as needed, uo to minimum number, re?~ired for the aggregat~ of snoDoing center uses ur=u- ~- _ . P - =nt to Zon' s~=nd=r=s, by purchase and/or lea=e o lng Co~e wlth!n 500 feet of the ~roo=~ .... 27 .f. Pr°~erry r .~f oz prov!s!on of the needed parking on site. The securing of off-site Parking would re=uire aoorova! of a revised Variance. - Failure to ade~ruate!y resoond to such a re~ruest and to implement miti~-ation measures within the ti~e schedules established sh~!! be grounds for initiation of revocation procedures for Variance 95-011 and Conditional Use Permit 95-019. ~EES -- (1) 7.1 Prior to issUance of any building permits, payment shall (5) be made of all auo!icable fees, including but not limited to the fo!!owin~: Payment shall be required based upon those rates in effect at the time of payment and are subject to change. a. Building plan check and permit fees to the Community Development Department based on the most current schedule. (!) 7.2 Within forty-eight (48) hOurs of approval of the subject (5) ' project, the applicant shall deliver to the Community Development De~rtment, a cashier's check payable to th~ COUNTY CLERK 'in the amount of $25.00 (twenty-five . dollars) to enable the City to file the appropriate .environmental documentation for the project. If within such forty-eight (48) hour period that aoolicant has not delivered to the Community Development'~eoartment 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 ignificantly lengthened, s ,/ .,./ ELRLL RD. 0 Sta d~urn Tustin Existing Trail Branch Railroad Right-of-Way Purchase Mall of Oran{.Te lxj AVE:. TAFT AV-r_ I~1 I!I!11II 'I!!111111111 _ Villa Park . TA}'F AVE:. Villa Parl~ .... Town Center.. ~j~ · ' J ~k, VILLA PARK KAT£LLA A~. COLLINS -~--- range~ = ./ 'CHAPMAN AV[ ~.e .... gr' - Old Town I '~ ...... FAIRHAV~ Railroad Right-of-Way Purchase and Bikeway Development Proposed Interim On-Street Bikeway Connection Proposed Final Off-Str~t Bikeway Conned, ion Major Destinations Schools Activity Centare Transit Centers Santa Ann Trail !11111111111 ...... - ........... I ...... r~lJ'"/ '\ · \~. .Ii s,f~r~, ii .... x. ..-' ----."~- _-..._~'1 ,,,,,,,,,,',~. - ~ ~' c,m,~ ~/"-....% ~'1'~~"~i" L ~ "'~-~ · ~ -II ~ ~ .... : -.=' ' .:~'-l-U~ln -!- / "% .. 20. Attachment F COUNCIL EXHIBIT B MINUTES - APRIL 12, 1999 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 3662 MINUTES TUSTIN PLANNING COMMISSION · . REGULAR MEETING APRIL 12, 1999 CALL TO ORDER: PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: INVOCATION' ROLL CALL: Commissioners: 7:00 p.m., City Council Chambers Commissioner Davert Commissioner Browne Chairperson Pontious, Browne, and' Kozak Davert, Kawashima Present: Vice Chair Kozak Browne Davert Kawashima Absent: Chairperson Pontious Staff: Elizabeth A. Binsack, Director of Community Development Karen Peterson, Acting Senior Planner Lois Bobak, Deputy City Attorney Justina Willkom, Associate Planner . Lori Ludi, Associate Planner Minoo Ashabi, Assistant Planner Doug Anderson, Senior Project Manager; TranspOrtation Kathy Martin, Recording Secretary PUBLIC CONCERNS' (Limited to 3 minutes per person for items not on the agenda.) CONSENT CALENDAR: 1, Minutes of the March 22, 1999 Planninq Commission Meeting Commissioner Davert moved, Commissioner Kawashima seconded, to 'approve the minutes. Vice Chair Kozak abstained due to his absence at the March 22, 1999 meeting. Motion carried 3-0. 1 Continued Public Hearing for Conditional Use Permit 98-007 & Design 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 Mir,. 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: 1 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 vacant 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 Willkom presented the subject report. The Public Hearing opened at 7:06 p.m. Planning Commission April 12, 1999 Page 3 .[es 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 concern with requiring the property owner to hire a full time security person. The Director indicated that staff would be willing to accept an affidavit and affirmed that the valet parking plan would be handled at staff level. David Skelton, 14571 Beeson Lane, stated his opposition to the trail proposal due to noise, homeless, vandalism, etc. related to a trail. Paul Geary, 14551 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 Mir, April 12, 1999 Page 4 Denise Ildefonso, 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- Transportation, restated the errors'pointed out by the speaker. Vice Chair Kozak stated that the Commission would reVisit the issue to allow staff the . opportunity .to review the noted errors. Brett Howard, 14472 Clarissa Lane, stated his opposition to the trail due to noise and safety issues. He suggested that the trail be located along Warren Avenue. Paul Sapak, 14512 Clarissa Lane, stated his opposition to the trail due to public safety issues. Sherri Miller, 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 easement 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 29"~ as a representative of the County of Orange. Deann Santos, Woodcrest Apartments resident, stated her opposition to the parking lot due to safety concems and there is no justification for additional parking; and indicated her frustration that phone calls to the Police Department or Shedff's Department are routed back and forth and deliveries for Tustin Brewing Company are conducted in the alley next to apartments. Planning Commission April 12, 1999 Page 5 .rites George Haltman, 14592 Clarissa Lane, stated his Opposition to the parking lot and presented overheads showing trash, broken gate, monitoring well and sewer access on the vacant lot. Christy Jones, WOodcrest 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. Neil 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, stated his opposition to a parking lot and noted that the parking is adequate. David Knowlton, owner of Tustin Branch trail, stated that he is in. negotiations with the County of Orange to acquire the right of way and acquisition should occur sometime this year and suggested that Mr. Stanaland should live up to the promise made by the previous property owner to install a gate. He further stated the County homeowners' offer to purchase the property was received but was so 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 writing. Nancy Ramage, owner of Woodcrest Apartments, stated her support for the trail and the installation of a gate. · Eddie Burch, Executive Director, Tustin Chamber of Commerce, stated his support for allowing the property owner to do as he wishes with his property. Commissioner Davert stated that he has received many phone, calls and visited the site and noted that the Commission is only considering the application for a parking lot expansion. He further stated that the property owner is entitled to reasonable development of the property and this is a good opportunity to expand the parking capability. The trail is not on the County's general plan and the County maintains the ability to condemn the property, if necessary. Commissioner Browne stated that the proposed use for the property is reasonable as long as impacts to surrounding residents can be mitigated. Planning Commission Min.. 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 and 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 April 12, 1999 Page 7 .~tes .' 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 Min. Js 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:zt6 p.m. · The Planning Commission reConvened at 8:58 p.m. m 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 El 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 Avenue onto El 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 I? 20 22 24 25 26 2"/ 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'Ff'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: Ao Bo Gl 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. a. That a public hearing was duly called, noticed and held on said application on March 22, 1999, and cohtinued to Apdl 12, 1999, by the Planning Commission since the property was not posted in accordance with the City's public notidng 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: lo 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 restauran~ or. medical uses, in the shopping center. e The additional parking spaces will indirectly provide more parking for patrons of the shopping center, thereby mitigating parking demand l0 1_0 2! 24 1_6 Resolution No. 3662 Page 2 E. H. impacts as required by Condition 6.18 of Planning Commission Resolution No.- 3413' (Variance No..95-011). . The adjacent residential uses Will be buffered from the proposed parking lot expansion area by a solid 6'-8" block wall and/or existing garage or carport walls. Pursuant to Section 9272 of the Tustin Municipal Code, the Planning Commission finds that the location, size, architectural features and general appearance of the parking lot expansion area will not impair the ordedy and harmonious development of the area, .the present or future development therein, or the occupancy as a.whole. In making such findings, the Planning Commission has considered at least the following items: 1. Height, bulk and area of buildings. 2. Setbacks and site planning. 3.- Landscaping, parking area design and traffic circulation.. . Location, height and standards of exterior illumination. 5. Location and method of refuse storage. . Physical. relationship of proposed improvements to existing structures in the neighborhood. . Appearance and design relationship of proposed 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. Th. is project is categorically exempt (Class 11) pursuant to Section 15311 of the Califomia 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. II. The Planning Commission hereby approves Conditional Use Permit No. 98-022 and Design Review 98-026 to authorize the establishment of a parking lot on a 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. Exhibit A Resolution No. 3662 Conditions of Approval for CUP 98-022 & DR 98-026 Page 2 (1) The applicant shall hold' harmless and defend the City of Tustin from all claims and liabilities arising out of a challenge to the City's approval of this project. 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 shali be a minimum of 24 feet in width. The turnaround space shall bea minimum of twelve (12) feet in width and 20 feet in length and shall b~ located a minimum of three (3) feet from the north property line. (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 ali proposed light fixtures shall be submitted at plan check for review by the Community Development Department. (4) 2.4 2.5 A raised concrete walkway of at least six (6) feet in width shall be required along entire length of the east of the parking lot expansion area. This condition was deleted. (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 98-026 Page 3 .. The 'installation and/or operation of outdoor public telephones or public address systems in the parking lot expansion area shall be prohibited. (4) 2.8 All parking areas and 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 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, secudty 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: Reduce hours of use including, but not limited to, peak hours only. Retain additional secudty personnel. Failure to satisfy the above condition shall be grounds for revocation of CUP 98- 022. Notwithstanding the provision of additional parking spaces, all conditions of approval of Planning Commission ResolutiOn Nos. 2502 (Variance No. 88-005) and 3413 (Variance No. 95-011 and Conditional'Use Permit 95-019) shall remain in full, force and effect, unless made null and void by future City approvals. Condition 6.18 of Resolution No. 3413 shall not be considered to be satisfied since Exhibit A Resolution No. 3662 Conditions of Approval for CUP 98-022 & DR 98-026 Page 4 (5) 3.4 (1) 3.8 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 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. 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: a. b. c. The applicant shall provide a valet service for ali patrons of Plaza. Lafayette and shall post signs in visible' locations stating that the valet 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 · accordance with Attachment E of the Staff report dated March 22, 1999, or as modified by the Community Development Department. d. 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 SUBMi'i-i'AL (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 Califomia Disabled Access Regulations T-24 Califomia Energy Efficiency Standards City of Tustin Grading Ordinance City of Tustin Landscape and Irrigation Guidelines City of Tustin Private Improvement Standards City of Tustin Security Ordinance (5) (5) 4.2 4.3 In compliance with the Uniform Building Code (application for pei'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. 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) $.1 Prior to issuance of any building permits, payment shall be made of all required fees. Payment shall be made based upon the rates in effect at the time of permit issuance and are subject to change. ao All applicable building, grading and private improvement plan check and permit fees to the Community Development Department. 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. COUNCIL EXHIBIT C MATERIALS SUBMITTED AT APRIL 12, 1999 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HOMEOWNERS PETITION AGAINST COUNTY BIKE TRAIL WE APd5 HOMEOWNERS WHO LIVE BETWEEN THE NORTH' END OF PLAZA LAFAYETTE'S PARKING LOT EXPANSION AND WARREN AVENUE. THE RE,,x2~ OF OUR PROPERTIES ABUT THE RAILROAD PROPERTY ON WHICH THE COLBY WANTS TO BUILD A BIKE TRAIL. WE FItLMJ_,Y BELIEVE THAT BUILDING A TRAIL BEHIND OUR HOMES WILL SUBJECT US AND OUR PROPERTY TO VANDALISM AND CR/MINAL ACTIVITY. WE LIVED WITH THIS PROBLEM FOR MANY YEARS, AND WHEN THE FENCES WENT UP AND STOPPED THE THROUGH TRAFFIC, THE PROBLEM STOPPED! SOME OF US LEASE PART OF THE tLAII_ROAD PROPERTY FOR USE AS OUR BACKYARDS. WE HAVE BUILT FENCES AND INC~D EXPENSES IMPROVING THE PROPERTY. WHEN WE PURCHASED OUR HOMES, SOME OF US WEP~ LED TO BELIEVE THAT WE COULD PURCHASE THIS PROPERTY. WE HAVE iYLADE OFFERS TO PURCHASE THE PROPERTY FROM THE NORTH END OF PLAZA LAFAYETTE'S PROPOSED PARKING LOT TO WARREN AVENUE, BUT OUR OFFERS HAVE BEEN IGNORED. IF THE OWNTR'S OF PLAZA LAFAYETTE LET THE TRAIL GO THROUGH THEIR PROPERTY THE COU~I'Y WTLL BUY THE 1L:kILROAD PROPERTY AND EVICT US. UNDER NO CIRCUMSTANCES DO WE WANT .THIS BIKE TRAm IN OUR BACK YARDS! Council Exhibit D - ~/--II- 0 0 PEIITION SIGNITURES NAME ADDRESS c~3~- 752o So~ -07S9 :Og'- 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 Par'king 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 par'king study dated 12/10/98 reported the following. All direct quotes are bom 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 configured 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 sweet parking has never been mentioned by the City or the Plaza.] · Required 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 highest parking occupancy was 205.8 space, leaving 26 spaces available. · Theoretical worst-case conditions still left 8 spaces available. · Many store owners [including TBC] currently park directly in from 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 employees get into and out of mandated parking lot if valet has in,ess/egress 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 buildings, 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," lazy or late-running employees/owners will not walk this far. Young or female employees would be fearful of the isolation, as would owners/managers carrying the day's receipts. An informal conversation with one owner and one female TBC employee verified they would not use the lot out of fear. Page 5 of Planning Commission Report states hours to be 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 fxom other, more open locations, but since Mr. Stanaland stated · in the March 29t~ meeting that he has no plans for a full-time security guard, a very noisy nuisance condition could easily develop. Plaza Lafayette as a Neighbor Prior to the 1997 parking lot battle, the Plaza habitually violated or ignored many health and codes reqUirements, including but not limited to the following: · Open barrels of grain by back door of TBC, with resultant insect and rodent problems · Storfige 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 corner 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 trucks 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? · 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 29th 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 with 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 sonth-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 aiterna-tives to the proposed parking lot should be thoroughly explored before approving the Conditional Use Permit.. Branch 'Trail Extension of the Branch Trail south of 17ta Street is strongly supported by the Foothill Community Association. Although supported by many Woo&rest 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 ronte 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 lot. 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 Woo&rest 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 Woodcrest 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 continuously 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. .. · Has 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 current'parking provisions are adequate. A reasonable alternative parking arrangement has not been pursued. · Finally, the owners of Woodcrest 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 homes' .. "~ mm pmmmqm ~m~ W mm mi m toPI Il ::;:;:: ;::;: . ..: ~...;::::.-.'::~:¢...:;.'::.'::f,'$:.:: i: 4,~ ,:v ....>:.,-.vo-;..-;.;4: . ===================================;; ;: ¢::: =================================== . :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::..: ·. Il Il MI .,:.:.:.:+:.:-:+:,:.:.:.:.;.;.' .:.:.:.:.:.:.:,:.:.:.;.:.:.:.:.:.: II I I II I I I I I II! II I II ==================================== I ! I II I I I! I I I I I II II ============================== ======================== :.:.:.:.:.:.: :.:.. :.:.:. =================================== ==================================== :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: =================================== .......... ................. ..:.:.:-:-:':':':':':':':':':':':'1 · "::: ::: ::'::: ============================= :::::::i::::::::': ':~:::::::::::::..:'. ....... · ,~:::1::::.': :: :::::~:: · :: .... ':~::: . . '<::::.::.2 .... . :::~: ........ :::'. ~:::'...: . . ================================== · .-::i:E:i:E:i:E:i:i:i:i:i:Er =================================== ============================== ! ================================= .........v.......-.......v.... ================================ : '~:" : ':':~:' :. ":.F ..... =================================== :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: ...;.:.:.:.:.,..+,,....,....,. ~ · :,'.:.:-:.:.:.:-:.:.:.:' '.'. ,:.'~N~'~ : ,: ::::::::::::::::: :;::;:: :::::.~ ::::::::::::.:::.:.1 ...... · =================================== ::.::.:.:.:.:.:.:..:....:.:.?~,~-~'~ ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: :::::::!:::::: ::::::::!::::::i..':~ ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: .:.:.:+: :.: .- -.....-..,.,......,...,...-... ======================= ',:::::::::::;:¥ :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: /I PLA ZA LA FA YETTE, LL C 13031 NEgFPORT A VENUE, SUITE 200 TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA '. Telephone: (714) 734-8100 Facsimile: (714) 734-8120. April 12, 1999 Planning CommiSsion City of Tustin 300 Centennial Way Tustin, California~ COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BY Re: Conditional Use Permit 98-022 and Design Review 98-026 Plaza Lafayette Par'king Expansion (37 spaces for "Employee Only" use) Honorable Commissioners: Plaza Lafayette, LLC acquired the Plaza Lafayette Shopping Center in June 1997. Several months thereafter it acquired the adjacent parcel (the "Parcel") on which it proposes to construct thirty-seven (37) "employee only" parking spaces from 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, Wh'ich lies within the City of Tustin, is a 50' by 314' portion of an abandoned railroad right-of-way. Approximately 1,200 feet of the remainder of the right-of-way (to Warren Avenue) is in an unincorporated portion of the County of Orange. Garages, carports and driveways, which serve multiple family residential units, abut the entire 314' east and west sides of the parcel. The property to the west is in the city and the property to the east is in an unincorporated area of the county. Potential uses of the parcel are extremely 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. Dickman, Ms. Miller and Mr. Hamilton on several occasions and expressed our willingness to discuss access to Plaza Lafayette. While we remain wiiling to engage in such discussions we believe 'there are more practical and desirable routes available. Planning Commission .-lpril 12. 1999 Page 2 of 4 Pages At the workshop 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 Of recreational facilities for children in the-area; 3) the trail would provide a place for the children residing in the Wood Crest Apartments to ride their bicycles without danger; 4) the trail would provide a safe path for the children residing at the Wood Crest Apartments to reach their schools; and 5) the trail would impart a rural feeling to the area. Dr. Ramage indicated his willingness to install a gate in the block wall s.eparating the Wood Crest Apartments from the proposed trail to provide access to the trail for his tenants and their children. At the Tustin City Council Meeting of February 18, 1997, Dr. Ramage expressed his desire to provide recreational, facilities for his tenants and his willingness to purchase a portion of the abandoned railroad right-of- way to dr> so. Als° at the March 29~h 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 ~vould 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 acknowledged 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 low 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 alIeviate 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' Various Views of the Parcel & Surrounding Properties Exhibit 'C' Sample of Shopping Carts Used to Scale Walls Planning Commission April IZ 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 wall separating the Wood Crest Apartments from the parking lot being in excess of nine (9) feet high on the parking lot side. While a 6'8" wall will discourage the average person, it will not pre. vent children and teenagers from using items such as shopping carts to scale the wall. Children and teenagers currently use shopping carts to scale the existing walls on both the east and west sides of the parcel. We beliege 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 Iot 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 all'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 lot 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 &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,ms between the projects applied for and the installation of such a gate nor is there any nexus be~'een 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 · and, ~ · JS:dm ""L ~..":~?'..,:.,<~'..G'~'..~;~'."' ..."..i ..... ..'~,,.~,"' .,"~ .Z,/ ~ <, ,."~. ".~. ~,--,'..'".-.-~ ' .C:'...'~'~ '....-~,,..', ',~i...," .'%~,~ .'% . ...~.:.~' .." . '~. ' '.. '. i" . · ._5 ..% '~:-:.~.... ..............~.,..........%~ .....~:..~5¢/ . ...%,,,, .~: ..:../....] ~., ~--I~.._~~-..~o--~~,~.~ .'-... -......,..'.: ., . ...: ~ . ..-' ~_~. ,~_.1~.~~~'.o.-~:~:~'~-~,:~:~..'''.... ...."'...."'.~."/' . ~,,. ......:/....., ! ~ ~~~.~¢,x~:".~6'FS's'~6~¥'~'~.~l '~. '"'.., ';~ .....'"' . ~x.~ ./ ~" "-._ ' '<--~ L_ F--~'..:%~~'_c'-.~_::s~"?8'~,'~ :~ l .. ' ""?' '"'/,,."- · ~ ,."",.." ""." . : ! ! "-?'~ ..... ~..-,-,.....~..:.<.~ ~....-~-..:-..~ %: /. /' . . ) / . · ~ ~ ', ~--..U_' . .;. / · '..~ // · ' ~ , · i -~". ': % ,.. · j _.' ~ I .~ . _~-~_~__,. ~ %, k, ~ / ,,' ~'~hts · ,. ~i ACQUISITION h-~-- 7 ~ "-,:,',"o,,p,,J~_O....¢j .-' I I I i ! : \ - 'i,, ~ ........... '"':' ..... .--.'..~-'.,.".-,¢;,-;.',.: ~4:-.'-.-.~-."~.~ Z.I I-T--7'; '~-\'-- ' ~'C--¢,),, "/ ' ¢ ¢ ·' ' =--,~1 i i ! ; .-"' , ~'- ,." / '.-. .. /:,., t_ ,~---~ ~ , ~i. !i_ ~ ...." ! "C'"",-¢ ,, .. 1 / .... ff~ F--% / ~-r--n"-'----'-':,-~--'-~-\ '"'WOO~ CR~ST' I "L' \ ,' / /. · ' " ' ' , , ~ ~ i . CLA__ . --.--, , , ~ , x,,. ~. . . i BIKEWAY I , II I,l ~ i l ~ i" ,. ~ T .- ~-~ I '- I . ' · . ~ ~ ' i " - ''" ~ ' I~ · .: : ..]~:! , . .. ~ .! _lVl.) UI- il'fAIL & I -'".~. ~ .... ..' .. ---:'--/~./"-;.:'.'-7. ....... :":-;-~ PROPOSED OPENING F;-'- .... ;. _.._ .~__ ~, _ ._ ,%, . -~-/~.f!-:'."~--:-- ::. ,: .... !': .... i_-~:- 7-0 PARKING LOT I-.--- '" .... i~ '- ' ~' ' · ~ .... -.. ........ . ~ ~. ) . stin Branch Trail o . COUNCIL EXHIBIT D APPEAL LETTERS ;.....; :-. :..;.;,;.:.;.:.:.;.:.; ;.;...:.:.: .... ....:..:..:::.-.'-':'"';~.~I. '' "'" ''" ~ "'1 ii _ FOOTHILL COM~IL~ITIES ASSOCIATION Serving the Entire Unincorporated North Tustin Area Post Office Box 2t31 · Tust_tn, California 92781 April 19, 1999 City Council City oflustin 300 Centennial Drive Tustin, CA 92780 Re: Conditional Use Permit 98-022 and Design Review 98-026 Dear CoUncil Members: This is an appeal of the Planning Commission approval of Conditional Use Permit 98- 022 and Design Review 98-026 for the establishment of a commercial parking lot to the north of 13031 Newport Avenue. As designed and operated, the parking lot will impose major adverse impacts on the adjoining neighbors and the community as a whole. Relief from those impacts is sought by design and operation changes to the Planning Commission approval of April 12, 1999. When this proposal first came before the City, it was referred back to City staff to find a satisfactory design to which both the property owner and the community could 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 agreement 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 know all conditions of the property including the trail access gate commitment. The design approved by the Planning Commission specifically deletes that access gate. The staff report proposes to divert the tr,ai.'l onto Warren Avenue and along Newport Avenue. This proposed trail diversion v~ as not analyzed in the staff report nor is it viable. The present parking lot design depends on the trail diversion. If the staff report had analyzed that trail diversion, it would be evident that Warren Avenue cannot provide a safe trail location and that segment of Newport Avenue cannot provide an area for trail use. The Warren and Newport .&venue deficiencies are exacerbated by the two real estate offices at the comer of Warren and Newport which produce extensive on-street parking. 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 )'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 parking lot is in use. Correction of this oversight is necessary not only for the safety of the lot and the safety of adjoining properties, but also to control noise generation in the lot. The hours during which the parking lot functions need to be clearly limited. As a practical matter, the parking lot cannot be closed while employees are still working 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. 4. Provide limits on the operating hours of the parking lot that pragmatically reflect the businesses it serves and considers the adjoining properties. Sincerely, FOOTHILL COMML~'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 SECTION 3 Taft Illlllllll ~(altua SECTION C Blvd. ~, Orange { ,~ Villa ' ~ c0,,., -- ~ Par - , E c SECTI~ 2 La Veta ~ Fair~a~ ~ 17Ih Slreel ~ Index of Strip Maps Proposed Off-Road Connections S.echon 1: Warren Ave. to 17th St. S~ction 2: Fa~rhmven Ave. to Prospect Ave. Section 3: Handy St. to Glassell SL Proposed On-Road Connections Section A: Ir'vine Blvd. to Warren Ave. Section B: Railroad Right of Way to Wanda Rd. Section C: Kateila Ave. to end of Arden Villa Wy. S~,,~tion D: Railroad Right of Way to Santa Aaa River Trail Pro~sed Off-Road Trail D~vm4ol:x~nt (W~hin Railroad Right o~ Way) · I · · · · Proposed On-Stre~ Bikeway O O · O O · T,'-a il Typ~ UncJetermined O O O O O O Existing Off-Road Trail Schools Ma~ nOt !O SCale SECTION Irvine 1si Slreel Old Tu:;:in Main Tustin l0 _'5 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 headng was duly called, noticed, and held on said appeal on May 3, 1999, by the City Council. E° 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 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 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. Resolution No. 99-32 Page 2 ]6 30 23 £$ II. H. 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). . 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: 1. 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. . Physical relationship of proposed improvements to existing structures in the neighborhood. . Appearance and design relationship of proposed improvements 4o 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. 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. l0 14 2! ~4 _39 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, California; does hereby certify that the whole number of the members of the City Council of the City Df 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. COU'NCILMEMBER 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) The proposed project shall substantially conform with the submitted plans for the project date stamped April 12, 1999, on file with the Community Development Department, except as herein modified, or as modified by the Director-of Community Development in accordance with this Exhibit. The Director of Community Development may also approve minor modifications to plans during plan check if such modifications are to be consistent with the provisions of the Tustin City Code. Unless otherwise specified, the conditions contained in this Exhibit shall be complied with prior to the final inspections for any building permits for the project, subject to review and approval by the Community Development Department. The subject project approval shall become null and void unless the use is established within six (6) months of the date of this Exhibit and substantial construction is underway in compliance with Condition No. 1.4 of this resolution. Time extensions may be granted if a written request is received by the Community Development Department within thirty (30) days prior to expiration. Within thirty (30) calendar days of the approval of CUP 98-022 and DR 98-026, the applicant shall submit to the Community Development Department all necessary plans and information needed to obtain a building permit for the improvement of the parking lot. ao Any and all necessary corrections for the construction level plans shall be resubmitted to the Community Development Department within fourteen (14) days of being notified by the City that corrections are ready to be picked up. 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. 99-32 Conditions of Approval for CUP 98;022 & DR 98-026 Page 2 (1) The applicant shall hold harmless and defend the City of Tustin from all claims and liabilities adsing out of a challenge to the City's approval of this project. SITE IMPROVEMENTS (4) 2.1 In-accordance with Tustin City Code Section 9271(i) related to the required separation between commercial and residential uses, the parking lot expansion area shall be screened from surrounding residential properties and the abandoned railroad right-of-way to the 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 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) foot-candle of illumination throughout the site. All exterior light fixtures shall be directed 90 degrees down and not produce direct light or glare or have a negative impact on adjacent properties.. A photometric study and manufacturer's detail of all proposed light fixtures shall be submitted at plan check for review 'by the Community Development Department. (4) 2,4 A raised concrete walkway of at least six (6) feet in width shall be required along entire length of the east of the parking lot expansion area. 2.5 This condition was deleted. 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. .o 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 walkways for the parking lot expansion area shall be steam cleaned and maintained free of trash and debris on a reclular 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 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. 99-32 Conditions of Approval for CUP 98-022 & DR 98-026 Page 4 (5) 3.4 (1) 3.8 (1) 3.9 (1) 3.10 *** 3.11 *** 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 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 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: a. b. 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 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. 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 %24 Califomia 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) 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 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 Attorney General) the designer, architect or engineers proposed grading plan must comply with the American Disabilities Act (ADA). Exhibit A Resolution No. 99-32 Conditions of Approval 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. VVithin 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.