HomeMy WebLinkAboutP.H. 1 APPEAL CUP 88-8 03-02-92,; AT E: MARCH 2, 1992
WILLIAM A. HUSTON, CITY MANAGER
R0Fil: COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
PUBLIC HEARING N0. 1
3-2-92
SUBJECT: APPEAL OF AMENDMENT NO. 3 TO CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 88-8
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the City Council uphold the Planning
Commission's approval of Amendment No. 3 to Conditional Use Permit
88-8 by adopting Resolution No. 92-34, as submitted or revised.
BACKGROUND
On November 25, 1991, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution
No. 2779 approving Amendment No. 3 to Conditional Use Permit 88-8
to reduce the required parking spaces for the Oak Tree Plaza center
from 273 to 264 and modify site development plans to accommodate a
City well site on the property. On December 2, 1991, Nakai Shoji
U.S.A. Corp., the owners of the three retail buildings within Oak
Tree Plaza, filed an appeal of the Planning Commission's action
(Attachment A). At the appellant's request, the matter was
deferred until March 2, 1992. to allow the appellant to' better
understand the Planning Commission's action. The appellant has
decided to pursue the appeal.
Conditional Use Permit 88-8 established the site plan and
development regulations for a mixed use office/retail center
located on the south side of Seventeenth Street generally between
Enderle Center Drive and Prospect Avenue. The project, known as
Oak Tree Plaza, contains four buildings on two parcels totaling
approximately 61,000-square.feet. Three single -story commercial
buildings (Buildings A -C) are situated in a U-shaped design
oriented toward Seventeenth Street on one parcel. The fourth
building (Building D) is a three-story office building situated on
one parcel oriented to Vandenberg Lane. A reciprocal
ingress/egress and parking easements have been recorded on the two
parcels to provide for unrestricted vehicular flow within the
center.
The City of Tustin has been working with the property owner of
Building D along Vandenberg Lane to acquire property easements
within the center to accommodate a City domestic water well site.
The proposed well site would be located in the southeast corner of
the center adjacent to Vandenberg Lane. The City Council, at their
City Council Report
Appeal of Amendment No. 3 to CUP 88-8
March 2, 1992
Page 2
meeting on October .21,, 1991, entered into an agreement to purchase
the property easements from the property owner. Part of that
agreement required the City of Tustin to process amendments to the
site development plans and parking requirements to accommodate the
facility.
Surrounding uses include commercial and office uses to the north,
east and west with multi -family residential uses to the south
across Vandenberg Lane.
A public hearing notice identifying the time, date and location of
the public hearing for the proposal was published in the Tustin
News. Property owners within 300 feet of the site were notified of
the hearing by mail. In addition, hearing notices were posted on
the property along Seventeenth Street and Vandenberg Lane, and at
the Police Department. Both property owners were informed of the
availability of a staff report on this project.
DISCUSSION
1. November 1991 Parking supply/Demand
Supply/Demand Analysis prepared by
November 1991 did include evaluation,
and proposed restaurant seats, as
retail, office and medical tenants
appellant's December 2, 1991 letter.
included in Attachment C.
Analysis - The Parking
City's consultant in
>f all existing approved
well of other current
as questioned in the
A copy of the study is
2. Notice of Planning Commission Hearing - The appellant
indicated in the December 2, 1992 correspondence that they
were not notified of the November 25, 1991 Planning Commission
hearing. Upon review of the noticing list, the appellant was
sent notice of the Planning Commission hearing at the
following address:
Nakai Shoji USA Corp
c/o Best Realty
700 Silver Spur Rd, Suite 103
Rolling Hills Estates, CA 90274
This is the mailing address for the subject property as
identified in the 1991/92 County Tax Assessor's Rolls, the
required source for public hearing notices.
3. Parking Requirements - Oak Tree Plaza is located within the
Planned Community - Commercial (PC -C) zoning district. This
City Council Report
Appeal of Amendment No. 3 to CUP 88-8
March 2, 1992
Page 3
zoning designation is intended to provide diversification of
various buildings, uses and development standards to encourage
a cohesive and creative development. Pursuant to City Code
Section 9244b, those regulations specified in City Code
Section 9244 or in the Development Plan shall apply.
Conditional Use Permit 88-8 established that Development Plan
in accordance with Section 9244e(1). That approval included
development standards such as setbacks, heights, authorized
uses and intensity of development, as well as, the amount of
required parking spaces. Those development standards as
illustrated on the approved development plans or contained as
conditions of approval in essence became the "zoning
regulations" for Oak Tree Plaza. The parking standards
referenced in the appellant's December 31, 1991 correspondence
of one space for each three seats is referenced from Code
Section 9232c for the C-1 District and is not necessarily
applicable in this particular PC -C District.
Amendment No. 2 to CUP 88-08 in November -of 1989 established
the requirement for 273 parking spaces (Modified Condition 1.3
of Planning Commission Resolution No. 2710)(Attachment B).
That condition and others provided additional standards
related to the intensity of office, medical, and retail uses,
as well as restaurant seats. Again, since this property is in
the PC -C District, these conditions effectively became the
development standards for the property. The standard C-1
Retail District parking requirements identified in other
sections of the City Code does not apply to this property.
The property is presently in violation of this condition as an
actual field count of marked parking spaces only revealed a
total of 270 spaces.
4. Current Restaurant Seats - To date, there have been only 189
restaurant seats approved for the various tenants as
identified in the Project Summary included as Attachment D.
However, based upon field investigations, it has been
identified that several tenants currently exceed their
approvals for the number of seats. The total number of seats
at the center is currently 208, not 189. as was represented in
the appellant's December 31, 1991 correspondence. Although
this is still less than the total center authorization of 224
seats, the property is in violation of Modified Condition of
Approval No. 1.4d which established a maximum number of seats
by tenant space. Since the Planning Commission hearing,
Suisha (tenant space 103-A) recently completed construction
with a total of 74 seats where 77 seats have been approved.
City Council Report
Appeal of Amendment No. 3 to CUP 88-8
March 2, 1992
Page 4
One point of concern stated in the appellant's December 31,
1991 letter may be related to what staff has discovered as a
typographical error in Planning Commission Resolution No. 2710
(Attachment B). Modified Condition 1.4d authorizes a maximum
of 224 restaurant seats. However, the summary table for seats
by tenant space only totals 124 seats. In reviewing the staff
report and original proposal, it is clear that tenant space
104A was authorized for 142 seats, not 42. The attached
resolution includes corrected language for Condition 1.4d.
5. Taking Without Just Compensation - The appellant's December 2,
1991 correspondence represented that no compensation was
received from the reduction of parking spaces. This is a
separate issue and has no direct relevance to the Planning
Commission's action to reduce the amount of required parking
or modifying the site plan. The issue of right to
compensation has been referred to the City Attorney who will
provide a separate legal report on this issue to the City
Council at a later date.
The intent of Amendment No. 3 to CUP 88-8 is to maintain compliance
with the Conditional Use Permit and avoid the creation of a non-
conforming situation where the site does not have the required
number of parking spaces as established by Conditional Use Permit
88-8, the approved development plan and conditions of approval.
Staff believes the parking study clearly supports the reduction of
the required spaces to 264 and would not create a parking problem
for the center as the current parking is significantly under used.
Please refer to the Planning Commission report dated November 25,
1991 included as Attachment E for additional information related to
this project.
City Council Report
Appeal of Amendment No. 3 to CUP 88-8
March 2, 1992
Page 5
CONCLUSION
Based upon the discussion provided herein, supported by the Parking
Demand Study, it is recommended that the City Council uphold the
Planning Commission's approval of Amendment No. 3 to Conditional
Use Permit 88-8, reducing the amount of required parking from 273
to 264 parking spaces and modifying the site development plans to
accommodate a City well site, by adopting Resolution No. 92-34,
sub' ct to the conditions contained in Exhibit A.
Daniel Fo Christine A. ShingTeton
Senior Planner Assistant City Manager
Community Development
Attachments: Resolution No. 92-34
A - Nakai Shoji Correspondence December 2 & 31, 1991
-- B - Planning Commission Resolution No. 2710
C - Parking Supply/Demand Analysis, November 1991
D - Project Summary
E - Planning Commission Report, November 25, 1991
DF:rxn
1
2
3
4
5�
6'
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
T
28)
RESOLUTION NO. 92-34
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF TUSTIN, UPHOLDING THE PLANNING
COMMISSION'S ACTION APPROVING AMENDMENT
NO. 3 TO CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 88-8
MODIFYING THE SITE DEVELOPMENT PLANS AND
REQUIRED PARKING AT OAK TREE PLAZA
LOCATED AT 17582, 17592, 17602 AND 17612
EAST SEVENTEENTH STREET
The City Council of the City of Tustin hereby resolve as
follows:
I. The City Council finds and determines as follows:
A. That a proper application for Amendment No. 3 to
Conditional Use Permit 88-8, has been filed by the
City of Tustin on behalf of Manchester Development
Corporation, requesting to amend the provisions of
Use Permit 88-8, regarding site development plans
and parking requirements to facilitate a City well
site.
B. That a public hearing before the Planning
Commission was duly called, noticed and held on
said applications on November 25, 1991 at which
time the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No.
2979 approving the project.
C. That a proper appeal of the Planning Commission's
action was filed by Johnson & Gardner, Attorneys at
Law on behalf of Nakai Shoji U.S.A. Corp. on
December 2, 1991.
D. That a public hearing before the City Council was
duly called, noticed and held on said appeal on
March 2, 1992.
E. That establishment, maintenance and operation of
the uses applied for will not, under the
circumstances of this case, be detrimental to the
health, safety, morals, comfort or general welfare
of the persons residing or working in the
neighborhood of such proposed use as evidenced by
the following findings:
1. The amendments contained herein are necessary
to avoid incompatible elements of the project
and to ensure compliance with the original
Conditional Use Permit 88-8 and subsequent
amendments.
2. Based upon the proposed site modifications to
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12I
13'
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Resolution No. 92-34
Page 2
accommodate the City's well site, the
modifications would not effect the current
efficiency of the parking lot in that the
effected parking area would still functions
substantially similar to the present
conditions.
3. Based upon the results of a parking demand
analysis, the loss of six spaces to
accommodate the City's well site would not
conflict with the existing demand for parking
within the center. The remaining 264 parking
spaces would exceed the demand for parking
currently generated by the tenant mix of
office, retail, restaurant and medical uses as
supported by the November, 1991 Parking Demand
Study.
4. The parking requirements established for the
C-1 Zoning District do not apply to the
Planned Community District. A total of 264
parking spaces, as established by the subject
Conditional Use Permit pursuant to City Code
Section 9244, are required for this Planned
Community District based upon the tenant mix
of office, retail, restaurant and medical
uses, as supported by the November, 1991,
Parking Demand Study.
F. That the establishment, maintenance and operation
of the uses applied for would not be injurious or
detrimental to the property and improvements in the
neighborhood of the subject property nor to the
general welfare of the. City of Tustin as evidenced
by the findings noted above.
G. That the project is exempt from the requirements of
the California Environmental Quality Act, pursuant
to Section 15301 (Class 1).
II. The City Council hereby upholds the Planning Commission's
action approving. Amendment No. 3 to Conditional Use
Permit 88-8, subject to the conditions contained in
Exhibit A attached hereto.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Resolution No. 92-34
Page 3
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED by the City Council at a regular
meeting on the 2nd day of March, 1992.
Charles E. Puckett, Mayor
Mary E. Wynn, City Clerk
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF ORANGE )
CITY OF TUSTIN )
CERTIFICATION FOR RESOLUTION NO. 92-34
MARY E. WYNN, 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 of Tustin is five; that the above and foregoing
Resolution was duly and regularly passed and adopted at a
regular meeting of the City Council held on the 2nd day of
March, 1992, by the following vote:
COUNCILPERSONS AYES:
COUNCILPERSONS NOES:
COUNCILPERSONS ABSTAINED:
COUNCILPERSONS ABSENT:
MARY E. WYNN, City•Clerk
EXHIBIT A
RESOLUTION NO. 92-34
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
Amendment No. 3 to Conditional Use Permit 88-8
(1) 1.1 All original conditions of approval contained within
Exhibit A of Planning Commission Resolution 2494 and
2710 shall remain in effect, except those modified
herein. The conditions established by City Council
Resolution No. 89-77 will be superseded by the conditions
contained herein.
(1) 1.2 Unless otherwise specified, conditions contained in this
exhibit shall be complied with prior to issuance of any
additional building permits for the project.
*** 1.3 Conditions 1.1, 1.3 and 1.4 of Exhibit A of Planning
Commission Resolution No. 2710 shall be revised to read
as follows:
111.1 The proposed project shall substantially
conform with the submitted site plan for
the project date stamped May 9, 1988 on
file with the Community Development
Department as amended by the City Council
on July 17, 1989, and the Planning
Commission on November 27, 1989 and March
2, 1992, and as herein modified, or as
modified by the Director of Community
Development Department in accordance with
this resolution.
1.3 A total of 264 parking spaces shall be
maintained for the office/commercial
center.
1.4d A maximum of 224 seats of restaurant use
within 9,733 -square feet of the
retail buildings A and C may be
allowed only as follows:
SOURCE CODES
(1) STANDARD CONDITION (5) RESPONSIBLE AGENCY REQUIREMENT
(2) CEQA MITIGATION (6) LANDSCAPING GUIDELINES
(3) UNIFORM BUILDING CODE/S (7) PC/CC POLICY
(4) DESIGN REVIEW
*** EXCEPTION
Exhibit A - Conditionsl of Approval
Resolution No. 92-34
Amendment No. 3 to CUP 88-8
Page 2
Space
Maximum
Minimum Square
Number
Seating
Footage
101, Bldg
C
12
seats
996 sq. ft.
104, Bldg
A
142
seats
3,6474 sq.
ft.
104, Bldg
C
16
seats
1,200 sq.
ft.
105, Bldg
A
24
seats
2,000 sq.
ft.
106, Bldg
A
15
seats
1,000 sq.
ft.
107, Bldg
A
15
seats
1,030 sq.
ft."
JOHNSON & GARDN ER
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
TELEPHONE (213) 913-0200
TELEFAX (213) 913-OSO4
December 2, 1991
City of Tustin
Planning Commission
15222 Del Amo
Tustin, CA
3171 LOS FELIZ BOULEVARD
SUITE 308
LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90039
y� � •'.7 �C.� �k1i
1991
BY
Re: APPEAL FROM PLANNING COMMISSION'S APPROVAL OF
RESOLUTION NO. 2979 APPROVING AMENDMENT NO. 3
TO CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 88-8 MODIFYING THE
SITE DEVELOPMENT PLANS AND REQUIRED PARKING AT
OAK TREE PLAZA LOCATED AT 17582, 17592, 17602
AND 17612 EAST SEVENTEENTH STREET, TUSTIN.
Planning Commission:
This office is lec
which owns those portic
located at 17582, 17602
Tustin. On November 2E
approved Resolution No.
Conditional Use Permit
and required parking at
adjoining parcel to the
Street.
al counsel to Nakai Shoji U.S.A. Corp.
ns of the Oak Tree Plaza Shopping Center
and 17612 East Seventeenth Street,
1991 the Tustin Planning Commission
2979 which approves Amendment No. 3 to
88-8 which modifys site development plans
the subject location, including the
south known -as 17592 East Seventeenth
Nakai Shoji U.S.A. Corp., (hereafter referred to as "Nakai
Shoji",) hereby appeals the decision of the Planning Commission to
adopt Resolution No. 2979. The grounds for the appeal are:
(1) The Parking Supply/Demand Analysis is Flawed: The
Parking Supply/Demand Analysis relied on by the Com-
munity Development Department and the Planning Com-
mission is flawed and misleading in that it bases its
findings on November 1989 tenant use rather than
November 1991 tenant use, thereby resulting in a false
conclusion that 264 parking spaces will adequately
serve the tenants and patrons of the shopping center
and also comply with the requirements of the Tustin
City Code.
ATTACHMENT A
Planning Commission
December 2, 1991
page 2
(2) Inadequate Notice Of Hearing: The City Council
hearing held November 25, 1991 in which the Planning
Commission approved Resolution No. 2979 was improperly
noticed. Nakai Shoji did not receive any written
mailed notice of the hearing. Posted notice on the
premises is inadequate to give proper notice.
(3) Future Use And Parking Needs Jeopardized: The
adoption of Resolution 2979 allowing parking to be
reduced to 264 spaces places future parking needs in
jeopardy. Since the Parking Supply/Demand Analysis is
flawed and misleading, the true condition of the
parking supply is that such supply is short of the
Tustin City Code requirements. Therefore, the
reduction of parking spaces to accomodate the City's
well will prevent Nakai Shoji from making future
use of 'its property which may also require the removal
of parking spaces.
(4) Taking Without Just Compensation: The City
purchased easement rights from the owner of 17592
East Seventeenth Street, Tustin. Although Nakai Shoji
as owner of an adjoining parcel has a reciprocal
easement in and to 17592 East Seventeenth Street
whereby its tenants and patrons may use the parking
spaces on said parcel, no compensation was given
Nakai Shoji for the easement.purchase and the
subsequent reduction in parking spaces.
The Planning Commission is hereby requested to set a
date to review the claims set forth herein. Upon receipt
hearing date, Nakai Shoji will provide to the Planning
Commission, upon request, a copy of a brief which supports
Shoji's position on each of the above claims. Please send
written notice of the hearing date and time to Nakai Shoji
U.S.A., in care of this office.
Very,
truly yours,
Kevin S. Gar -et
Attorneys for
Nakai Shoji U.S.A. Corp.
cc: Akemi Nakata
Tal Jackson
William D. Johnson
hearing
of a
Nakai
s.
iNg.7- 2-92
THU 1 6: 1 0 ROU RKE&WOODKUt- r
TELEPHONE (213) 913-0200
TELEFAX (213) 913-0504
December 31, 1991
.JOHNSON & GARDNER
- ATTORNEYS AT LAW
3171 LOS rCLIZ SOULEVAAO
SUITE, 306
LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90039
R E C E OV D
,J A N y 1992
�•rr�. /�./Y//A r��
Mr. Jm Rourke
City Attorney of Tustin
15222,De1 Amo Avenue
Tgst.in, California 92680
Re: by Afca
o 0
Co
888
= Dear Mr. Rourke:
This office is legal counsel to Nakai Shoji U.S.A. Corporation.
This letter will serve as a follow-up to our discussions held on
December.3, ;991 at the Tustin city off ices.
the afore -mentioned
I briefly explained the reasons for
Nakai Shoji's appeal
At • meeting,
fet�he � planning Commission's adoption of
p 88-8 of all. the reasons given for the
p mandih4nt N9. 3 to C . U. •
appeal, • the most significant deals with Nakai mber 9 hofs 'flawed contention
that the parking analysis done siflawed because it recommends that
The
November 1991 parking analysis f
six parking spaces be eliminated, leaving a total of 2.64 spares.
which does not.satisfy code requirements.
AS you know, the Tustin code requires a certain amount of parking
spaces based on the type of usage of commercial real property,
Specifically, office space requires one parking spot per 250 square y
e retail usage rquires one.parking spot yer 200_
��.. _ r:,�.: •_:= •
feet.. of.:. spaG , use requires •6 parking -spaces
square feet of space, medical office estaurant usage requires one
per Ion square feet of space, and r according
parking space for every three seats in the restaurant.
to **he tenant usacie as of November, 19890 aoprovima ally 270 parking
spaces were reauirea at oax Tree Plaza Shopping Center*
The parking analysis done in November, 1991, concluded dth�trons
264
spaces would adequately serve the needs of hichthe tea
nts of Oak Tree Plaza, based on a field study physically counted
the cars and empty parking spaces at certain hours of the day.
Nevertheless, the November 1991 parking study ignored the occurred
a . act Of
significant increase in restaurant. -seating which nava opened
over the last two vears. At least two new r
in the C . •rep Pta2a . snoppinq canter durinki the lit y.P.a.I�� L .-k i
Koo Koo Roo. and Suis" _ Koo Koo Roo has forty-three (43) seats,
Jpf�l- 2-92 THU 1 6 - 1 1 ROURKE&WOODRUFF
. 47
Mr, Jim Rourke
December 31, 1991
Page 2
and Suisha ha c s,VAn+,v-sp"en (71, meats, for a total of o"A t thehTndred
ani twenty c i4q, r,"w YQsLaurant seaesuire C4ordiad itional parking
code, 120 restaurant seats wouja r g
spaces for those seats alone* tIowever, because of thchange tual
p
usage of the shopping center, as indicated
d meNovember 1989 to
incrPasec3 *+»mh'&•- of required parking spaces
N�remrar 199 arae Ctq rzOT spaces - This means that
aces requires by •cne code is approximately
s
the number of parking p
290, 26 more than the 264 recommended by the November 1991 study.
98!p4 the sen^ nd apandment to �" �-- AA -Z- r"_ Ui�d 271
.•� ..• • .: _ : In .Nove�aabe -;.kA - coned code requirexaents . In
' parking spaces based on the afore -mens
November, �
ber X989 the Oak Tree Plaza tenant makeup was as follows:
Medical 3,618 Sq. ft.
3.616613.61$OX0,
6= 22 spaces
Retail 16,645 sq. ft. (16,645 f 200) = 83 spaces
Office 30,885 sq. ft. (30,885 250) = 124 spaces
Restaurants a 24- seats (�Z _ 3 ) = 4� spaces
Total parking spaces required 270 spaces
by code as of November 1989
(The number of square feet and restaurant seats referred to above
are taken from Exhibit A, Resolution No, 2710, Conditions of
Approval, Second Amendment to Use Permit 88-8, Paragraph 1.3).
As of November, 1991,.the tenant usage of Oak Tree Plaza Shopping
Center was as follows:
.. .. Medical 21200 sq. ft. (2, 200 + 1000)o
= 2.2; 2.2 x 6 13 spaces
►j
Retail 18,065 sq. ft. (18,065 : 200)-= 90 Spaces
Office 31,000 sq. ft* (31,000 : 250) = 124 spaces
Restaurants 189 seats (1.89 T 3) spaces
'total parking spaces required 290 spaces
by code as of November 1991
( The number of square feet and restaurant seats referred be above 1991
Consults
are taken from Table 31 attached of the Novem
parking analysis conducted by BSI ) .
J A N— 2-92 T H U 1 6= 1 2 R O U R K E& W O O D R U F F R- 0-:t
_e
Mr. Jim Rourke
December 31, 1991
Page 3
To, briefly sumarize the problem,s inNovember19899 the there were
Code also
approximately 270 available parking. paces
requiring 270 spaces. However, in November 1991 the BSI parking
analysis erroneously concluded that because the existing 270 spaces
were being underutilized that the total number of spaces could be
reduced. This conclusion ignores two facts: (1) the code requires
that parking spaces be tied directly to tenant usage; and (2) the
change in tenant usage from 1989 to 1991 created a code required
increase of 20 parking spaces.
It i$ the hope of Nakao, Shp j i U.S.A. that this information will
' help* you, and' the Planning Commis' io» in determining whether or not
the November 1991 parking study is based on accurate a,and
conclusions, and therefore, whether
r not the of
Amendment No. 3 to C.U.P. 88$ should beallowed to stanin light
of Tustin's parking requirements.
As discussed, Nakai Shoji will await notification from the Planning
Commission of an appeal date, which I understand will be sometime
in January, 1992. If you or any other official or employee
requires further information, please do not hesitate to contact the
undersigned.
V ,truly yours,
Kevin S. Gar er, Esq.
KSG/fm
cc: Ms. Akemi Nakata
William D. Johnson, Esq.
Mr. Tal iackson
John'R.'Shaw; Esq.
Mr. Bob Ledendecker
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
L i
RESOLUTION NO. 2710
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF TUSTIN, APPROVING A SECOND AMENDMENT
TO USE PERMIT 88-8 MODIFYING THE BUILDING SITE
AND LANDSCAPING PLANS, PERMITTED USES, REQUIRED
PARKING AND SIGN PROGRAM AT OAK TREE PLAZA
LOCATED AT 17582 EAST SEVENTEENTH STREET
8 The Planning Commission of the City of Tustin hereby resolve as
follows:
9
I.
10
Il
12
13
14
15
li
1s
1'
20i
21
22
23
24
25
2e
2711
281
i
The Planning Commission finds and determines as follows:
A. That a proper application for a second amendment to Use
Permit 88 -8, -has been filed on behalf of Colco, Ltd. and
Ruby's Diner, requesting to amend the provisions of Use
Permit 88-8, regarding site and landscaping plans,
elevations, permitted uses, parking requirements and
Master Sign Program.
B. That a public hearing was duly called, noticed and held
on said applications on November 27, 1989.
C. That establishment, maintenance and operation of the uses
applied for will not, under the circumstances of this
case, be detrimental to the health, safety, morals,,
comfort or general welfare of the persons residing or
working in the neighborhood of such proposed use as
evidenced by the following findings:
1. The uses applied for are in conformance with the
requirements of the Tustin General Plan and Zoning
Code.
2. The conditions contained herein are necessary to
avoid incompatible elements of the proposed project
and to ensure compliance with these'conditions for
the life of the Use Permit.
3. The -use will be compatible within the surrounding
uses as they are commercial in nature.
4. Adequate parking is anticipated to be available on
site to provide for all uses.
ATTACHMENT
1
2
3
4 Resolution No. 2710
Page two
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
j.
12
13 ;
14
15
li
1S
E
20I
21
22
23
24
25
26
5. The proposed neon sign will be compatible with the
architectural design of the project.
D. That the project is exempt from the requirements of the
California Environmental Quality Act, pursuant to Section
15301a (Class 1).
E. That the establishment, maintenance and operation of the
uses applied for would not be injurious or detrimental
to the property and improvements in,the neighborhood of
the subject property nor to the general welfare of the
City of Tustin, and should be granted.
I. The Planning Commission hereby approves a Second Amendment to
Use Permit 88-8, subject to the conditions contained in
Exhibit A attached hereto and included herein by reference.
ASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED by the Planning Commission at a
egular meeting on the 27th day of November, 1989.
Leslie Anne Pontious
i
Penni Foley
Secretary
EXHIBIT A
RESOLUTION NO. 2710
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
Second Amendment to Use Permit 88-8
1.1 All original conditions of approval contained within Exhibit
A of Planning commission Resolution 2494 shall remain in
effect, except those modified herein. The conditions
established by City Council Resolution No. 89-77 will be
superseded by the conditions contained herein.
1.2 Unless otherwise specified, conditions contained in this
exhibit shall be complied with prior to issuance of any
additional building permits for the project.
1.3 Conditions 1.1, 1.3, 1.4 and 1.8 of Exhibit A of -Planning
Commission Resolution No. 2494 shall be revised to read as
follows:
"1.1 The proposed project shall substantially conform with the
submitted site plan for the project date stamped May 9,
1988 on file with the Community Development Department
as amended by the City Council on July 17, 1989, and
Planning Commission on November 27, 1989, and as herein
modified, or as.modified by the Director of Community
Development Department in accordance. with this
resolution.
1.3 A total of 273 parking spaces shall be maintained for the
proposed commercial center based upon the uses and size
limitations outlined in condition 1.4 following. Said
uses have been evaluated in a parking demand study (Table
1 attached hereto) which utilized the following standards
as the basis of the report. Any future permitted uses
will be regulated by the same parking standards.
1 parking space per 200 square feet of retail use.
° 1 parking space per 250 square feet of office use.
° 1 parking space per 3 seats for restaurant uses.
° 6 parking spaces per 1,000 square feet of medical
office or related uses.
1.4 The uses authorized by the approval of Use Permit 88-8
are as -follows:
a. Retail Buildings (Buildings A, B and C): All uses
allowed in the C-1 and C-2 zone, except professional
offices. A maximum of 3,618 square feet of medical
office uses are permitted within the retail
buildings as follows:
Exhibit A
Resolution No. 2710
Page two
Space No. Maximum square feet
101, Bldg A 1,418 sq ft
103, Bldg C 1,200 sq ft
105, Bldg C 1,000 sq ft
b. Office Building (Building D): All uses allowed
within PR zone, except medical office or related
uses.
C. Any uses included within the C-11 C-2 or PR zones
which require approval of a use permit, shall be
conditionally permitted uses for this project site.
d. A maximum o 224 eats of restaurant use within
9,733 square of the retail buildings A and C
may be allowed only as follows:
Space Maximum Mimimum Square
Number Seating Footage
101,
Bldg
C
2 seats
996 sq ft
104,
Bldg
A
42
se t
31647
sq
ft
104,
Bldg
C
eats
11200
sq
ft
105,
Bldg
A
24
seats
21000
sq
ft
106,
Bldg
A
15
seats
1,000
sq
ft
107,
Bldg
A
15
seats
1,030
sq
ft
1.8 Office uses shall not exceed 34,503 square feet of total
gross floor area of the 61,040 square feet shown on the
amended approved plans. A total of 30,885 square feet
of non-medical office use shall be contained within
Building D and a maximum of 3,618 square feet of medical
office uses may be located within Buildings A or C as
provided for in subsection 1.4(a) above."
1.4 No future modifications to the maximum permitted number of
restaurant seats, or to the amount of square footage allocated
to medical office or restaurant uses shall be permitted or
applied for by the applicant or property owner. The
designated medical or restaurant uses may always be converted
to retail uses.
1.5 If at any time in the future a tenant or customer advises the
City that a parking problem exists on the project site, the
Director of Community Development may require the property
owner to prepare an updated parking demand analysis. If said
parking study indicates that there is inadequate parking on
Exhibit A
Resolution No. 2710
Page three
the site, the applicant will be required to mitigate these
impacts by providing off-site parking or modifying the
permitted medical and restaurant uses on the site to reduce
parking demand.
1.6 The Master Sign Program for Oak Tree Plaza shall be amended
to permit two red and white exposed neon signs for Ruby's
Diner only. The front sign shall not exceed 74 square feet
and the rear.elevation sign shall not exceed 25 square feet
in size. Any major modifications to the approved Sign Program
shall require Planning Commission approval.
1.7 The existing chain-link fencing surrounding the flood control
channel shall be replaced with a green vinyl -coated chain-
link fence within 120 days of approval of this Resolution
Exhibit.
1.8 In the event structural plans, calculations or specifications
or grading plans, previously approved by the City, need to be
revised to reflect modifications approved herein, the
applicant shall submit for plan check all required corrections
subject to review and approval of he Community development
Department. Upon submittal or prior to approval, the applicant
will be responsible for all applicable building plan check and
revised permit fees.
1.9 No outdoor bar or -restaurant seating shall be permitted on the
site.
1.10 The applicant and property owner shall_ sign and return and
Agreement to conditions Imposed form as established by the
Department of Community Development prior to the issuance of
any permits relating to medical uses or Ruby's Diner.
SJP: pef
JUSTIN F. FARNIE11 5 - RAINSPORTATION FNGIII ERS, INC.
TABLE 1
PARKING DEMAND
(1)
(2) Medical(3) (4)
our
Retail Office_
office
Restaurant
Total
' 6:00
AM
NOM
4 1
22
27
7:00
AM
7
25 4
22
58
8:00
AM
15
78 14
50
157
9:00
AM
35
115 20
52
222
10:00
AM
56
124 22
34
236
11:00
AM
72
124 22
40
258
12:00
Noon
81
112 20
45
258
1:00
PM
83..
112 20
53
268
2:00
PM
81
120 21
46
268
3:00
PM
79
115 20
39
253
4:00
PM
72
95 17
53
237
5:00
PM
66
58 10
55
189
6:00
PM
68
29 5
60
162
7:00
PM
744
9 2
69
154
(1)
Based on
Tustin Code
at (1:200) = 83
Spaces
(2)
Based on
Tustin Code
at (1:250) = 124
Spaces
(3)
Based on
Tustin Code
at (6:1000)= 22
Spaces
(4)
Based on
Tustin Code
at (1:3) = 75
Spaces, 30% reduction
factor was applied to restaurant demand
between 12:00
PM and
3:00 PM.
JUSTIN F. FARNIE11 5 - RAINSPORTATION FNGIII ERS, INC.
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF ORANGE )
CITY OF TUSTIN )
I, PENNI FOLEY, the undersigned, hereby certify that I am the Recording
Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Tustin, California; that
Resolution No. 7/6 was duly passed and adopted at a regular me ting of
the usti n Planning Commission, held on the 7V ---day of ,
198 .
f I A i
Recording Secreta
PARKING SUPPL Y/DEMAND ANALYSIS
FOR
OAK TREE PLAZA SHOPPING CENTER
"C/TY OF TUST/N"
Prepared by:
BSI Consultants, Inc.
Prepared for.-
City
or:City of Tustin
Public Works/Engineering Department
15222 Del Amo Avenue
Tustin, CA 92680
November, 1991
ATTACHMENT C
TABLE OF CONTENTS
CHAPTER I. INTRODUCTION .................................. 1
I-1. SITE DESCRIPTION AND STUDY AREA ..................... 1
I-2. SCOPE OF STUDY ................................... 1
CHAPTER II. EXISTING PARKING SUPPLY AND CLASSIFICATIONS ........ 2
II -1. EXISTING PARKING SUPPLY ........................... 2
II -2. PARKING INVENTORY 2
CHAPTER III. EXISTING PARKING DEMAND & PARKING UTILIZATION ..... 3
III -1. EXISTING PARKING DEMANTI) AND PARKING UTILIZATION ...... 3
CHAPTER IV. FUTURE PARKING DEMAND & FUTURE PARKING
SUPPLYIDEMAND ANALYSIS4
IV -1. FORECAST OF FUTURE PARKING DEMAND ............... 4
IV- 1.1. Existing Building Occupancy ...................... 4
IV -1.2. Parking Demand Generated By the Vacant Building Spaces ..... 4
IV -1.3. Future Parking Demand Based On Full Occupancy .......... 5
IV -2. FUTURE PARKING DEMAND ANALYSIS ................... 6
FIGURE 1 SITE PLAN
FIGURE 2 SITE LOCATION
LIST OF FIGURES
LIST OF TABLES
TABLE 1 PARKING CLASSIFICATIONS ........................... 2
TABLE 2 EXISTING PARKING UTILIZATION ....................... 3
TABLE 3 TENANT BREAK DOWN .............................. 4
CHAPTER I. INTRODUCTION
This report documents the results of a parking supply/demand analysis conducted by BSI
Consultants Inc., to evaluate the potential impact on parking due to the removal of several
parking spaces in 'the Oak Tree Plaza Shopping Center parking lot in Tustin, California. The
loss of parking spaces (an estimated six) will be caused by construction of a domestic water well
on the southeast corner of the center.
I-1. SITE DESCRIPTION AND STUDY AREA
Oak Tree Plaza Shopping Center, illustrated in Figure 1, is a mixed office/commercial
development with a total gross floor area (GSF) of 61,005 square feet, consisting of the
following:
Office space: 31,000 GSF
Retail space: 18,065 GSF
Medical Offices: 29200 GSF
Restaurant: 91740 GSF
Total 619005 GSF
The site illustrated on Figure 2, is addressed at 17552, 175929 17602, and 17612 Seventeenth
Street and is located between Seventeenth Street and Vandenberg Lane, one block east of Yorba
Street. Surrounding the project site is another commercial center and several office
developments which support the Oak Tree Plaza merchants. To the south of the plaza, across
Vandenberg Lane, is a residential area characterized by apartments and condominiums.
I-2. SCOPE OF STUDY
The scope of this study was developed in conjunction with the staff of the City of Tustin. The
study is directed towards the following:
• Determination of the existing parking supply and demand.
• Determination of the future parking supply (after removal of the parking spaces) and
demand (upon full occupation of the shopping center).
1
;8EV.ENTEENTH _.
n 2 o�j
M• SS �_ 11 •i. -•. � 41
1 I--_' — ' e r� -� ' ��.•. S�e.IL Ir 11tLla..'.ti.. �.i►�.�i.rtil. • •• .� �� �%� �� •i � \
(�j Q C! • 11u1... ' - 1 / i't1 i `1 1 fl ._ 91'x.. •' i•n �✓. r� .
� \�•, a� 11 r-� �I
ley V.
\\ CII -♦— • `�� V:0114
lJ
Ut
1,14, M
c�
1 Dom.
10 77
OV
too A .. ,,;.. #:1
ic`P.n • '-LOT IZ '"' ii ;- •' I ` ' .�'�.�/
�'�{ � i -��' L. 1��X�I �a �"' •-ter � � t
�wRs • �- w
TT ♦ •
UR 3
FIGURE 1 - SITE PLAN
x351
O�ONA ST
t
FIGURE 2 - SITE LOCATION
CHAPTER H. EXISTING PARKING SUPPLY & CLASSIFICATION
This chapter presents results of a parking supply analysis conducted on site at the Oak Tree
Plaza Shopping Center. A comprehensive effort was undertaken to develop a detailed inventory
along with classifications of the existing parking supply.
H-1. EXISTING PARKING SUPPLY
A parking inventory was conducted by BSI Consultants, Inc., in November of 1991. The types
of parking available in the Oak Tree Plaza Shopping Center caters to the variable needs in this
mixed-use project. In the office area, there is reserved parking for the business executives, 20
minute parking near the front entrance for clients, several handicapped spaces, and sufficient
compact and standard sized parking for employees.
The commercial usage located at the northern area of the project site, contains time-limited
parking, handicapped access, along with standard and compact sized parking spaces. The
parking supply is adequate according to the Tustin City Code and appears to be well -marked and
in good condition.
H-2. PARKING INVENTORY
Table 1 summarizes the existing parking supply and its designated classifications.
TABLE 1
PARKING CLASSIFICATIONS
CLASSIFICATION
NUMBER OF SPACES
REGULAR
193
COMPACT
46
RESERVED
10
20 MINUTE
12
15 MINUTE
3
HANDICAPPED
6
TOTAL
X70
2
CHAPTER M. EXISTING PARKING DEMAND &
PARKING UTILIZATION
III -1. EXISTING PARKING DEMAND & PARKING UTILIZATION
This section presents results of field surveys to determine how the parking spaces in the Oak
Tree Plaza Shopping Center are currently utilized. Parking surveys were conducted on
Wednesday, November 6th and Thursday, November 7th. Counts were taken of the total spaces
used three times per day; at 10:00 am, 1:00 pml, and 4:00 pm. Table 2 presents the results
of the parking demand surveys and the percentages of parking utilization for each survey.
TABLE 2
EXISTING PARKING UTILIZATION
::...........
.:.............
................ ::D
.............. .... ...................
...................
.
. .
......................
......................
:................
:<:...
..
4 00`'
......
...................
_
::.:..
Wednesday 11/6/91
101
37%
159
59%
127
47%
Thursday 11/7/91
118
44%
164
61%
139
51%
Average
110
41%
162
60%
133
49%
Percentage of parking utilization.
The maximum number of parking spaces utilized on a typical weekday is 164 which occurs at
1:00 pm and utilizes 61 % of the total available spaces (270 spaces). During the peak of the
maximum parking need, there are still 106 unused spaces.
Therefore, under the current conditions, the parking supply is underutilized with an estimated
surplus of 106 spaces (Existing Demand = 164 spaces < Existing Supply = 270 spaces).
It should also be noted that during the month of October, a pumpkin patch was set up in the
parking lot of the shopping center. Not only did this marked off area use up approximately 10
spaces, it necessarily increased the demand for parking. During this time, although no official
counts were taken, a great excess in parking supply was witnessed in the initial field review.
' Estimated peak hour of parking utilization, based on the "Shared Parking Analysis" conducted for Ruby's
Restaurant, November 20, 1989.
CHAPTER IV. PARKING DEMAND &
FUTURE PARKING SUPPLY/DEMAND ANALYSIS
IV -1. FORECAST OF FU RJRE PARKING DEMAND -
The future parking demand will be estimated through addition of the existing peak parking
demand to the estimated parking demand generated upon full occupation of the building spaces
currently vacant.
IV -1.1. Existing Building Occupancy
Table 3 illustrates the Oak Tree Plaza Shopping Center current tenant breakdown and usage
classification relevant to the parking required by the Tustin City Code. As indicated in the
table, there are currently two vacant suites for a total of 3,280 square feet.
IV -1.2. Parking Demand Generated by the Vacant Building Spaces
City of Tustin Parking Code has the following requirements for different land uses:
Land Use
Office
Retail
Restaurant
Med. Office
Required Parking Spaces
1 per 250 square feet
1 per 200 square feet
1 per 3 seats
6 per 1000 square feet
Restaurant tenant improvement plans are currently being reviewed by the City of Tustin for an
additional 92 seats within the two vacant suites:
Parking Demand = 92 seats x (1 space: 3 seats) = 31 spaces
E, '
TABLE 3
OAK TREE PLAZA TENANT BREAK DOWN
UNIT
TENANT
SQUARE FEET
SEATS
101-A
WRAPPING IT UP
1420
101-B
VIDEO GIANT
8450
101-C
TTZ A DELI
1000
15
102-A
LIFESTYLE NAILS
1000
102-C
POSTAL ANNEX
1200
'
103-A
SUISHA
2280
77
103-C
DR. JOSHUA KAYE
1200
104-A
KOO KOO ROO
2260
43
104-C
LENNY' S PASTA
1200
15
105-A
WOKMAN
2000
24
105-C
DR. CARTER
1000
106-A
LA SALSA
1000
15
106-C
EXTRA EXTRA
2275
107-A
CONROY'S
1030
107-C
FITNESS IMAGE
1490
108-C
U.S. CLEANERS
1200
5
USAGE TYPE
RETAIL
RETAIL
RESTAURANT
RETAIL
RETAIL
RESTAURANT
MEDICAL OFFICE
RESTAURANT
RESTAURANT
RESTAURANT
MEDICAL
RESTAURANT
RETAIL
RETAIL
RETAIL
RETAIL
IV -1.2. Future Parking Demand Based On Full Building Occupancy
As indicated earlier, the future parking demand will be estimated by adding the existing peak
parking demand to the estimated parking demand generated by the currently vacant building
spaces, as follows:
Future Parking Existing Peak Parking Demand Generated
Demand = Parking Demand + By the Current Vacancies
Future Parking Demand = 164. + 31 = 195 spaces
IV -2. FU771JRE PARKING SUPPLY/DEMAND ANALYSIS
Future parking supply/demand analysis will be conducted through a simple comparison between
the future parking supply with the above estimated future parking demand.
As indicated earlier, construction of the domestic water well is expected to result in loss of six
parking spaces. Therefore, the future parking supply would be:
Future Parking Supply = Existing Parking Supply - '6 = 270 - 6 = 264 spaces
The results of the future parking demand indicated a peak parking demand of 195 spaces which
is significantly less than the future parking supply of 264 spaces. Therefore, this study
concludes the following:
Future parking supply of 264 spaces, after removal of six parking spaces due to the
construction of a domestic water well in the Oak Tree Plaza shopping center parking
lot, will be adequate to meet the future parking demand, even upon full occupation
of the currently vacant building spaces.
Since the Tustin City Code will allow the number of required parking spaces to be modified if
a parking study confirms that adequate parking will be available through the Planned Community
(PC) District, BSI Consultants, Inc., recommends that the City revise the established parking
requirements. This would allow the domestic water well to be constructed in light of the
deduction that the impacts will not be significant and adequate parking will be provided on-site.
R
..K TREE PLAZA
13 -Feb -91
PROJECT SUMMARY
USE SQ.FT SEATS
OFFICE 31000 0
RETAIL 18065 0 SEE CHART BELOW
RESTAURANTS 9740 211 SEE CHART BELOW
MEDICAL 2200 0
61005 211
RETAIL/TENANT BREAKDOWN
APPROVED EXISTING
UNIT TENANT NET SQ. FT SEATS SEATS (1)
101-A
Wrapping It Up
1420
0
0
101-8
Video Giant
8450
0
0
101-C
Itz A Deli
1000
12
28
102-A
Lifestyle Nails
1000
0
0
102-C
Postal Annex
1200
0
0
103-A
Suisha
2280
0
74 (2)
—'03-C
Dr. Joshua Kaye
1200
0
0
A -A
Koo Koo Roo
2260
142
45 (2)
104-C
Lenny's Pasta
1200
16
21 (3)
105-A
Wokman
2000
24
40
105-C
Dr. Carter
1000
0
0
106-A
La Salsa
1000
15
0 (4)
106-C
Extra Extra
2275
0
0
107-A
Conroy's
1030
15
0 (5)
107-C
Fitness Image
1490
0
0
108-C
U.S. Cleaners
1200
0
0
30005 (net) 224 208
(1) - Existing seats verified in the field 1/8/92, noon.. Parking lot half empty.
(2) - PC Reso. 2710 authorized 142 seats for Unit 104-A. Seats have been distributed
between Units 104-A and 103-A.
(3) - Includes 3 outdoor seats which are prohibited by Condition 1.9 of PC Reso. 2710.
(4) - No plans submitted to date.
(5) - Non -restaurant tenant.
ATTACHMENT D
ITEM #2
E
Port to the
Planning Commission
DATE: NOVEMBER 25, 1991
SUBJECT: AMENDMENT NO. 3 TO CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 88-8
APPLICANT: CITY OF TUSTIN
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
15222 DEL AMO AVENUE
TUSTIN, CA 92680
OWNER: MANCHESTER DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION
2100 S.E. MAIN ST, SUITE 400
IRVINE, CA 92714
ATTENTION: MR. WILLIAM IMPARATO
LOCATION: 17582, 17592, 17602 AND 17612 E. SEVENTEENTH STREET
ZONING: PLANNED COMMUNITY (COMMERCIAL) (PC -C)
ENVIRONMENTAL
STATUS: THIS PROJECT HAS BEEN DETERMINED TO BE
CATEGORICALLY EXEMPT (CLASS 1) PURSUANT TO SECTION
15301 OF THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT
REQUEST: AUTHORIZATION TO AMEND CONDITION NO. 1.3 OF
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2710, REDUCING THE
NUMBER OF REQUIRED PARKING SPACES FROM 273"TO 264,
BASED UPON A PARKING DEMAND ANALYSIS, AND MODIFY
SITE DEVELOPMENT PLANS TO ACCOMMODATE A CITY WELL
SITE
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the Planning Commission approve Amendment
No. 3 to Conditional Use Permit 88-8 by adopting Resolution No.
2979, as submitted or revised.
BACKGROUND
Conditional Use Permit 88-8 established the site plan and
development regulations for a mixed use off ice/retail center
located on the south side of Seventeenth Street generally between
Enderle Center Drive and Prospect Avenue. The project, known as
Oak Tree Plaza, contains four buildings totaling approximately
ATTACHMENT E
Planning Commission Report
Amendment No. 3 to CUP 88-8
November 25, 1991
Page 2
61,000 square feet. Three single -story commercial buildings
(Buildings A -C) are situated in a U-shaped design oriented toward
Seventeenth Street. The fourth building (Building D) is a three-
story office building situated at the rear of the property more
oriented to Vandenberg Lane.
The City of Tustin has been working with the property owner 'to
acquire property easements within the center to accommodate a City
domestic water well site. The proposed well site would be located
in the southeast -corner of the center adjacent to Vandenberg Lane.
The City Council, at their meeting on October 21, 1991, entered
into an agreement to purchase the- property easements from the
property owner. Part of that agreement required the City of Tustin
to process amendments to the site development plans and parking
requirements to accommodate the facility.
Surrounding uses include commercial and office uses to the north,
east and' west with multi -family residential uses to the south
across Vandenberg Lane.
A public hearing notice identifying the time, date and location of
the public hearing for the proposal was published in the Tustin
News. Property owners within 300 feet of the site were notified of
the hearing by mail. In addition, hearing notices were posted on
the property along Seventeenth Street and Vandenberg Lane, and at
the Police Department. The property owner was informed of the
availability of a staff report on this project.
DISCUSSION
Site PlaniArchitecture
The City well site would result in the need to make physical
alterations to the parking lot area in the southeast corner site
(Attachment A). The well is proposed to be located in the corner
of the site adjacent to Vandenberg Lane and the flood control
channel along the easterly property line. The parking lot and
landscaping within the parking lot area would be reconfigured to
maintain the loop type circulation pattern that presently exists.
A total net loss of six parking spaces would result from the
reconfiguration. The ultimate configuration would satisfy all
circulation requirements of the Orange County Fire Department, as
well as conform to the City's Parking Lot Development Standards
with respect to stall size and aisle widths. Landscaping would be
replaced with materials compatible to the existing plant palette.
Planning Commission Report
Amendment No. 3 to CUP 88-8
November 25, 1991
Page 3
Parking
Within the Planned Community (PC) Districts, development standards
such as parking are subject to approval by the Planning Commission
as part of the development review process. The PC Districts
provides for and encourages flexibility to create a comprehensive
and cohesive development. In November of 1989, the Planning
Commission approved Amendment No. 2 to Conditional Use Permit 88-8
allowing the amount of parking for the center to be calculated
based upon a parking demand study. Considering the mixed use
nature of this project with office, retail, restaurants and medical
uses, a certain amount of economy in parking would be realized
throughout the day compared to that which would be required on an
individual use basis. There are organizations such as the American
Planning Association, Urban Land Institute and the Institute of
Traffic Engineers whose technical reports substantiate the
reduction in parking demand in mixed use developments. Many other
jurisdictions also allow for joint parking within mixed use
developments. A parking demand study was prepared for the 1989
amendment which justified the demand for parking at its peak period
(1:00 p.m. Monday - Friday) at 268 parking spaces. At the time,
the center was able to provide a total of 273 parking spaces.
Currently, the site maintains 270 parking spaces. The site
modifications to accommodate the well site would eliminate an
additional six spaces, reducing the available parking to 264
spaces. An updated Parking Demand Study has been prepared based
upon the current tenant breakdown, including restaurant seating.
The complete Parking Demand Study is included as Attachment B and
provides detailed discussion on the tenant breakdown and parking
demand. The study concluded that the 264 spaces that would remain
on the site would adequately accommodate the peak parking demand of
the center based upon the current tenant mix. The peak parking
demand (1:00 p.m. Monday - Friday) was considered to be 195 spaces.
Based upon the proposed site modifications related to reduction of
parking spaces, Condition No. 1.3 of Planning Commission Resolution
No. 2710 would need to be revised to ensure consistency with the
Conditions of Approval and physical development. Condition 1.3
presently requires, in part, that the center maintain 273 parking
spaces (Attachment C) . This condition would need to be modified to
reference 264 parking spaces.
Pursuant to Section 9291(c) of the Tustin City Code, the Commission
must make the following positive finding when considering approval
of a Conditional Use Permit application:
Planning Commission Report
Amendment No. 3 to CUP 88-8
November 25, 1991
Page 4
"The Commission shall determine that the establishment,
maintenance or operation of the use applied for will not,
under the circumstances of the particular case, be
detrimental to the health, safety, morals, comfort and
general welfare of the persons residing or working in the
neighborhood of such proposed use, and will not be
injurious or detrimental to property and improvements in
the neighborhood or general welfare of the City."
In consideration of this analysis and the parking demand study, the
actual amount of parking provided on the site would exceed the
demand. Therefore, the reduction of parking spaces from 273 to 264
would not be detrimental to the health, safety, morals, comfort and
general welfare of persons residing and working in the area in that
the parking demand for the center can be. accommodated allowing the
site to continue to function properly and efficiently.
CONCLUSION
Based upon the discussion provided herein, supported by the Parking
Demand Study, it is recommended that the Planning Commission
approve Amendment No. 3 to Conditional Use Permit 88-8, reducing
the amount of required parking from 273 to 264 parking spaces and
modifying the site development plans to accommodate a City well
site, by adopting Resolution No. 2979,subject to the conditions
contained in Exhibit A.
D2 7z
aniel Fox
Senior Planner
Christine A. Shingle
Assistant City Mana r
Community Development
Attachments: Resolution No. 2979
A - Site Plans
B - Parking Demand Analysis
C - Resolution No. 2710
a
IN
J
Q
V
W
--- rO BE
REMOVED
�— t,e�Yl�sUPE
�O QE REMOvL�o
LW
�
J
x
�
Y
`
. •
PERM,dwE�V7`�
.:,.,..
a
IN
J
Q
V
W
--- rO BE
REMOVED
�— t,e�Yl�sUPE
�O QE REMOvL�o
LW
ATTACHMENT A
�
J
ATTACHMENT A