The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About03 CUP 96-037 DR 96-51 02-18-97DATE: FEBRUARY 18,1997 NO. 3 2-18-97 Inter-Com TO: FROM- SUBJECT: WILLIAM A. HUSTON, CITY MANAGER COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT APPEAL OF CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 96-037 AND DESIGN REVIEW 96- 051 (PLAZA LAFAYEYTE PARKING LOT EXPANSION) SUMMARY: Conditional Use Permit 96-037 and Design Review 96-051 are requests to establish 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 distric~ The project was approved by the Zoning Administrator on December 3, 1996 and subsequently appealed to the Planning Commission. The Planning Commission modified the conditions of the approval, upheld the Zoning Administrator's action and approved the project on January 13, 1997. The project was appealed to the City Council on January 17,1997. Landowner. Southern Pacific Transportation Company Applicant: Plaza Properties, LLC Appellants: Sharon Ramage, Nancy Ramage, G.R. Ramage, Jr. & G.R. Ramage, III RECOMMENDATION That the City Council adopt Resolution No. 97-7, upholding the Planning Commission's action and denying the appeal of Conditional Use Permit 96-037 and Design Review 96-051. FISCAL IMPACT The applicant and appellants have paid application and appeal fees to recover the cost of processing the application and appeal requests. ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS This project is categorically exempt (section 15311, class 11) pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act City Council Report Appeal of CUP 96-037 & DR 96-051 February 18, 1997 Page 2 BACKGROUND AND DISCUSSION On December 3, 1996, the Zoning Administrator adopted Zoning Administrator Action No. 96-011, approving a. Conditional Use Permit and Design Review request to establish a parking lot in 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 (Attachment A). On December 10, 1996, Ms. Sharon Ramage, one of the owners of the Woodcrest Apartments, filed an appeal of the Zoning Administrator's action, requesting the Planning Commission's consideration of the project (Attachment B). The appeal of the Zoning Administrator's action included a petition that references the project and the previously proposed annexation proposal that was considered by the City Council on October 21, 1996. The annexation proposal pertained to 314 lineal feet of railroad right-of-way located adjacent to and directly north of the subject project_ The Planning Commission heard the appeal, modified the conditions of approval, upheld the Zoning Administrator's action and approved the project on January 13, 1997. On January 17, 1997, the owners of the Woodcrest Apartments filed an appeal of the Planning Commission's action, requesting the City Council's consideration of the project (Attachment C). 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 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. 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 the approval of a Conditional Use Permit (City Code Sections 9226(a)(1), 9225(a)(1) and 9223(b)(4)). The applicant proposes to expand the existing shopping center parking lot to include the vacant parcel. Given the distance from the proposed parking spaces to the tenant locations in the shopping center, the parking spaces would be reserved for employee parking only. No customer parking is proposed in the parking lot expansion area. Based on a modification to the project by the Planning Commission, valet parking would be prohibited. City Council Report Appeal of CUP 96-037 & DR 96-051 February 18, 1997 Page3 According to the applicant, additional parking is needed based on current parking demand at the shopping center. 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. A second Variance, No. 95-011, was approved to accommodate the establishment of a fourth restaurant~ The two variances have resulted in a reduction of required parking spaces in the shopping center from 327 spaces to 241 spaces. Condition 6.18 of Planning Commission Resolution No. 3413 (Variance No. 95-011) states that if a parking and/or traffic problem exists at the shopping center as a result of insufficient on-site parking availability, the City may require the property owner to submit an updated parking demand analysis and/or traffic study. If said study indicates that there is a problem, the property owner shall be required to provide additional mitigation measures approved by the City. One of the mitigation measures requires the provision of 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 City has not required the property owner to update the parking .analysis or traffic study or provide additional parking atthis time. Instead, the property owner is making a proactive effort to satisfy parking demand by providing additional "on-site" parking spaces. The proposed parking lot expansion area would accommodate approximately 36 vehicles. The parking spaces in the expansion area are proposed to be compact spaces that are eight feet in width and 17.5 feet in length plus a 2.5 feet overhang area. Because the proposed parking spaces will be considered excess parking spaces, all of the spaces are permitted to be developed as compact spaces. Extensive landscaping will not be required within the parking lot expansion area because the area is isolated from the remainder of the shopping center and will only be used by shopping center business owners and employees. Further, the width of the property and the parking lot layout would not provide adequate planter width to plant trees. Subject to the approval of the Community Development Department, minor landscaping with vines will be required along the east property line. City Council Report Appeal of CUP 96-037 & DR 964351 February 18, 1997 Page4 Zoning Administrator and Planning Commission Actions Attachments D and E contain the Zoning Administrator's and Planning Commission's reports. The information provided below is a summary of the Zoning Administrator's and the Commission's public hearings. At the Zoning Administrator public hearing held on December 3, 1996, verbal testimony was received from two individuals who spoke in opposition to the project and two individuals who spoke in favor of the project. The public testimony is summarized in the Zoning Administrator Action Agenda (Attachment F). Following the Zoning Administrator public hearing held December 3, 1996, a letter was received from one resident of the Woodcrest Apartments opposed to the applicant's proposal (Attachment G). At the Planning Commission public hearing held on January 13, 1996, nine (9) individuals spoke in opposition to the project, and four (4) spoke in support of the project. A summary of this testimony is contained in the Planning Commission Minutes (Attachment H). At the public hearing, a letter of opposition was received from two residents of the Woodcrest Apartments. Four additional letters of opposition have been received since the Planning Commission public hearing (Attachment I). The appellants have identified that their concerns relate to quality of life issues; noise impacts; potential increase in theft, vandalism and loitering; lighting disturbances; and, health and safety issues (see Attachment C). These concerns were addressed in Planning Commission Resolution No. 3507 and through the conditions contained therein (Attachment J). City Council Resolution No. 97-7 incorporates all of the conditions contained in the Planning Commission's resolution. It also should be noted that a representative of the Police Department reviewed the proposed project and commented at the Planning Commission public hearing that the proposed parking lot expansion would improve security and police access. In considering the approval of Conditional Use Permit 96-037 and Design Review 96-051, the Planning Commission determined that the establishment, maintenance or operation of the use would not be detrimental to the health, safety, morals, comfort or general welfare of the persons residing or working in the neighborhood of such proposed use, nor would the use be injurious or detrimental to property and improvements in the neighborhood or the general welfare of the City. In making these findings, the Planning Commission considered noise impacts, loitering, lighting impacts, inadequate property maintenance, and other items which could be mitigated to ensure that the proposed use would not have a negative impact on surrounding properties. City Council Report Appeal of CUP 96-037 & DR 96-051 February 18, 1997 Page 5 The Planning Commission approved the project with the following conditions which specifically address the issues raised by the appellants. The comprehensive list of conditions is included as Attachment j. Condition No. 2.1 requires a 6'-8" solid masonry wall around the perimeter of the lot, measured from the lowest adjacent finish grade on the adjacent residential properties. This condition was modified by the Planning Commission to clarify that the wall is required to be 6'-8" at the north property line, as measured from the adjacent properties. Condition No. 2.3 requires the parking lot lighting to comply with the City's Security Ordinance and requires that the lighting be directed 90 degrees down which would not impact adjacent properties. Condition No 3.] will not allow the additional parking spaces to be counted as required parking spaces for the shopping center or be used to accommodate additional parking intensive uses, such as restaurants or medical uses, in the shopping center unless additional City approvals are obtained. Condition No. 3.? provides 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. These mitigation measures include the eStablishment of hours of use, securing the parking lot expansion area from the adjacent parking area 'and/or retaining an on-site security guard. For example, if nuisance problems exist, the Director has the ability through this condition to require that the parking lot expansion area be closed to all vehicles during certain hours. aZs.Planning Commission modified this condition to give the Community Development Director the authority to review the parking lot at leas~t on a biannual Condition No. 3.5 requires that the proposed site be used as a parking lot for employee parking only. This restriction will reduce the potential for noise and other nuisance impacts on the adjacent residential developments. Originally this condition also allowed valet parking in the parking lot expansion area. The Planning Commission modified the condition because an ample valet parking area closer to the restaurants served already exists. PI_ARA t. AFAYE]'TE Attachment A Zoning Administrator Action No. 96-011 ZONING ADMINISTRATOR ACTION 96-011 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 96-037 AND DESIGN REVIEW 96-051 DECEMBER 3, 1996 4 The Zoning Administrator of the City of Tustin does 5 hereby resolve as follows: 6 I. 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2O 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 The Zoning Administrator finds and determines as follows: a. o Co D. That a proper application, Conditional Use Permit 96-037 and Design Review 96-051, filed by C.L. Burnett to authorize was establishment of a parking lot in a vacant the · 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 Wood Crest Apartments at 12901-12943 Newport Avenue. That the proposed use is allowed within the R- 3, Multiple-Family Residential District, with the approval.of a Conditional Use Permit. That a public hearing was duly called, noticed and held on said application on December 3 1996 by the Zoning Administrator. ' That establishment· maintenance· and operation of a parking' lot in a residential district to serve an adjacent commercial shopping center, as conditioned· will not be detrimental to the health, safety, morals, comfort· or qeneral welfare of the persons residing or wor~ing 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: o The parking lot expansion area will be used for employee and/or valet parking only, thereby reducing the potential for noise and other nuisance impacts on adjacent properties. Lighting will comply with the City's Security Ordinance and will be directed downward and will not produce glare or have a negative impact on adjacent properties. 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2O 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Zoning Administrator Action 96-011 Page 2 o The proposed parking spaces will not be permitted to count as required parking spaces for the shopping center or be used to accommodate additional parking intensive uses, such as restaurants or medical uses, in the shopping center. o The additional parking spaces will indirectly provide more parking for patrons of the shopping center,' thereby mitigating parking demand impacts as required by Condition 6.18 of Planning Commission Resolution No. 3413 (Variance No. 95-011). o The adjacent residential uses will be buffered from the proposed p~rking lot expansion area by a solid 6'-8" block wall and/or existing garage or carport walls. E . Pursuant to Section 9272 of the Tustin Municipal Code, the Zoning Administrator 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 Zoning Administrator has considered at least the following items: i o . Height, bulk and area of buildings. Setbacks and site planning. · Landscaping, parking area design and traffic circulation. . Location, height and standards exterior illumination. of 5. Location and method of refuse storage. . o Physical relationship of proposed improvements to existing structures in the neighborhood. Appearance and design relationship of proposed improvements to existing structures and possible future structures in the neighborhood and public thoroughfares. ~27 22 I, BARBARA REYES, the undersigned, hereby certify that I am the Recording Secretary of the Zoning Administrator 23 of the City of Tustin, California; that Zoning Administrator Action No. 96-011 was duly passed and 24 adopted at a regular meeting of the Tustin Zoning 25 Administrator, held on the 3rd day of December, 1996. 26 S~ BARBARA REYE Recording Secretary 5 G. Zoning Administratoz Action 96-011 Page 3 . Development Guidelines and criteria as adopted by the City Council. F . 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. 8 II. The Zoning Administrator hereby approves Conditional Use Permit No. 96-037 and Design Review 9 96-051 to authorize the establishment of a parking lot in a vacant 50' by 314' portion of an abandoned 10 railroad right-of-way located to the north of the Plaza La Fayette shopping center at 13031 Newport 11 Avenue and to the west of the Wood Crest Apartments at 12901-12943 Newport Avenue 12 ' PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Zoning Administrator of the 13 City of Tustin at a regular meeting held on the 3rd day of December, 1996. 14 16 ~ES~ Rick Brown ~ Zoning Administrator Designee 17 ' ARBARA RE 18 Recording Secretary 19 STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) 20 COUNTY OF ORANGE ) CITY OF TUSTIN ) 21 28 EXHIBIT A ZONING ADMINISTRATOR ACTION 96-011 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 96-037 AND DESIGN REVIEW 96-051 GENERAL (1) 1.1 The proposed project shall substantially conform with the submitted plans for the project date stamped November 8, 1996, 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. (1) 1.2 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. (1) 1.3 The subject project approval shall become null and void unless the use is established within twelve (12) months of the date of this Exhibit and substantial construction is underway. Time extensions may be granted if a written request is received by the Community Development Department within thirty (30) days prior to expiration. (1) 1.4 Approval of Conditional Use Permit 96-037 and Design Review 96-051 '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. (1) 1.5 The applicant shall hold and defend the City of Tustin harmless for all claims and liabilities arising out of City's approval of the entitlement process for this project. 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 CUP 96-037 and DR 96-051 December 3, 1996 Page 2 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 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 ~roperty owners will be required at plan check. The wall ms 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, 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 Direct . for the 6'- 8" high s~ or Plans ~ u~u 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 17.5 feet in length plus an overhang of 2.5 feet. The drive aisle shall be a minimum of 25 feet in width. The turnaround space shall be a minimum of twelve (12) feet 'in width and 17.5 feet in length and shall be located a minimum of three (3) feet from the north property line. (5) 2.3 Lighting for the parking lot expansion area shall comply with the City of Tustin Security Ordinance and shall provide a minimum of one (1) 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. Manufacturer,s details 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 four.(4) feet in' width shall be required along entire length of the east or west side of the parking lot. expansion area. (4) 2.5 Six (6) inch raised concrete curbs shall be placed on- site adjacent to the perimeter boundary walls and carport walls, unless approved otherwise by the Community Development Director. Landscaping, gravel, concrete or other material acceptable to the Community Development Director may be placed between the curb and the walls. Exhibi~ A CUP 96-037 and DR 96-051 December 3, 1996 Page 3 (1). 2.6 The applicant shall be responsible for the daily maintenance and up-keep of the parking lot expansion area, including but not limited to trash removal, painting, graffiti removal and maintenance of improvements to ensure that the facilities are maintained in a neat and attractive manner. 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. *** 2.7 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 Ail parking areas and walkways for the parking lot expansion area shall be steam cleaned and maintained free of trash and debris on a regular basis as needed. Ail damaged and cracked areas shall be repaired as needed. USE RESTRICTIONS *** 3.1 The parking spaces located in the parking lot expansion area shall not be counted toward the required number of, parking spaces for the shopping center. Likewise, the spaces shall not be used to accommodate additional parking intensive uses or use expansions in the shopping center unless additional City approvals are obtained. (5) 3.2 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 measures to be reviewed and approved by the Zoning Administrator. Said mitigation may include, but are not. limited to, the following: a o c o Establish hours of use. Secure parking lot expansion area from adjacent parking area. Retain an on-site security guard Exhibit A CUP 96-037 and DR 96-051 December 3, 1996 Page 4 Failure to satisfy the above condition could be grounds for the Zoning Administrator to reconsider Conditional Use Permit 96-037 and Design Review 96-051 which may result in revocation. (5) 3.3 Ail 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. (5) 3.4 Prior to issuance of any permit, 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, a reciprocal access agreement' or some other legal.ly binding instrument 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. *** 3.5 The use of the parking lot expansion area shall be limited to employee parking and/or valet parking only. Customer parking shall be prohibited, except in. conjunction with a special event or under special circumstances as approved by the Community Development Director. *** 3.6 Prior to the final inspection for any building permit, "Employee and Valet 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. *** 3.7 No structures shall be constructed within the parking lot expansion area. (1) 3.8 Outdoor storage shall be prohibited within the parking lot expansion area. (1) 3.9 Ail construction operations, including engine warm up and deliveries of materials and equipment, shall be subject to the provisions of the City of Tustin Noise Ordinance as amended, and may take place only during the hours of 7:00 a.m. until 6:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, and 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. on Saturday, unless the Building Official determines that said activity will be in substantial conformance with the Noise Ordinance and the public health and safety will not be impaired, subject to Exhibit A CUP 96-037 and DR 96-051 December 3, 1996 Page 5 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. (1) 3.10 "No Loitering" signs shall be posted on the site, with sign details and locations to be approved by the Community Development Department. PLAN SUBMITTAL (1) 4.1 Ail grading,'drainage, vegetation and circulation shall comply with the City of Tustin Grading Manual. Ail 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 1994 Uniform Mechanical Code with California Amendments 1994 Uniform Plumbing Code with California Amendments 1993 National Electrical Code with California Amendments T-24 California Disabled Access Regulations T-24 California Energy Efficiency Standards City of Tustin Grading Ordinance City of Tustin Landscape and Irrigation Guidelines City of Tustin Private Improvement Standards City of Tustin Security Ordinance (1) 4.2 Drainage from new areas shall be collected and drained to the existing drainage system at Plaza La Fayette. At plan check, the capacity of existing systems shall be calculated to be adequate. (5) 4.3 At plan check, provide project data to show the total number 'of parking spaces and the number of existing spaces accessible to disabled persons. Additional accessible parking spaces may be required on-site based on the total number of parking spaces. (5) 4.4 At plan check, a photometric study of the proposed lighting for the parking lot expansion area shall be submitted to the Community Development Department. (5) 4.5 At plan check, three (3) sets of the site improvement plans, modified in accordance with this Exhibit, shall be submitted to the Community Development Department. (1) 4.6 At plan check, three (3) inch striping detail shall be shown for all parking spaces. Exhibit A CUP 96-037 and DR 96-051 December 3, 1996 Page 6 ~IRE AUTHORITY (5) 5.1 Prior to the issuance of any' building/grading permits, the applicant shall submit and obtain approval of plans for the parking lot, from the Fire Chief in consultation with the Manager, Traffic Engineering. The plans shall include the plan view, section view, and indicate the width of the drive aisle, measured flow line to flow line. Ail proposed fire apparatus turnarounds shall be clearly marked when a dead-end drive aisle exceeds 150 feet or when other condi'tions require it. (5) 5.2 A fire lane shall be established for the drive aisle. (5) 5.3 Prior to the issuance of any grading/building permits, the applicant shall submit and obtain approval from the Fire Chief for parking lot plans with fire lanes shown. The plans shall indicate the locations of red curbing and signage. A drawing of the proposed signage with the height, stroke and color of lettering and the contrasting background color shall be submitted to and approved by the Fire Chief. (5) 5.4 Prior to the use of the parking lot, the approved fire lane marking plan shall be installed. FEES ~ (1) 6.1 Prior to issuance of any building permits payment shall (5) 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. Ail applicable building, grading and private improvement plan check and permit fees to the Community Development Department. b. Within forty-eight (48) hours of approval of the subject project, the applicant shall del~iver 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. Attachment B Letter of Appeal Dated December 9, 1996 Woodcrest Apartments 12901 Newport Avenue Tustin, CA 92780 December 9, 1996 Appeal on Conditional Use Permit 96-037 Design Review 96-051, Conversion of Southern-Pacific Right of-way into additional Parldng Lot for Plaza La Fayette to~ Zoning Administrator / Community Development Department City of Tustin From · Nancy D. & GR Ramage, Jr MD and Sharon Rarnag~ and GR Ramage, III, owners.of The Woodcrest Apartments and The 100 Families Residences of The Woodcrest Apartments. Dear Sirs and Madame's, We are protesting and wish to have stopped the conversion of the Southern-Pacific abandoned Railroad right-of-way, located to the West of the Woodcrest Apartments, into an additional parking lot for Plaza La Fayette. Thus, We are requesting an Appeal of the Approval of the Adopted Zoning Administrator Action 96-011 approving the Conditional Use Permit 96-037 and Design Review 96-051. , Our request for Appeal and having issuance of the Conditional Use permit 96-037 and Design Review 96-051 Stopped, is based upon several factors, which affect the quality of life, health and safety of the 100 Families residing at and the property of The Woodcrest Apar~ents. Just as the City of Tustin felt it in the best interest of the individual homeowners and the City not to proceed with annexation of the Balance of the S°uthern_Pacific right-of-way lot, which would have extended this potential parking lot area across to the backyards of the individual homeowners., We feel the 100 Families of the Woodcrest Apartments, who do not have the privilege of individual home ownership, deserve the same consideration and concern to Protect their quality of life, health and safety. Specifically, when the Plaza La Fayette was opened and the Right-of-way area was not secured by the locked fence and barbed wire, we experienced numerous occasions of car break-ins, theft, trash being thrown into our yards and strangers loitering and trespassing across our property. Woodcrest Apartments Page 2 We have been witness to the many improved changes within the City of Tustin and applaud the City for it's efforts in positive growth. This proposed Conditional Use Permit 96-037 and Design Review 96-051, though is not one of them. The current status of- the vacant lot is Secured with fencing and barred wire which alone has been the means in which bank robbers were not able to escape police enforcement 'after robbing the Plaza La Fayette Great Westem Bank as well as the First Interstate Bank and Citibank facilities located on In~e boulevard. The lot's current condition prevents various persons from loitering, vandalizing our resfdences vehicles and/or committing theft of their property. The Woodcrest Apartments, has been safer due to the fact there is limited access to the property by potential criminals. With the approval of the proposed additional parking to the Plaza La Fayette, the area becomes open to persons who may wish to cause harm to our Tenants, their personal property and the Woodcrest Apartments. The area.is secluded between two Apartment complexes and the Plaza La Fayette, so a criminal would be protected from view unless the police happen to be patrolling at the exact time the criminals propose to commit their crime. Though the use is to be limited to valet service and employees only, there are no measures being taken to prevent other usage, especially after all facilities in the Plaza are closed. The use of this parking area until 2:00 am will also create an unpleasant noise nuisance, which our hard working tenants will not appreciate. We understand that the parking lot would alleviate the Plaza La Fayette's parking problems, especially from Friday through Sunday. Also it would alleviate the need for the City to provide cleanup of this current vacant lot. And, we assume it would create some new revenue for the City. These are all very positive from the city's point of view and the tenants of the Plaza La Fayette, but not the 100 Residences and owner's of the Woodcrest Apartments. Just as the individual homeowners objected to the annexation of the rest of the Southem-Pacific fight-of-way which would have created a parking lot behind their individual homes. We as the owners of the Woodcrest Apartments and our 100 individual families, who do not have the luxury of individual home ownership, object as well. · page 3 We appreciate your time in reviewing our Appeal of this action Conditional Use Permit 96-037 and Design Review 96-051. We understand the benefit to the Plaza and the City of Tustin, We fund no benefit to The Residences of and Owners of The Woodcrest Apartments. In FacE, we have unfo~ately only been able to see factors such as increased noise, loitering, lighting disturbances, increased potential for theft, vandalism and robbery. We take these problems seriously, as do our tenants. We have owned and operated, the Woodcrest Apam-nents since 1972. We have prided ourselves in maintaining a quality family oriented complex. It has taken our family a lot of hard work to build and maintain this large complex which is noted in the area for being safe, clean and a place to raise children. We have many tenants who have lived here for over 15 to 20 years. We have had many tenants raise their whole family here. We wish to keep our environment intact. We wish to keep the Woodcrest Apamnents as it is now, without a parking lot at the rear of the property. On behalf of Nancy D & GR Ramage, Jr and GR Ramage, III owners and the 100 Families of The Woodcrest Apartments. RE' Appeal on Conditional Use Design Kev;'' 96-051 96-037 We, the undersigned, protest the proposed annexation to the City of Tustin of the territory designated as Annexation No. 156 and the subsequent development of this land for the support of the existing contiguous shopping center. We have been witness to boisterous individuals on the grounds of the shopping center. While we do not contend that every person who visits the shopping center is noisy and rowdy, the fact that alcohol is served on the premises could lead a reasonable person to assume that some individuals would not be in complete control of their behavior. For the time being, these individuals are separated from residential units by the shopping center buildings. However, if the vacant Southern-Pacific right-of-way land were to be developed to support the shopping center, these individuals would be on property that butts up to our homes. We are not saying that individuals cannot be noisy and rowdy. We just don't want it in our backyard. Before the right-of-way was fenced on either end, we experienced numerous occasions of car break-ins, theft, trash being thrown into our yards, and strangers walking across our property. Since the fences went up, we have enjoyed a reasonable sense of safety and comfort. We are mainly families with children who moved to this area because of the peace and quiet. We are against anything that will disrupt this existence. Our lives within our own homes should not be subject to disturbances such as the development of this land will inevitably create. Name Address %9?0'0 .~ r/se RE Ap~peal on Conditional, ~mit 96-037 Design Review 96-051 We, the undersigned, protest the proposed annexation to the City of Tustin of the territory designated as Annexation No. 156 and the subseq_uent development of this land for the support of the existing contiguous shopping center. We have been witness to boisterous individuals on the grounds of the shopping center. While we do not contend that every person who visits the shopping center is noisy and rowdy, the fact that alcohol is served on the premises could lead a reasonable person to assume that some individuals would not be in complete control of their behavior. For the time being, these individuals are separated from residential units by the shopping center buildings. However, if the vacant Southern-Pacific right-of-way land were to be developed to support the shopping center, these individuals would be on property that butts up to our homes. We are not saying that individuals cannot be noisy and rowdy. We just don't want it in our backyard. Before the right-of-way was fenced on either end, we experienced numerous occasions. of car break-ins, theft, trash being thrown into our yards, and strangers walking across our property. Since the fences went up, we have enjoyed a reasonable sense of safety and comfort. We are mainly families with children who moved to this area beca'use of the peace and quiet. We are against anything that will disrupt this existence. Our lives within our own homes should not be subject to disturbances such as the development of this land will inevitably create. Na. me~ I / / Address / ' ~ : , ,, !, -"~'------- . _ ' , ' T--- ' - RE' Appeal on Condi~ hal Use Permit 96-037 Design Review ? ' '51 We, the undersigned, protest the proposed annexation to the City of Tustin of the territory designated as Annexation No. 156 and the subsequent development of this land for the support of the existing contiguous shopping center. We have been witness to boisterous individuals on the grounds of the shopping center. While we do not contend that every person who visits the shopping center is noisy and rowdy, the fact that alcohol is served on the premises could lead a reasonable person to assume that some individuals would not be in complete control of their behavior. For the time being, these individuals are separated from residential units by the shopping center buildings. However, if the vacant Southern-Pacific right-of-way land were to be developed to support the shopping center, these individuals would be on property that butts up to our homes. We are not saying that individuals cannot be noisy and rowdy. We just don't want it in our backyard. Before the right-of-way was fenced on either end, we experienced numerous occasions of car break-ins, theft, trash being thrown into our yards, and strangers walking across our property. Since the fences went up, we have enjoyed a reasonable sense of safety and comfort. We are mainly families with children who moved to this area because of the peace and quiet. We are against anything that will disrupt this existence. Our lives within our own homes should not be subject to disturbances such as the development of this land will inevitably create. Name Address ,/i t £ Appeal on Condit]. hal Use Permit 96-037 Design Review 96t - We, the undersigned, protest the proposed annexation to the City of Tustin of the territory designated as Annexation No. 156 and the subsequent development of this land for the support of the existing contiguous shopping center. We have been witness to boisterous individuals on the grounds of the shopping center. While we do not contend that every person who visits the shopping center is noisy and rowdy, the fact that alcohol is served on the premises could lead a reasonable person to assume that some individuals would not be in complete control of their behavior. For the time being, these individuals are separated from residential units by the shopping center buildings. However, if the vacant Southern-Pacific right-of-way land were to be developed to support the shopping center, these individuals would be on property that butts up to our homes. We are not saying that individuals cannot be noisy and rowdy. We just don't want it in our backyard. Before the right-of-way was fenced on either end, we experienced numerous occasions of car break-ins, theft, trash being thrown into our yards, and strangers walking across our property. Since the fence,~,,~[,,~t up, we have enjoyed a reasonable sense of safety and comfort. We are mainly f,~m'ilies with children who moved to this area because of the peace and quiet. We are against anything that will disrupt this existence. Our lives within our own homes should not be subject to disturbances such as the development of this land will inevitably create. Address Conditional Use Pern}: Design REview 96-05 96-037 Appeal on F We, the undersigned, protest the proposed annexation to the City of Tustin of the territory designated as Annexation No. 156 and the subsequent development of this land for the support of the existing contiguous shopping center. We have been witness to boisterous individuals on the grounds of the shopping center. While we do not contend that every person who visits the shopping center is noisy and rowdy, the fact that alcohol is served on the premises could lead a reasonable person to assume that some individuals would not be in complete control of their behavior. For the time being, these individuals are separated from residential units by the shopping center buildings. However, if the vacant Southern-Pacific right-of-way land were to be developed to support the shopping center, these individuals would be on property that butts up to our homes. We are not saying that individuals cannot be noisy and rowdy. We juSt don't want it in our backyard. Before the right-of-way was fenced on either end, we experienced numerous occasions of car break-ins, theft, trash being thrown into our yards, and strangers walking across our property. Since the fences went up, we have enjoyed a reasonable sense of safety and comfort. We are mainly families with children who moved to this area because of the peace and quiet. We are against anything that will disrupt this existence. Our lives within our own homes should not be subject to disturbances such as the development of this land will inevitably create. N ~ "Address " ' Attachment C Letter of Appeal Dated January 15, 1997 Woodcrest Apartme; 12901 Newport Avenue Tustin, CA 92780 RECEIVED .lAN 1 ? 1997 January 15, 1997 Appeal on Conditional Use Permit 96-037 Design Review 96-051, Conversion of Southern-Pacific Right of-way into additional Parking Lot for Plaza La Fayette To: City Counsel Zoning Administrator / Community Development Department City of Tustin Planning Commission From: Nancy D. & GR Ramage, Jr MD, Sharon Rarnage and GR Rarnage, III, owners of The Woodcrest Apartments and The 100 Family Residents of The Woodcrest Apartments. Dear Sirs and Madams, We are requesting an Appeal of the Approval of the Adopted Zoning Administrator Action 96-011 approving the Conditional Use Permit 96-037 and Design Review 96-051, by the City Counsel. We are protesting and wish to have stopped the conversion of the Southern-Pacific abandoned R~i]road fight-of-way, located to the West of the Woodcrest Apartments, into an additional parking lot for Plaza La Fayette. APPEAL: Our request for Appeal and having the issuance of the Conditional Use Permit 96-037 and Design Review 96-051 stopped, is based upon several factors. Appeal issuse - Safety, Noise Disturbance, Light Disturbance, Devaluation of Property Value, Dimished Appeal to prospective Residents and Diminished Quality of Life. The Primary Factor being, the disruption and distrucfion of the quality of life, health and safety of the 100 Families, 329 PEOPLE, residing at the Woodcrest Apartments. We felt that the City of Tustin, so brilliantly lead by the Mayor Woorly, felt it in the best interest of all residents not to proceed with annexation or a parking lot, because quote "the nearby residents should not suffer because of poor City planning regarding the lack of parking at the Plaza (La Fayette)," Wethe owners and the residence of t Noodcrest Apartments, belie i that WE are RESIDENTS · and TAXPAYERS! At present, the City planners, Zoning Commission and Planning Commission, do not seem to feel we are residents, but just a county area that they can disregard and use as a parkinglot! But it is not. The traffic and parking problems were created by the Plaza with the w~11~[-~ help of the City. Now when it is time for the problems to be fixed, The City and Plaza La Fayette wish others to carry the burden. Specifically, the Residents of the Woodcrest Apartments. Plaza La Fayette should be looking to surrounding businesses to share parking. Utilize parking such as the adjacent Bank and Medical building which are dark at night. It would not affect any Residents. Utilize or purchase space across Newport Avenue, current fenced and vacant, for over flow parking. Yes, persons would need to cross the street, but our Residents Children do on a daily basis to go to and from school. HISTORY: We have owned the Woodcrest Apartments since September, 1972. We took over an area considered "A Ghetto" by the Fire and Police/Sheriffs Departments and made it one of the most desirable and affordable family complexes in the area. We have been approached many times through the years that there were eager buyers willing to pay substantial sums for the property. Our 5 acres of Multi-Family paradise has also made the area desirable enough for the owners of Plaza La Fayette to heavily develope. When the Plaza La Fayette was opened and the Right-of-way area was not secured by the locked fence and barbed wire, we experienced numerous occasions of car break-ins, theft, trash being thrown into our yards and strangers loitering and trespassing across our property. The number of incidents, were greatly reduced since the area was gated off' and restricted from use. PRESENT: When we met with the Planning Commission, it became apparent that, no one felt it would be an imposition to place the parking lot behind two sets of aparh'nents. The employees the space will be told to use restraint, be quiet. Our Apartment complex has "Quiet Hours". Will those persons parking there up hold these rules and provide the residents their normal expectation of quiet rest~ evenings. NO. And it is unrealistic to even think that workers will nOt chat after hours. That they will not be leaving their workplace expediently. The area will not be restricted by hours of use and prohibitive gating, it will be restricted by signs and language, and then it will Etrther become the problem of the residents of the Woodcrest Apartments. COMMENTS: To quote a persona, and who has been a city plam.~.r for Pasadena (Redevelopment Money) and city of E1 Monte ( Redevelopment money), he stated it took him a long time to realize his job was to "Create Cornrnunifies, not tear them down, with restructure of traffic patterns, parking, and business over Homes and their Residents. We are Communities because of the people who live here, and we should do our Best to protect the interest of those people first, before we are just creating." The Planning Commission stated it felt it made the hard decision to put in a parking lot. It would have been the hard decision to support the People over BUSiness, the Residents and not put in a parking lot. Just as the individual homeowners objected to the annexation of the rest of the Southern-Pacific fight-of-way which would have created a parking lot behind their individual homes. We as the owners of the Woodcrest Apartments and our 100 individual families, who do not have the luxm'Y of individual home ownership, object We expect and appreciate the time you will take in objectively and sole searching reviewing our Appeal of this action Conditional Use Permit 96-037 and Design Review 96-051. We understand the benefit to the Plaza and the City of Tustin, We find no benefit to The Residences of and Owners of The Woodcrest Apartments. In Fact, we are appalled and we will do everything legally in our power to protect the rights, privacy and quality of life that the 329 people of the Woodcrest Apartrnems, deserve and enjoy. We hope that you will agree that People who make their homes and reside at the Woodcrest Apartments 24 hours a day, 365 days a year and spend their livelihood and tax dollars in the City of Tustin, deserve to be heard and deserve to retain their existing quality of life. Singerely, .~ /n Owners The Woodcrest Apartments CC' Todd Spritzer, County Supervisor District 3 Attachment D Zoning Administrator Report DATE: DECEMBER 3, 1996 Inter-Com TO: ZONING ADMINISTRATOR FROM' COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT SUBJSCI: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT. 96-037 DESIGN REVIEW 96-051 APPLICANT: C.L. BURNETT PLAZA PROPERTIES, LLC 13031 NEWPORT AVENUE, SUITE 200 TUSTIN, CA 92780 LANDOWNER: SOUTHERN PACIFIC TRANSPORTATION COMPANY C. SCOTT BEHM, SOUTHERN PACIFIC REAL ESTATE 1200 CORPORATE CENTER DRIVE, SUITE 100 MONTEREY PARK, CA 91754 LOCATION: ZONING: VACANT PARCEL TO THE NORTH OF 13031 NEWPORT AVENUE AND TO THE WEST OF 12901-12943 NEWPORT AVENUE MULTIPLE FAMILY"RESIDENTIAL (R-3) ENVIRONMENTAL THIS PROJECT IS CATEGORICALLY EXEMPT (SECTION STATUS: 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 Zoning Administrator Action 96-011 approving Conditional Use Permit 96-037 and Design Review 96-051. BACKGROUND & DISCUSSION The applicant is requesting authorization to establish a parking lot in 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 Wood Crest Apartments at 12901-12943 Newport Avenue. The parking lot would serve the existing shopping center. The subject 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 Zoning Administrator Report Conditional Use Permit 96-037 Design Review 96-051 December 3, 1996 Page 2 to a Conditional Use Permit (City Code Sections 9226(a)(1) 9225(a) (1) and 9223(b) (4)). , The project is located in the T ~h~ref~re, final, design .... ~_~wn Center_ Redevelopment are · ~eaevelopment A~enc~- ~ ~=v~=w approval rests ,.,~ ~' · = ~- nowever~ Cit . -~ nne ~ts authority to the Zonin~ ~_?_.C~de.Sectlon 9299(b)(3)(c) ~v~ew applications within t~ ~.~u~xnlsEra[or to approve De ' o~ the Redevelo ...... ne City s Redevelo~m ..... ~lgn · - ~,,,=~u ~gency ~ =~ ~nreas in lieu Site and Surroundin Pro erties The vacant parcel is 15,700 s o . directly north of the northwes(~tare ~et in size and is locate ~ho~lng center. SurrounH~~ ~[_p=ortlon of the Plaza LaF~,=~ reslmential ~ ~ _ _ ~--~ ~nu Uses in 1,,~ .... ~. ~ T~= sh~__ .~ ~**= eas~ and west ~ .... c.~= ~u~nlple ~amilv ~~¢nW ~en~er rear parkinc are~-%o=**= e~stlng ~laza LaFayett& ~al~n ~E the abandoned railroad ri~eo~°~th'. and. the 'remaining · ne is bordered by Count~ un' ~ - -way to the north east. Y incorporated 1-_= ~ .. . The ~**u ~O the north and kroj ect Desc~ The applicant proposes to expand the existing'shopping center parking lot to include the vacant parcel. Given the distanc& from the proposed parking spaces to the tenant locations in the shopping center, the parking spaces will be reserved for emPloyee and/or valet parking only. No customer parking is proposed in the parking lot expansion area. According to the applicant, additional parking is needed based on current parking demand at the shopping center. 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 · A second Variance, No. 95-011, was approved to accommodate the establishment of a fourth restaurant. The two variances have resulted in a reduction of required parking spaces in the shopping center from 327 spaces to 241 spaces. Zoning Administrator Report Conditional Use Permit 96-037 Design Review 96-051 December 3, 1996 Page 3 Condition 6.18 of Planning Commission Resolution No. 3413 (Variance No. 95-011) states that if a parking and/or traffic problem exists at the shopping center as a result of insufficient on-site parking availability, the City may require the property owner to submit an updated parking demand analysis and/or traffic study. If said study.indicates that there is a problem, the property owner shall be required to provide additional mitigation measures approved by the City. One of the mitigation measures requires the provision of 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 City has not required the property owner to update the parking analysis or traffic study or provide additional parking at this time. Instead, the property owner is making a proactive effort to satisfy parking demand by providing additional "on-site" parking spaces. The proposed parking lot expansion area, as Conditioned, will accommodate approximately 36 vehicles. The actual number will be determined at plan check. The parking spaces in the expansion area are proposed to be compact sp~ces that are eight feet in width and 17.5 feet in length plus a 2.5 feet overhang area. Because the proposed parking spaces will be considered excess parking spaces, all of the spaces are permitted to be developed as compact spaces. · Landscaping'will not be required Within the parking lot expansion area because the area is isolated from the remainder of the shopping center and will only be used by shopping center business owners and employees. Further, the width of the prOperty and the parking lot layout would not provide adequate planter width to plant trees. The isolated location would create maintenance concerns with only ground cover and shrubs planted. Discussion In determining whether to approve a Conditional Use Permit, the Zoning Administrator must determine whether or not the establishment, maintenance or operation of the subject use is detrimental to the health, safety, morals, comfort or general welfare of the persons residing or working in the neighborhood of the subject site and secondly, whether it will be injurious or detrimental to property and improvements in the neighborhood or the general welfare of the City. Zoning Administrator Report Conditional Use Permit 96-037 Design Review 96-051 December 3, 1996 Page 4 The proposed use, as conditioned, will b~ compatible with the surrounding community. Condition No. 3.5 requires that the proposed site be used as a parking lot for employee and/or valet parking only. This restriction will reduce the potential for noise and other nuisance impacts on the · developments.. Condition No 2 1 r~-~--- adjacent residential - - ~qumzes a solid masonry wall aroun~ the perimeter of the lot Where no masonry, garage or carport walls exist. Condition No. 2.3 requires lighting to comply with the City's Security Ordinance and requires that the lighting does not negatively impact adjacent properties. Condition No 3.1 will not allow the additional parking spaces to be counted as required parking spaces for the shopping center or .be used to accommodate additional parking intensive uses,· such as restaurants or medical uses, in the shopping center unless additional City approvals are obtained. · Condition No. 3.4 requires the parking lot parcel to be held as one with the adjacent parcel within the shopping center through the filing of a lot line adjustment, reciprocal access agreement or other legally.binding instrument. Finally, Condition No. 3.2 has been 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~ Scott Reekstin Associate Planner Attachments- Attachment A - Location Map Attachment B - Site plan Attachment C - Submitted Plan Zoning Administrator Action 96-011 Attachment E Planning Commission Report Report to the ITEM NO. 4 Planning Commission DATE: SUBJECT: APPELLANT: APPLICANT: OWNER: LOCATION: ZONING: ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: REQUEST: ~RECOM~fENDATION -- JANUARY 13, 1997 APPEAL OF CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 96-037 AND DESIGN REVIEW 96-051 SHARON RAMAGE, NANCY D. RAMAGE, G.R RAMAGE, JR AND G.R. RAMAGE, III ' · WOODCREST APARTMENTS 12901 NEWPORT AVENUE TUSTIN, CA 92780 C.L. BURNETT PLAZA PROPERTIES, LLC 13031 NEWPORT AVENUE, SUITE 200 TUSTIN, CA 92780 SOUTHERN PACIFIC TRANSPORTATION COMPANY C. SCOTT BEHM, SOUTHERN PACIFIC REAL ESTATE 1200 CORPORATE CENTER DRIVE, SUITE 100 MONTEREY PARK, CA 91754 VACANT PARCEL TO THE NORTH OF 13031 NEWPORT AVENUE AND TO THE WEST OF 12901-12943 NEWPORT AVENUE MULTIPLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL (R-3) THIS PROJECT IS CATEGORICALLY EXEMPT (SECTION 15311, CLASS 11) PURSUANT TO THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT. APPEAL THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR, S APPROVAL OF THE ESTABLISHMENT OF A COMMERCIAL PARKING LOT IN A 50' BY 314' PORTION OF ANABANDONED RAILROAD RIGHT-OF- WAY LOCATED IN THE MULTIPLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL (R- 3) ZONING DISTRICT. That the Planning Commission adopt Resolution No. 3507, upholding the Zoning Administrator,s action and denying the appeal of Conditional Use Permit 96-037 and Design Review 96-051. Planning Commission Report Appeal of CUP 96-037 & DR 96-051 January 13, 1997 Page 2 BACKGROUND On December 3, 1996, the Zoning Administrator adopted Zoning Administrator Action No. 96-011, approving a Conditional Use Permit and Design Review request to establish a parking lot in 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 Avenu~ and to the west of the Woodcrest Apartments at 12901-12943 Newport Avenue (Attachment'A). On December 10, 1996, Ms. Sharon Ramage, one of the owners of the Woodcrest Apartments, filed an appeal of the Zoning Administrator's. action, requesting the Planning Commission's consideration of the project (Attachment B). This appeal includes a petition that references the project and the previously proposed annexation proposal that was considered by the City Council on October 21, 1996. The annexation proposal pertained to 625 lineal feet of railroad right-of-way located adjacent to and directly north of the subject project. Site and Surroundinq 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. The subject 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 the approval of a Conditional Use Permit (City Code Sections 9226(a) (1), 9225(a) (1) and 9223(b) (4)'). DISCUSSION The applicant proposes to expand the existing shopping center parking lot to include the vacant parcel. The proposed parking lot expansion area, as conditioned, will accommodate approximately 36 vehicles. Given the distance from the proposed parking spaces to the tenant locations in the shopping center, the parking spaces will be reserved for employee and/or valet parking only. No customer parking is proposed in the parking lot expansion area. Planning Commission Report Appeal of CUP 96-03~ & DR 96-051 January 13, 1997 Page 3 Please refer to the attached Zoning Administrator report, dated December 3, 1996, for additional discussion of the proposed project (Attachment C). At the Zoning Administrator public hearing held Dec verbal testimo . ember 3, 1996, ny was received from two individuals opposition to the nro~ect a~ ~.-- = ...... who spoke in . ~ ~ ~ ~w~.~nalvlauals who spoke in favor of the project. The public testimony is summarized in the Zoning Administrator Action Agenda (Attachment D). Following the Zoning Administrator public hearing held December 3, 1996, a letter was received from one resident of the Woodcrest Apartments opposed to the applicant,s proposal (Attachment E). The appellant's concerns are related to crualit · theft, vandalism, loitering, lightin- di~t - y of l~fe, noise, saZety (Attachment B~ ~--_ ~ uroances, health and ~- ~se concerns were addressed in Zoning Administrator Action 96-011 and through the conditions contained therein. Planning Commission Resolution No. 3507 incorporates all of the conditions contained in the Zoning Administrator,s Action. It also should be noted that the Police Department reviewed the proposed project and expressed no comments or concerns related to security. In considering the approval of Conditional Use Permit 96-037 and Design Review 96-051, the Zoning Administrator determined that the establishment, maintenance or operation of the use would not be detrimental to 'the health, safety, morals, comfort or general welfare of the persons residing or working in the neighborhood of such proposed use, nor would it be injurious or detrimental to property and improvements in the neighborhood or the general welfare of the City. In making these findings, the Zoning Administrator considered such items .as the potential for noise, loitering, lighting spill-over, poor property maintenance, and other items which could be mitigated to ensure that the proposed use would not have a negative impact on surrounding propert Based upon concerns expressed at the Zoning Administrator meeties' the following conditions were ' · lng, specifically address these issues: included zn the project 'to C_ondition No. 2.] requires a 6'-8,, solid masonry wall around the perimeter of the lot, measured from the lowest adjacent finish grade. Planning Commission Report Appeal of CUP 96-037 & DR 96-051 January 13, 1997 Page 4 Condition No. 2.3 requires lighting to comply with the City's Security Ordinance and requires that the lighting may not negatively impact adjacent properties. Condition No 3.1 will not allow the additional parking spaces to be counted as required parking spaces for the .shopping center or be used to accommodate additional parking intensive uses, such as restaurants or medical uses, in the shopping center unless additional City approvals are obtained. Condition No. 3.2 provides 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. These mitigation measures include the establishment of hours of use, securing the parking lot expansion area from the adjacent parking area and/or retaining an on-site security guard. For example, if nuisance problems exist, the Director has the ability through this condition to require that the parking lot expansion area be closed to all vehicles during certain hours. Condition No. 3.5 requires that the proposed site be used as a parking lot for employee and/or valet parking only. This restriction will reduce the potential for noise and other nuisance impacts on the adjacent resi~lqnti~l developments. ~~~ ' O~,~AICP Scott Reekstin 1 F Associate Planner Senior Planner SCR:br :cup96037 Attachments: Location Map site Plan Attachment A - Zoning Administrator Action No. 96-011 Attachment B - Letter of Appeal Dated December 9, 1996. Attachment C - Zoning Administrator Report Attachment D - Action~Agenda Dated December 3, 1996 Attachment E - Letter of Opposition Submitted Plan Resolution No. 3507 Attachment F Action Agenda Dated December 3, 1996 CALL TO ORDER: A C T I O N A G E N D A ZONING ADMINISTRATOR REGULAR MEETING TUESDAY DECEMBER 3, 1996 10:35 a.m. Community Development Department Conference Room ROLL CALL: Staff Rick Brown, Zoning Administrator Designee Daniel Fox, Senior Planner Scott Reekstin, Associate Planner Barbara 'Reyes, Recording Secretary PUBLIC CONCERNS: (Limited to 3 minutes per person for items not on the agenda.) At this time members of the public may address the Zoning Administrator regarding any items not on the agenda and within the subject matter .jurisdiction of the Zoning Administrator (NO action can be taken of'f- agenda items unless authorized by law). IF YOU WISH TO ADDRESS THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR ON ANY MATTER, PLEASE FILL OUT ONE OF THE FORMS LOCATED ON THE SPEAKER'S TABLE. WHEN YOU START TO ADDRESS THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR, PLEASE STATE YOURFULL NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD. IF YOU REQUIRE SPECIAL ACCOMMODATIONS, PLEASE CONTACT THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR RECORDING SECRETARY AT (714) 573-3105. CONSENT CALENDAR: (ALL MATTERS LISTED UNDER CONSENT CALENDAR ARE CONSIDERED ROUTINE AND WILL BE ENACTED BY ONE MOTION. THERE WILL BE NO SEPARATE DISCUSSION OF THESE ITEMS PRIOR TO THE TIME OF THE VOTING ON THE MOTION UNLESS THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR, STAFF OR PUBLIC REQUEST SPECIFIC ITEMS TO BE DISCUSSED AND/OR REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT CALENDAR FOR SEPARATE ACTION.) No Items on Consent Calendar Zoning Administrator Action Agenda December 3, 1996 Page 2 PUBLIC HEARINGS: · Conditional Use Permit 96-037 Desiqn Review 96-051 APPLICANT: C.L. BURNETT PLAZA PROPERTIES, LLC 13031 NEWPORT AVENUE, SUITE 200 TUSTIN, CA 92780 LANDOWNER: SOUTHERN PACIFIC TRANSPORTATION COMPANY C. SCOTT BEHM, SOUTHERN PACIFIC REAL ESTATE 1200 CORPORATE CENTER DRIVE, SUITE 100 MONTEREY PARK, CA 91754 LOCATION: VACANT PARCEL TO THE NORTH OF 13031 NEWPORT AVENUE AND TO THE WEST OF 12901-12943 NEWPORT AVENUE ZONING: MULTIPLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL (R-3) ENVIRONMENTAL THIS PROJECT IS CATEGORICALLy EXEMPT (SECTION STATUS: 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 . ~ecommendatio~ _ Adopt Zoning Administrator Action 96-011 approving Conditional Use Permit 96-037 and Design Review 96-051. Presentation: Scott Reekstin, Associate Planner The Public Hearing opened at 10:40 a.m. ~vnn Burnett, the applicant, stated he had reviewed the staff report and proposed conditions. The Administrator allowed time for those present to review the report and conditions. Dan O'Connor, 344 Pacific Street, Tustin, inquired if the City planned to annex this property. ~ynn Burnett stated that originally he had contracted to purchase 620 feet but found that 314 feet of the property is already in the City of Tustin. The City did not proceed forward on the annexation of the area not located within the City. zoning Administrator Action Agenda December 3, 1996 Page 3 Dan O'Connor asked if the City Council denial of the annexation was final. Daniel Fox, Senior Planner, stated that the issued was closed at this time but could be brought up again at a future date. Edward Perry, 14612 Clarissa Lane, Tustin, stated that his home was closest to the parking lot and he was concerned about drainage onto his property. He stated that the railroad property is two feet below his property on both sides. The Administrator stated that the natural drainage is required to be maintained and at Plan Review the situation would be addressed. Edward Perry stated he was concerned about access to the property especially in regard to the Fire Department who wanted access to be in the area to the north of the parking lot. He also is concerned about access to the rights-of-way for EdiSon and the gas lines. The Administrator noted that access to these rights-of way would actually be improved. Edward Perry mentioned the solid block wall as required by Condition 2.1 and asked who would be responsible for repairs should the easement holder need access. Scott Reekstin, Associate Planner, stated that the Fire Department had reviewed the pian and had no concerns with the wall. The Fire Department was only concerned with room to turn a fire truck around and asked that this be addressed at Plan Check. There was no other concern about the easement to the north as Warren Avenue provides adequate access. Denise Tideforeso, 12915A Newport Avenue, Tustin, expressed concern about the possibility of the security lighting shining into the Woodcrest apartments. Their apartment complex has a low turnover rate and there is concern that this will disturb tenants and may be, a cause for revenue loss. The Administrator stated that one foot candle of illumination is needed to provide adequate lighting and a minimum level of illumination for security. Conditions require that there be no spillover to surrounding properties and this will be reviewed at Plan Check. Zoning Administrator Action Agenda December 3, 1996 Page 4 Denise Tideforeso stated that this may cover the situation for the lower floors but ~hat about the top level where the lights will be even with the apartments. Daniel Fox stated that lights are required to be shielded and the apartment residents should not be able to see the light source. ~vnn Burnet[ noted that the apartments have no west facing windows. Lawrence H. Buxton, 6 Morning Sun, Irvine, stated that he ~nvisioned the ligh[s of a shoe box design which would not shine into the apartments. T_he Administrato~ stated that this type of situation is routinely reviewed at Plan Check and that lighting technology has evolved to control glare and spillover. Denise Tideforeso expressed concern over security. She stated that ~efore the gates-and barbed wire were installed there~was a lot of vandalism and break-ins. She is concerned that if the qates are removed the problem may return. She asked how the applicant could make assurances that only employees and valet service would park there. The Administrator stated that use of the'parking lot and employees in the area should discourage vandalism and paving of the lot will better aid the Police Department to patrol. Denise Tideforeso stated that this area ' of the Sheriff,s Department an~ ~ __ l~ un~er the jurisdiction -- ~ ~ was a±mos~ impossible due to cutbacks to have them drive through on patrol. She feels that the City and the store owners will be ma ' apartment owners are bei ....... king a profit while have several concerns Th~[~-~e~±OOKea' The apartment reside~[ and believe they ar~ ~_~,~e in an unincorporated hart ~ ~' ~ ~=~ nung out to dry.,, = ~ ~u~ln ~¥nn Burnet~ stated that his office overlooks the parking area to , the rear. He feels that security will be enhanced with activity there and since'there is only one way in and one way out many people will be watching the area. zoning Administrator Action Agenda December 3, 1996 Page 5 Terry Jones., representing Woodcrest/Ramage Management, stated that she has a petition with 50 signatures asking that there be no parking lot but that the area be turned into something for the children. Children playing in the area now may cause a problem for LaFayette Plaza when stray baseballs come over and hit the cars. Dan O'Connor, stated he was in attendance to speak in favor of the project. He is disappointed that the City of Tustin did not annex the property to begin with. He feels that the area use as a parking lot would be a benefit to all. As a tenant of the shopping center he has a direct-line of. vision to this area and as it stands now it is a dump with trash all over behind the apartments on the east side. He feels security will be enhanced, access will be totally open and it will be a viable'solution to the parking problem at LaFayette Plaza. Denise Tideforeso agrees that it is now a dump but that they have requested cleanup and have been denied on a regular basis due to county finances. She feels the situation will not get better unless the wall is higher .... The Administrator stated that with this use the property would be routinely cleaned and maintained. Daniel Fox stated that as a requirement of City'Code the height of the block wall would be 6 feet 8 inches as a separation between residential and commercial use and that the applicant would be responsible for raising the wall' to fill any gaps in the entire wall' or put up a totally new wall. Edward Perry asked where the six feet, eight inches was measured from. Daniel Fox stated the measurement would be from the parking lot grade. Terry Jones asked if gates would be installed and if they could be closed after each days use and when the shopping center is closed on Sundays. Lynn Burnett stated the shopping center is open on Sunday but he is willing to work with the apartment management on that issue. He feels that gates would be an impediment to security. Zoning Administrator Action Agenda December 3, 1996 Page 6 Dan O'Connor asked if the height of the wall would be constant on the applicants side. ~vnn Burnet~ stated that is the preferred method and can done on the apartment side. also be The Administrato~ stated that if the wall is 6'- 8" on the high side it should make it even more difficult to climb over from the parking lot and the parking lot would not be seen from the apartments. Denise Tideforeso expressed concern about the drainage and if pipes would be installed for this. -' The Administrator stated there were a number of means to address the drainage issue including underground installation; this would be reviewed at Plan Check. The natural drainage should be maintained and the means of engineers, conveyance would be prepared by Daniel Fox suggested that Condition 2.1 be revised to clarify the measurement of the wall by stating that the six foot eight inch solid masonry wall be measured, from the finish grade on the adjacent residential properties. Denise Tideforeso stated.that as it stands now the back wall is not level and expressed concern that children who might walk across it could get hurt. L~awrence H. Buxton, stated that the line of site will be level and that they want it to look right from both sides. The Public Hearing closed at 11:19 a.m. he Zoninq AdministratoR approved Conditional Use permit 96-037 and esign Review 96-051 by adopting Zoning Administrator Action 96-011 revised as follows: Condition 2.1, first sentence shall read, ,,int accordance with Tustin City Code Section 9271(i) related to the required separation between commercial and residential uses, the parking lot expansion area fh~l be screened from surrounding residential properties by a 6 -8 high solid masonry wall measured from the finish grade on the adjacent residential properties., Zoning Administrator Action Agenda December 3, 1996 Page 7 The Administrator advised that there was a seven day appeal period which would end at 5:00 p.m. Tuesday, 'December 10, 1996 and if anyone wished to appeal the decision they should contact Scott Reekstin, the planner on this project. REGULAR BUSINESS: No Regular Business ADJOURNMENT: · . The meeting adjourned at 11:20 a.m. The date of the next regular meeting of the Zoning Administrator will be set as items are scheduled for action. Rick Brown, Zoning Administrator Designee Zoning Administrator Recording Secretary Attachment G Letter of Opposition December 11, 1996 City of Tustin Community Development Department 300 Centennial Way Tustin, CA 92780 Attention: Scott Reekstin, Associate Planner Subject: Conversion of Southern Pacific Right-of-Way for Additional Parking for Plaza Lafayette Reference: Appeal on Conditional Use Permit 96-037, Design Review 96-051 Gentlemen: This letter is to express my vehement objection to the construction of an annex parking area for Plaza Lafayette. Woodcrest Apartments, adjacent to the proposed perking lot, has been my home for nearly twenty-four years. My long-term residence affords a certain perspective on both the beneficial and the deleterious effects of growth on our mini-community, as well as the escalating power imbalance between business-owners and residents. We may not flash wads of cash, but we ayerage c~tizens don't hop in the Beamer and jet out of Tustin at the end of our workday--we actually spend our time and income in Tustin. This parking lot will degrade our quality of life. Because I love my home, Woodcrest Apartments and Tustin, I ask you to consider the following. · Cars will be moved and parked within about thirty feet of living room doors, kitchen doors and bedroom windows. Because my apartment faces directly onto the alleyway, I have first-hand experi'ence that cement pavement and cinder, block walls magnify noise--even whispers a~d normal footsteps-sufficiently to disturb sle,ep. Patrons, vale.ts and'employees of Plaza res{aurants will not be focused on the'proximity of sleeping residents, although the residents will assuredly be ~ocused on the perpetual 'sounds of reveling drinkers, normal conversation, automobile and truck engines, blaring stereos, and squealing tires. · To exacerbate the ~bove, our apartments, ar~ not equipped with air conditioners and, since heat rises; dur windows and/or, doo~s must remain'open during warm weather so the bedrooms upstairs don't become convectibn ovens. In summer, whatever occurs in the alleyway (or the. proposed parking lot) might as well be happening in your bedroom. · Resident exposure [o automobile exhaust, tire dust and other pollution will §ready increase and wilt, in fact, be pulled directly into bedroom windows, · Establishments serving liquor (three out Of four of the Plaza restaurants) may remain open until 2:00 a.m., with closing employees departing even later, For residents who must arise at 4:30-6:00 a.m. for a regular workday, that leaves precious little uninterrupted sleep. · To provide a safe parking ore,i, lights must provide 1 ft-candlelftz illumination and will be mounted on poles taller than the walls. The light will reflect into the bedroom windows of at least the end units of each adjacent apartment building. This will mandate closed blinds and/or heavy curtains to shut out the light--in addition to [l~e closed windows to shut out the noise. Have a nice summer, neighbors. · I've been told the cinder block wall will be 6'8" higtl, allegedly providin§ Security for Woodcrest residents. First, no able-bodied criminal will be deterred by a wall of this height. - Second, a paved area with street access directly adjacent to our alleyway will facilitate any thief with a truck and a ladder, strong will shut out is late-afternoon sunlight,legs or an accomplice. Third, the only thing such a wall lending a charming prison amblanc, e-to our lifestyle. ' Considering the foregoing negative impacts, two out of four units in each adjacent building will be difficult or impossible to rent. It's likely that current good tenants would vacate in search of a better atmosphere, rents would be forced down and incoming tenants who wou~d find such "urbanized" living satisfactory would alter the personality of our complex, · Many of us, including myself, patronize Plaza Lafayette's businesses. I think it's obvious that, shbuld this plan be approved, one hundred families will be spendir~g elsewhere. Woodcrest.Apartments is a wonderful place to live. It is multi-racial, multi-ethnic, family- oriented, safe and peaceful, and is a community unto itself. Many of us have lived here for more than a decade, some like myself for over twenty years. Unlike many other complexes,/t is riot owned by an impersonal corporation but by a doctor and his family. They've struggled to keep stab[e, long-term tenants, maintain reasonable rents, cultivate pleasant and attractive surroundings, and provide an oasis of civil living despite encroaching urbanization. Ir~ turn, the tenants of Woodcrest are appreciative, and are united in our resolve to maintain our lifestyle. The City of Tusdn deliberately approved the addition of three restaurants to this shopping center w~th full prior comprehension that parking provisions were woefully inadequ, al:e. Were I a cynic, I'd suspect the intention was to develop the businesses first, then ramrod the parking through regardless of the destructive impact to neighboring areas. In any case, ! believe a more logical, and humane, solution is available and should be explored. DirectIy across Newpor~ from the Plaza is an existing park;ng lot--including a substantial vacant are~ that could be paved. Nighttime use is limited to a liquor store and health club, and a marked crosswalk with traffic signal leads directly to the TustinlBrewing Company. Why not arrange with that property owner for joint use and reserv~ the Present Plaza Jot for valet perking.'? No residents would be affected, access would be just as easy, even more parldng spaces would become available, and as a bonus, the eyesore on the comer of Old Irvine and Newport would be eliminated. To paraphrase Abraham Lincoln on the sub'ect f' - · benefic~a! as some wou h ....... ~A,, ..... J .o slav?y, If the msbtutmn is as id ..~,.~ u~ ur,rye, why aren-t people volunteering for it?" if you honestly believe a tavern parking lot thirty feet from our family residences is worthy of approYal, then one assumes you'd approve it with equal enthusiasm adjacent to your own home. if not, however, please apply heart and brain toward less destructive options. Thank you for your consideration. 1 2919-B Newport Tustin, CA 92780 (714) 832-8639 Attachment H Planning Commission Minutes 1/13/97 Planning Commission Minutes January 13, 1997 Page 3 PUBLIC HEARINGS: · _Cond~itionai Use Permit 96-033/Amendment To Conditional Use ~Permit 69-30~ (Continued from Planning Commission Meeting of 11-25-96) - SARA BARNETT 14031 UTT DRIVE TUSTIN, CA 92780 TENANT: PACIFIC AUTO PARTS 125 WEST MAIN STREET TUSTIN, CA 92780 LOCATION: 125 WEST MAIN STREET ZONING: CENTRAL COMMERCIAL _ PARKING AND CULTURAL RESOURCE OVERLAY DISTRICTS (C2 - p & CR) ENVIRONMENTAL THIS PROJECT IS CATEGORICALLy EXEMPT (CLASS 1) PURSUANT TO SECTION 15301 OF THE CALIFORNIA REQUEST: ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT. AUTHORIZATION TO PERMIT TWO (2) METAL STORAGE CONTAINERS AND THREE (3) MILITARY VEHICLES. Recommendation _ That the Planning Commission adopt Resolution No. 3495 approving Conditional Use Permit 96-033. Presentation: Sara Pashalides, Associate Planner The Public Hearing opened at 7:02 p.m. ~ommissioner Vandaveez abstained due to conflict of interest. S~ara Pashalide~ reported that Sara Barnett requested that her authority as applicant be granted to the tenant, Pacific Auto Parts. Pacific Auto Parts agreed to this; therefore, this action necessitated revisions to Resolution No. 3495. L_isa O'Connor, representing the applicant, indicated that she was present but had nothing to present to the Commission. ~ommissioner Kozak stated his concern with the bin in the front of the building and ~ith the surety of the safety mechanics in the military vehicles remaining in the vehicles. T__he Director stated that the Condition could be modified to require that the safety mechanisms be installed and maintained. L_isa O'Conno~ stated that she needs the bin in the front of the building.now for quick access to the part's. She stated that it is her intention to have the bin removed just as soon as possible. APPLICANT: Planning Commission Minutes January 13, 1997 Page 4 The Public Hearing closed at 7':10 p.m. · Mitzman seconded to adopt Resolution ' Commissioner Pontmous moved No. 3495 approvmng Conditional Use Permit 96-033 revised as follows: Page 1, Section I,A shall read, "A proper application, Conditional Use Permit 96-033, has been filed by Vince O'Connor, requesting authorization to permit the outside storage of three (3) military vehicles and two (2) metal storage containers located at 125 West Main Street." Exhibit A, Condition 1.4, shall read, ,,Approval of Conditional Use permit 96-003 is contingent upon the applicant signing and returning an ,,Agreement to Conditions Imposed" form as established by the Director of Community Development." Condition 1.5 shall read, "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." The first sentence of Condition 2.1 shall read, ,,Safety mechanisms shall be installed and maintained within the military vehicles to prevent their operation by unauthorized persons, to the satisfaction of the Police Department." Motion carried 4-0. Conunissioner Vandaveer abstained. · APPELLANT: APPLICANT: OWNER: LOCATION: ZONING: ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: Aooeal Of Conditional Use Permit 96-037 And_ ~esiqn Review 96-05% SHARON RAMAGE, .NANCY D. RAMAGE, G.R. RAMAGE, JR. AND G.R. RAMAGE, III WOODCREST APARTMENTS 12901 NEWPORT AVENUE TUSTIN, CA 92780 C.L. BURNETT PLAZA PROPERTIES, LLC 13031 NEWPORT AVENUE, SUITE 200 TUSTIN, CA 92780 SOUTHERN PACIFIC TRANSPORTATION COMPANY C. SCOTT BEHM, SOUTHERN PACIFIC REAL ESTATE 1200 CORPORATE CENTER DRIVE, SUITE 100 MONTEREY PARK, CA 91754 VACANT' PARCEL TO THE NORTH OF 13031 NEWPORT AVENI3E AND TO THE WEST OF 12901-12943 NEWPORT AVENUE MULTIPLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL (R-3) REQUEST: THIS PROJECT IS CATEGORICALLY EXEMPT (SECTION 15311, CLASS il) PURSUANT TO THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT. APPEAL OF THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR'S APPROVAL OF THE 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. Planning Commission Minutes January 13, 1997 Page 5 Recommendation - That the Planning Commission adopt Resolution No. 3507, upholding the'Zoning Administrator,s action and denying the appeal of Conditional Use Permit 96-037 and Design Review 96-051. Presentation: Daniel Fox, Senior Planner Sharon Ramaqe, 12901 Newport Avenue, the appellant, stated that the parking lot was the source of a lot of vandalism before the gates were installed. They have many long term tenants residing in their apartments and she feels that valet service would be disruptive to the tenants. , Commissioner Bone asked Ms. Ramage if she realized that the fence would be eight feet in height. Sharon Ramaae stated yes, and she believes the tenants should have the same protections of such a fence as a homeowner. She stated that when the parking lot is paved it would be easy for robbers to drive a truck into this secluded location. Commissioner Vandaveer asked how many apartment windows face the parking lot. Sharon Ramaae stated that no windows faced the parking lot on the building directly adjacent but there are windows on the corner into which light would penetrate. It was her understanding that the block wall was only on two sides. · Daniel Fox, Senior Planner, stated the fence, would be on three sides of the property. The carport would serve as the perimeter wall and a fill will provide a least a minimum of 6'- 8" as measured from the outside. If the garages are removed in the future a condition, requires that the area be filled in with a 6'- 8" wall. Lynn Burnett, manager of Plaza Properties, LLC, the owner of the Plaza LaFayette shopping center, stated that the opening of the Tustin Brewing Company together with an increase in general sales activity has placed additional demands on the parking and circulation at the shopping center especially at peak hours. He distributed a copy of an aerial photograph to staff and the Commissioners pointing out that both to the east and west of the current site the uses'are the same as his proposal. He stated he is in agreement with the conditions as imposed and that the location is very convenient for employee use. He asked the Commission to uphold the Zoning Administrator approval of the use. Commissioner Bone asked how many employees the center had. Lynn Burnett stated the center had ~pproximately 80 employees. Planning Commission Minutes January 13, 1997 Page 6 The Public Hearing opened at 7:35 p.m. Janet Scott, 12925 E, Newport, stated she formerly lived next to a cafe in another city and moved eight years ago to Woodcrest Apartments because it was a family oriented complex. She has been very happy at Woodcrest Apartments and does not want to move because of the same problems for which she last moved. Stephany Irvig, 12931 E, Newport Avenue, four year resident and Assistant Manager at Woodcrest Apartments, stated she lives closest to the proposed parking lot and is now able to hear loud voices from the shopping center from her window location. She has observed the street sweeper at 11:00 p.m. which creates noise and asked what hours the sweeper was allowed to clean the parking lot. She is concerned about noise and believes the parking lot use would make the situation worse. Maricela Franco, 12935 C., Newport Avenue, a 20 year resident of Woodcrest Apartments, stated she has been happy living in her apartment, but now feels it is a scary situation for the residents since the new restaurant sells alcohol. Terry Jones, 12941 D., Newport Avenue, Manager of Woodcrest Apartments since 1987 stated that when she started there were numerous break-ins. After the gates were installed break-in's stopped completely. She has no vacancy's and would like to keep it that way. She believes no one wants to live next to a parking lot. Nancy D. Ramaq~, 9720 Savage, Downey, one of the owners of Woodcrest Apartments, stated that because they are located in the county section, the Sheriff is called when there are problems and the Sheriff's Department then refers them to the Tustin Police. She does not believe a proper review of the problems has been represented. She would like the parking restricted to employees only and is concerned with noise and interruption of the lives of 100 families. Doctor G.R. Ramaqe, 12901 Newport Avenue, member of the owning family of Woodcrest Apartments, stated that the parking lot is a dead end and if the area is opened up it will be an invitation to vandalize by persons simply gOing over the fence by ladder or by jumping on the vehicles, without ever being seen. He would like to see a gate installed that would be closed and locked every night. His family has Owned the property since 1972. and is concerned about the parking lot. The annexation was voted down because the single family residence homeowners did not want their quiet disturbed he believes the tenants of Woodcrest Apartments are entitled to the same consideration. Planning Commission Minutes January 13, 1997 Page 7 Scott Rehm, representing Southern Pacific Railroad (SPRR), stated that his ~irm is the property owner of the parking lot site and that they have many holdings of property that are of a' lon ~nu~a~le nature..SPRR supmorts t~ ...... g and ~e oe±ieves th ~= ~~ff__~ ~.,~ u~e a~a encourages approval. at .... =~u~umo~a± ±~gnting and eliminating the vacant nature of the property would create a safer environment. SPRR is also a taxpayer and should be allowed the sale of their property. David Knowlton, independent real estate broker, Who markets the Southern Pacific Transportation property stated that during the past six years there have been no issue regarding security with ~he ~r~perty in its unimproved an~ ~~ nas naa roo · ~ .... ~~ued current condition. He ,~,. _=P P .~als for thms property for a variety of uses but can ~'~ uz no.onner use that would be more appropriate for thi ire than a parkzng lot. s s Denise Ildefonsq, resident of Woodcrest Apartments, stated she thinks that the tenants are being sold out for 33 parking spots. She believes her whole way of life is threatened and is irritated that this parking lot does not center, even count toward parking for the ~eorqe HaltmaQ, 14592 Clarissa Lane, appeared in support of the Woodcrest Apartment residents. He stated that following annexation denial, this proposal was introduced without allowing public discussion. He stated that the end of Clarissa Lane, the adjacent property on the northwest corn not as Exhibit 2.1 sta . er,_ measure~ 3~ feet above ra tes, as measu~=~ ........ g de and ~ ~zum ~lnlshed grade. He believes the 6' high wall does ~ot.!eave a lot of room to jump up on the carports and feels this is a safety concern "both for security and because children could fall from the wall. There is no clear view into the'proposed parking lot which he believes is an unacceptable risk for the tenants. The map that was included in regard to the parking structure shows a total of 39 parking spots but comments have been made that there will only be 33. The center has never addressed the feasibility of acquiring use ~from complex immediately west of LaFayette Plaza which only requires the day time use. He doesn,t believe annexation was right for the residents of Clarissa Lane, it was voted down, and he doesn't believe it is right for the tenants of Woodcrest Apartments to bear the zoning variation of 86 parking spots created by the Tustin Brewery. L_awrence H. BuxtoQ, 13031 Newport Avenue, #205, designer of the proposed parking lot stated that a concern which stands out most to him is security and this was addressed at the Zoning Administrator hearing. He believes an 8' wall is too high to scale and would provide a sufficient deterrent to crime. He believes that anyone wishing to rob the tenants could walk into the apartments by just using the street. He feels that lighting has been addressed both Planning Commission Minutes January 13, 1997 Page 8 for security and for shielding the light from the tenant windows. He has discussed the issue of safety with the Police Department and was told by Acting Chief Foster that the increase in access to the area would provide, a safer environment than currently exists. Commissioner Vandaveer inquired how many parking spaces were actually being proposed. Lawrence Buxto~', stated that the confusion in numbers came about because of a turn-around area at .the far end of the perking lot required for Fire Department access and for handicapped spaces. He anticipates 35 spaces but the final survey of the property will determine the actual number. _Anqelo Guidicq, stated he was a two month owner of Katie McGuires, and that the last two months have been very busy with no security problems. As a former law enforcement officer he believes it would be very difficult for anyone to vandalize or commit a robbery since there is only one way in and one way out of the parking lot. Steve Foster, Acting Police Chief, stated that the lighting and accessibility would be a help to.the Tustin Police and with an 8 foot high fence it is not likely to be attractive to'rObbery or vandalism. Although it is a county area, he guaranteed that if there were problems in the future that the Tustin Police Department would work with the Sheriffs Department to eliminate the problems. Tustin Police officers patrol the 'complex regularly and at night especially at the rear of the businesses. It is a low call for service area. Commissioner Bone asked that the concern expressed about the parking lot sweeping be addressed. He also inquired what security was provided by the center. The Director stated there should be no parking lot sweeping or use of heavy equipment prior to 7:00 a.m. or later than 10:00 p.m. Lynn Burnett stated that he will make sure that the Noise Ordinance is complied with. Security has been provided in the past on an as needed basis. Following the opening of the Tustin Brewery security was. provided for about two months until they determined it was no longer necessary. Security is provided on holiday and peak demand periods. Planning Commission Minutes January 13, 1997 Page 9 g°mmissioner Kozak asked if there were any landscaping plans for the area along tee setback against the wall, adjacent to the Woodcrest Apartments. He also asked if the area would be posted for "employee parking only" and, with respect to that posting, if there could be some notice given to the tenants advising them of the proper use of the parking area. Lynn Burnett stated landscaping has not been addressed but he would be willing tO discuss it. As for the employee parking issue, every lease contains an exhibit which marks employee parking-to the rear. The Directo~ commented that this is a discretionary action and if the conditions of approval are not adhered to and the property owner does not police their employees, staff has the ability to bring the issue back to the Commission and further restrict the use of the area. This could lead to gating the area if necessary and imposing various hours of operation in which the area could be used or even to revocation of the Conditional Use Permit which would render the property unusable. She stated that subject to approval of the Community Development Department, staff would have the applicant propose minor landscaping with vines in the area described by Commissioner Kozak. The Public Hearing closed at 8:20 p.m. Commissioner Vandaveer ~?~ed Pontious seconded to adopt Resolution No. 3507, upholding the Zoning Administrator.s action and denying the appeal of Conditional Use Permit 96-037 and Design Review 96-051 revised as follows: Condition 1.5 shall read, "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.. Condition 2 1 revised to read "I accordance with TuStin Cit~ Co~ ~ .... ' ..... . · n · ~ ~ ~ecnlon ~271 required separation between ....... :-~ - (~) related to the ~ ~ xon expansion area shall ~ ...... ~uza~ uses, t~e ~= ~ureene~ ~rom surrounding residential properties and the abandoned railroad right-of-way to the north by a 6'- 8" high solid mason wall finish grade on the adjacent ~=-~ .... '~ ry . measured from the ~ ~==u, zne use of the n ~-~ ~_~ __ ~ .= =o- ~on~lulon 3.2 =a ...... ~ ~uu expansion area may be reviewed by the Community Development Director at least 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 measures to be reviewed and approved by the Zoning Administra Commission. Said mitigation may include, but aret°r or Planning not limited to, the following: a. Establish hours of use, b. Secure parking lot expansion area from adjacent parking area, and c., Retain an on- Planning Commission Minutes January 13, 1997 Page_10 site security guard. Failure to satisfy the above condition could be grounds for the Zoning Administrator or Planning Commission to reconsider Conditional Use Permit 96-037 and Design Review 96-051 which may result in revocation." Condition 3.5 to read, "The use of the parking lot expansion area shall be limited to employee parking onlY. Customer parking shall be prohibited, except in conjunction with a special event or under special circ%unstances as approved by the Community Development Director." Condition 3.6 shall read, "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." Last sentence added to Condition 2.2 to read, "Landscape plans for the parking area shall be approved by the Director of the Community Development Department." Motion carried 5-0. · Conditional Use Permit 96-020/Amendment to Conditional Use Permit 85-010 and Desiqn Review 96-031 APPLICANT: SERVICE STATION SERVICES 3 HUTTON-CENTRE DRIVE, SUITE 711 SANTA ANA, CA 92707 ATTN: APRIL SMITH OWNER: EDGAR PANKEY 320 MAIN STREET TUSTIN, CA 92780 LOCATION: 13891 RED HILL AVENUE ZONING: CENTRAL COMMERCIAL DISTRICTS (C-2) ENVIRONMENTAL THIS PROJECT IS CATEGORICALLY EXEMPT (cLAss 1) STATUS: PURSUANT TO SECTION 15301 OF THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT. REQUEST: AUTHORIZATION TO ELIMINATE' TWO EXISTING SERVICE BAYS, EXPAND THE EXISTING CONVENIENCE MARKET, AND MAKE CERTAIN SITE AND BUILDING IMPROVEMENTS. Recommendation - That the Planning Commission adopt Resolution No. 3508 approving Conditional Use Permit 96-020 and Design Review 96- 031. Presentation: Sara Pashalides, Associate Planner The Public Hearing opened at 8:20 p.m. Commissioner Vandaveer asked how many parking spaces would be available on this property; how many were for employees and how many for customers. . Sara Pashalides stated there were six parking spaces based on the ~'. square footage of the 'use as required by City Code. Attachment I Letters of Opposition John and Janet Scott 12925-t. Newport Avenue Tustin, CA 92780 Scott ReekStin, associate planner City of Tustin 300 Centennial Way Tustin, CA 92680 Dear Mr. Reekstin, We as residents of the Woodcrest Apartmants are protesting and wish to have stopped the conversion of the Southern-Pacific abandoned railroad Right-of-way, located to the west of Woodcrest Apartments, into an additional parking lot fot Plaza La layette. We request that the approval of the Adopted Zoning Administrator Action 96-011 be declined and the approval of the Conditional Use permit 96-037 and Design Review 96-051 be revoked. We have been residents of the Woodcrest Apartments for 8 years. We have chosen to live here at the Woodcrest Apartments because of the quiet family atmosphere. The grounds are always clean and well maintained. We fear that the proposed parking area will disturb the quiet secure atmosphere that we want to. raise our children in. Our request for declination and revocation of the issuance of the Conditional Use Permit 96-037 and Design Review 96-051, is based on these factors, which negatively affect the quality of our lives, health and safety. When the Plaza La fayette was opened and the right-of-way area was not secured by the locked fence and barbed wire, we experienced numerous occasions of car break-ins, thef[, trash being thrown onto our yards and strangers loitering and trespassing across our complex grounds. We have children and live in a family comPlex and we want to continue to feel safe in allowing our children to play out side. Can you guarantee that vagrancy will not occur?. Can you guarantee that my cars or my home will not be broken into? That there will not be people loitering at late hours talking loudly and laughing by their cars. I live right next to the proposed area and we get up for work at 4:30 A.M. to get off.to work, can you guarantee that my sleep will not disturbed? This could affect our work, my children's school work, and our health This is our home, we may not own the property we live on but we take pride in where we do live. Why were we not given the same consideration as our home owning neighbors. I feel that we are being discriminated against because we chose to live at Woodcrest Apartments and not to buy a house. Esther Hicks 12923 H Newport Avenu~ Tustin, CA 92780 Januapy 24, 1997 Mayor Tracy Worley C/O: City Of Tustin 300 Centennial Way Tustin, CA 92780 Dear Mayor Worley, HELP! HELP! HELP! My home is being threatened by a parking lot. You the City- didn't plan very well- and now my family and I, who live at Woodcrest Apartments, get to bear the burden! ! ! ! ! UNFAIR ! ! SHODDY ! ! LrNDE~ED ! ! ! If this is proper City planning fire the lot of them, because they w/Il leave Tustin in ruins. Keep Tustin a place people want to LIVE. Listen to the residents and for once choose the residents over the "best interest's" of business. I am a Nurse and a single mother of an eleven year old daughter. I lived at Woodcrest previously in 1988-1992, before and after the gate behind Plaza La Fayette went up, and' the number of times my neighbors cars were broken into drOpped dramatically when the fence went up~ Upon deciding to return to Californ/a in 1995, there was no other choice for me except Woodcrest Apartments. A neighborhood where both myself and my daughter feel safe, but if this proposed parking lot goes through, and the area by my home is opened to the public (which it will be, regardless of the signs they put up!) who will guarantee mine and my daughter's safety and quality of life? For sure not the police, because they won't respond to call made from here, and the sheriff's department won't file a complaint in the City of Tustin! So once again the "little guy" is sold out to big business! I think it really STINKS, and if you are looking out 'for the community you w/ll have to realize that you are going to ruin a truly wonderful neighborhood. Maybe not in a year or two; but the quiet erosion is going to happen and when it starts to get bad, what then, will barbed Mre be placed over the top of the fence? Just another charming reminder to go with the eight foot fence, noise, lighting, and pollution, all because "big business" could afford to buy the zoning commission? P.O.'d at Planning! Esther Hicks Dcsfise E. lldefonso 12915 A Ncwpoa Avenue Tu.~Iin, CA 92780 ('714) 731-6075 January 25, 1997 Mayor Tracy Willis Worley 'City of'fustin 300 Centennial Way Tustin, CA 92780 Dear Mayor Worley, This letter is to express my vehement oppos#ion to the proposed parking lot Plaza I.a Fayette wishes to place: next to my home. To understand why I ant opposing, you would have to come and visit Woodcres! Apartments, which 1 recommend. Let us be more than a plot of Cotmty land that just happens to have I(X) families living here. Come here and talk to sonde of the tenants who have lived here for more than twenty-five years, who have raiscxl families in Woodcrest and who's children now are raising children of their own here. Remember when neighbors really looked out for neighbors? When a neighborhood was a place where the kids could play outside, without fear'?. Well, that IS Woodcrest. The City of Tustln is fast loosing il?s clean and friendly neighborhoods, the neighborhoods that were sacrificed to let business come in. I'm talking about the n~:ighborhoOds located further down Newp'or~ Avenue towards 1-.5. Nine years ago whe~ I lived off of Newport & Mcl2adden, it was a nice place, now I won't drive down there. I don't waut Woodcrcst to end up like that. Which is why I don't believe that by putting 33-36 parkiug spaces i, that enclosure will be helpful to anyone EXCF~t'T Plaza La Fayette. The crime, noise, exhaust, disturbances, extra lighting and just sheer ugliness of a parking lot with an eight foot fence, sitting mere feet from our fronl do<,r, will be enough to drive some of our neighbors tawny. I applaud the success of the businesses in Plaza La Fayette and 1 have p~rsonally recommended many of ~hem to friends, Bul I am very, very angry and disappointed that the City of Tu.~tin, would puli something so very underhanded! 'Come on, 86 parking stalls short and you let them h~/c into something later?? ] think NOT. this was a done deal from Ihe very beginning. While I cli~g to hope that my home and neighbors will be here, unchanged in the future, due to the City C.'.ouncil actually exercising good judgment and voting this down, 5-0 as with thc annexation. I have to HOPE that someone out there is looking at the numbers and realizing ~hat even wi~ these 33-36 spaces they will still ~ .~ .spaces short. Even I realize tha~ placing a Band-Aid over a sucking chesl wound is an effo~l in futility~ ~ng into another way to solve Ibis parking problem would ~ in thc best interest of Plaza ~ Fayc~tc, aud thc su~undiug ~mmunity. Solving the pa~ing problem could mean a simple easement and lease with existing pm~ics (clout ~an the p~o~sed parking area is ~o businesses). Or it could m~n y~rs of trouble wilh the "Nice, ~w- abiding Residents o~' W~crest" moving out and the residents who would ~ willing to tole~ ~e problems this pro~d ~ing WILL bhng with it. moving in. and one mom "N~ce Neighborh~d in Tustin" GONE~ Sincerely, ~se fldefon.~-~ 3anum' 26,!997 · +'>, F.,. ,, th thi I!" ,-.,,,o~i,:= ~:: i,~o.-+.,.our life. We. ~.T' ~, ! 'T. '['t'~T .'t" I I 'FRO~ PARKER BERTEA AEROgPACE (~]~D) Of. 29' 97 ]4'"' ~$T. 14' IS/NO. 3560007410 P January 29, 1997 The Honorable Tracy Wills Wodey Mayor, City of TustJn 300 Centennial Way Tustin. CA 92780 Subject: Conversion of Southern Pacific Right-of-Way for Additional Parking for Plaza LaFayette Reference: . Appeal on Conditional Use Permil: 96-O37, Design Review 96-051 Dear Mayor Wodey: This letter is to express my strong opposiz;on to ~he subject parking lot. Although Woodcrest Apartments lles in unincorporated territory, we residents consider ourselves proud citizens of Tustin. Further, we invest our time, money, and hearts here. Most of us would not consider living elsewhere and have recommended both our complex and the c/ty tO friends and relatives. In partnership with the owners and managers of Woodcre~, we maintain a successful community that sp. an~ the racial, ethnic, age, and socio-economic spec[rum. Our d. ommunity actually wot/cs, providing a safe and &herished haven tha~ we stand ready to defen, d. I have been a re~iderr~ of Woodcrest, and Tustin, for twenty-five years. As such, I'ye had the opporu, m~ to observe the effects of growth and change wlth~n the city. The horrifying example of the Californian, at the south end of Newport Avenue, dernonsl~ated how rapidly a nice complex can decay. Woodcrest's residents desperately seek to precJude a similar decline, and feel a parldng Io[ expansion immediately adjacent to our homes would seal our fete. When I moved here, the sect/on of Tusdn north of I-5 was struggling even aa reach lower-middle-class. Woodcrest Apartments was approaching ghetto status, inhabited by rowdy Marines, motorcycle-gang types, poor single mo[hers lil<e myself, and others on the less privileged side of the scale. Tustin itself had a rather dark reputation at that time. A murder occurred in ~he parking lot of a bar on Holt. A woman was abducted from the parking lot of a bar on EJ Camino Real and was brutally raped, murdered, mutilated, and dumped in a field. Woodcrest was evacuated because the chemical distributor adjacent to our Complex flooded the street and with acid. With few exceptions, most of Newporl: Avenue was bordered by weedy vacant lots or poQrfy maintained buildings. Having N;euporl: 17 as a neighbor woulc~ have been unimaginable. The sou~h side of I-5 was somewhat nicer then, with relatively new aparzrnen~ such as the Cal;fomian. I was env;ous when a friend from Woodcrest moved into a nice, safe place on Tusl:in Village Way. Meanwh~e, my apartment was burglarized tw;.ce in e six--month period, I found a bum sleeping in my car, my daughter's 13icycle v~as s~olen from our doorway, and an 8-year-old girl was subjected to an attempted assault'/n' Our carports. Car break-ins and ~ were commonplace. Woodcrest's safety end security Toot< an immAdtate upswihg, however, when the Southern Pacific right-Of-Way' was enclose~l and access to l:l~e complex'became much more difficult. C,~rninal activity is now rare and ! feel safe leaving my front door open on hot summer davs. FROM FARKER BERTEA AEROSPACW (WED) 01.29' 97 ' ]4' 18/'NO. 3560007410 P 2/4 Even before security improved, life at Woodcrest brightened when Dr. and Mrs. Ramege bought the complex. Their contributions to our livin(~ standards have been continuous: ne.w caq3etl. Paint, pavement, perime~er wall, and playground equipmenz; remodeled I<jtchen$ and bathrooms; ceramic files to replace dry shake shingles; and at, active landscaping, to mer~fon just a ;few upgrades. This has represented an enormous outJa¥ for the Ramage~--who are not backe.d by any malty company or coq)oration--yet they have managed to keep the rents very reasonable. Their goal was to attract and ma;n[ain reliable, long-term tenants and allow Iow tum-ove¢ to help compensate for the expenditures. This approach has been B raving success-- at Mast until now. If this parking lot is buil~o the property value and occupancy rates will plummet, quality of tenants will decline (think drugs), improvement money will ev.apomte, criminal elemen~ will again have easy access, and Woodcmst will go ~he way of the Californian, This would not only devastate the Ramages and Woodcresz, but would deter the upscale clientele necessary for Plaza LaFayette's prosperity as well, Far from being opposed to, or afraid of, cha~ge, the 32.9 residents of Woodcrest are very support{ye of constructive development, Ou¢ only goal is to ensure zhat our long-established ClUeF~ty of life does not deteriorate. Thi~ complex pre-dates Plaza L~Feyerte by several decades--in fac~, the tenancy of several re~idenr~ does. Is a gain of thirty-three paddng spaces worth de~¢oying Tus'dn's most successful multi-fan~qy.complex? Can Tustin afford a decaying c,,om~unity abutting Emerald an.d Nieu. p~.n: ~ 7? Is "Tustin's firs1: m~cro-brewery r~Ore importa .nt than Tu~tin's citizens7 Should 'Worl( where you must bck live and shop i~ Tus[in' be cl~anged ~o 'Tusdn--Just spend your money here'? . At~ached is a partial list of considerations affecting this (~eciMon. Please take ~he time to read them, or pass' them on to other cog.r~zant persons. Your attention is appreciated more than you know. Sincerely, Dee Anne Santos 1 291 g-B Newper~ Tustin, CA 92780 832'8639 (evenings), 458-4248 (days) ' FROM PARKER 'BERTEA AEROSPACE ( ED)OI. 29'9? 14'18/N0. 3560007410 P 3/4 list of Con$iderat/on$ Economic Is,sues One hundred families would boycott LaFayette businesses and encourage friends and family to do the same. Dr. and Mrs. Ramage investigated purchasing the land, but the cost was prohibitively high for a private entity to buy. Degradation in l-rv~n.g conditions and tenancy would devastate Drol~erTv values for the Rameges, who are private owners. . Decfining standards at Woodcrest woulct eventually affect value of surrounding properties, incJuding the Plaza. Would any tax dollarl be used to acquire the property? · Children. could get hurt playing.on wallS, wi~ ensuing lawsuits. I~asket~a'lls. and other items would undoubtedly be thrown over wall as children play, .. potentially damaging cars. b~<ely lawsuits. ' Healthy yo.ung persons, possibly intoxicated, would ine. vitably hop over the wall to avoid the very long walk to Tustin B(a. wing Company. 'Possible Injury and lawsuit for Plaza and complex, plus security problems for flea~th and .~a fetF Issues Masonry wall on north end would perpendicularly cross a JP-5 (jet fUel) line. Additional concern in case of earthquake. Would park/ng lot have a fire hydrant--or would Woodcrest's be used? .. Perfect gathering spot for troublemakers and teens, especially after lights go out. Provides easy access to complex, out of sight from any street. Crime rate and police calls at Woodcrest dramatically declined after right-of-way was secured, demons:ra~ing this does affect security. Sheriff and fire department already have adequate access to Woodcrest. Tustin police would be responsible for parking lot, OC Sheriff for Woodcrest on other side of wall ouer y of Ufa Issues Distance between apartments and plann&d parking s. paces is approximately .50:'.. Ughting standards, reflected illumination, and headlighz~ ~ne-of-sigl~t W'.r~h secorld stor~ , windows. * , Loud talking inside and outside parked cars, sex, radios, urination. (Not hypo*~hetical--Citizens of Balboa Peninsula are seeking to prevent exparmion' pf Cannery center because they've experienced .t~ese ~xact I~robl(~m~.) Woodcrest Apartments not air condi~0.ned'~ windows are open all summer. Noise echoes off concrete walls and pavement, right into bedroom windows. (Ask any [enant on the alleyway about this onel) Car exhaust drifts into apartments [see above). I~irty and smelly, if not dangerous. Higher wall (if ex, haled for security reasons) would be ugly, an "attractive nuis~rtce' for children, and would not stop ~he criminal-minded anyway. FRO~! PARKER BERTEA AEROSPACE 29' 97 1' "'~/8T. 14' 18/NO. 3560007410 1~ 4/4 Common Sense 'Concen~ · Woodcrest end homes were here decades before LaFayette. Re~aurants approved and built with pr[or knowledge of parking inadequacy. Whet kind of ~mage does it create for our city, and our elected officials, Jf 100 fami~e~ ere allowed to suffer ii, st to accommodate 33 .additional breweq/patrons? Negative impacts could only be brought u.p every two years [Planning Comm]sSiOl~ Exh~it A (5) 3.2], which is a long ~Jrne t~ wai.~. Wording requires nothing but 'review". Fantastic spot; for skatebosrclers, lovers, gangs, and others seeking privacy and darkness. . Poterrdal legitimate activity until well past 2:00 a.m. Potential iliegiEmete acl~vicy all nlghtj every dight. Signs would de[er no one -- Never da, or.speeding tickets ~fouidn'~: exist~ Access [o a brewe~ seemingly more. imlsortar~t, than liVir~g Standa~'ds of residents. Would. any I~[anning Commissi0n'or City Council member v~e for this parldn, g lot adjacent ~o ~eir own homes? Would lead to slumlike conditions. Complex immediately to west of Woodcres~ ~lready teetering on brink of decay, The existJng lot directly across (and about one-fourth [he distance) from the Tu$[in B~'ewlng Company could provide nearly 'd~e same new parklng if the eyesore vacant port,on were paved end an easement sought. Attachment J Planning Commission Resolution No. 3507 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2O 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 RESOLUTION NO. 3507 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN, DENYING THE APPEAL AND UPHOLDING THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR'S ACTION TO APPROVE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 96-037 AND DESIGN REVIEW 96-051, 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 13031 NEWPORT AVENUE AND TO THE WEST OF THE WOOD CREST APARTMENTS AT 12901-12943 NEWPORT AVENUE. The Planning Commission of the City of Tustin does hereby resolve as follows: I o The Planning Commission finds and determines as follows: Ao That a proper application, ~onditional Use Permit 96-037 and Design Review 96-051, was filed by C.L. Burnett 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. B o 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. C o That on December 10, 1996, Sharon Ramage, owner of the Woodcrest Apartments, submitted an appeal of the Zoning Administrator's action on this project. m . That a public hearing was duly called, noticed and held for said appeal on January 13, 1997 by the Planning Commission. 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Resolution No. 35~, Page 2 S o Fo 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, 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: o The parking lot expansion are'a will be used for employee and/or valet 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. . The proposed parking spaces will not be permitted to count as required parking spaces for the shopping center or be used to- accommodate additional, parking intensive uses, such' as restaurants or medical uses, in the shopping center. The additional parking spaces will indirectly provide more parking for patrons of the shopping center, thereby mitigating parking demand impacts as required by Condition 6.18 of Planning Commission ResolUtion No. 3413 (Variance No. 95-011). o The adjacent residential uses will be buffered from the proposed parking lot expansion area ,by a solid 6'-8" block wall and/or existing garage or carport walls. 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2O 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Resolution No. _~07 Page 3 g o Pursuant to Section 9272 of the Tustin Municipal Code, the Planning Commission finds that the location, size, architectural features and general appearance of the parking lot expansion area will not impair the orderly and harmonious development of the area, the present or future development therein, or the occupancy as a whole. In making such findings, the Planning Commission has considered at least the following items: 1. Height, bulk and area of buildings. 2. Setbacks and site planning. o Landscaping, parking area design and traffic circulation. 4. Location, height and standards of exterior illumination. 5. Location and method of refuse storage. o Physical relationship of proposed improvements to existing structures in the neighborhood. o Appearance and design relationship of proposed improvements to existing structures and possible future structures in the neighborhood and public thoroughfares. o 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. I . 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. Resolution No. 3~ _ , Page 4 2 II.. The Planning Commission hereby denies the appeal and upholds the Zoning Administrator,s ac ' app{ove C~nditional Use p=~ -- tlon to Design Review 96 0 ut =z~ ~o. 96-037 and - 51 to a horlze the establishment of a parking lot on a vacant S0' 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, subject to the conditions contained in Exhibit A attached hereto. , PASSED ANDADOPTED by the Planning Commission of the City 9 of Tustin at a regular meeting held on the 13th day of January, 1997. 10 11 12 13 14 Lou Bone Chairman 17 16 BARBARA REYE Recording Secretary 18 STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF ORANGE ) 19 CITY OF TUSTIN ) 20 21 I, BARBARA REYES, the undersigned, hereby certify that I am the.Recording Secretary of the Planning Commission 22 of the City of Tustin, California; that Resolution No. 3507 was duly passed and adopted at a regular meeting of 23 the Tustin Planning Commission, held on the i3th day of January, 1997. 24 25 27 --- 28 l/ Recording Secretary EXHIBIT A RESOLUTION NO. 3507 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 96-037 AND DESIGN REVIEW 96-051 GENERAL (1) 1.1 The proposed project shall substantially conform with the submitted plans for the project date stamped November 8, 1996, 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 Tus~in City Code. (1) 1.2 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. (1) 1.3 The subject project approval shall become, null and void unless the use is established within twelve (12) months of the date of this Exhibit and substantial construction is underway. Time extensions may be granted if a written request is received by the Community Development Department within thirty (30) days prior to expiration. (1) 1.4 Approval 'of Conditional Use Permit 96-037 and Design Review 96-051 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. (1) 1.5 The applicant s~all hold harmless and defend ~he City of Tustin from all claims and liabilities arising out of a challenge to the City's approval of this project. 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 CUP 96-037 and DR 96-051 January 13, 1997 Page 2 SITE IMPROVEMEb~S 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 wail'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, withi · ~emoval, to construct a 6'-8,, h~-~n-s~ _(60) days of · ~ solia block wall as a barrier in the exposed areas s · ~ro~v~l by the Community D=~.~__~b]ect. to review and ~uz ute 6'- 8" hi-= J .?~=~upment Director Pi- submitted to ~ ~-'--~. s~±zd masonry wall check ~-~= =ummunl~y Development DeDart~ (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 17.5 feet in length plus an overhang of 2.5 feet. The drive aisle shall be a minimum of 25 feet in width. The turnaround space shall be a minimum of twelve (12) feet in width and 17.5 feet in length and shall be located a minimum of three (3) feet from the north property line. Landscape Plans within the parking area shall be approved by the Director of the Community DeveloPment Department. (5) 2.3 Lighting for the parking lot expansion area shall comply with the City of Tustin Security Ordinance and shall provide a minimum of one (1) 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. Manufacturer,s details 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 four (4) feet in width shall be required along entire length of the east or west side of the parking lot expansion area. (4) 2.5 Six (6) inch fei%ed concrete curbs shall be placed on- site adjacent to the perimeter boundary walls and carport walls, unless approved otherwise by the Community Development Director. Landscaping, gravel, concrete or other material acceptable to the Community Development Director may be placed between the curb and the walls. (4) Exhibit A CUP 96-037 and DR 96-051 January 13, 1997 Page 3 The .appl --~ ,,~ keeTM of the parking lot expansi?n (1) 2.6 icant shall be responsible for the daily maintenance anu u~- ~ , · ' cludinc but not limited to trash remora±, area. in c ........... ] ~n maintenance of alnting. ~rarrlnl ~=tttu .... ~d. . . . _~ P ' ~. - ~-~ ~e facilities are ma~nta~neu improvements Eo ensure u~a= =~ in a neat and attractive manner. 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. *** 2.7 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. USE RESTRICTION~ *** 3.1 The parking spaces located in the parking lot expansion area shall not be counted toward the required number of parking spaces for the shopping center. Likewise, the spaces shall not be used to accommodate additional parking intensive uses 'or use expansions in the shopping center unless additional City approvals are obtained. (5) 3.2 The use of the parking lot expansion area may be reviewed by the Community Development Director at least 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 parki'ng 16t expansion area, the Community Development Director may require the applicant to provide additional mitigation measures tO be reviewed and approved by the zoning Administrator or Planning Commission. Said mitigation may include, but are not limited to, the following: a. Establish hours of use. b. Secure parking lot expansion area from adjacent parking area. c. Retain an on-site security guard Failure to satisfy the above condition could be grounds for the zoning Administrator or Planning Commission to reconsider Conditional Use Permit 96-037 and Design Review 96-051 which may result in revocation. Exhibit A CUP 96-037 and DR 96-051 January 13, 1997 Page 4 (5) 3.3 Ail 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. (5) 3.4 Prior to issuance of any permit, 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, a reciprocal access agreement or some other legally binding instrument 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. *** 3.5 The use of the parking lot expansion area shall be limited to employee parking only. Customer parking shall be prohibited, except in conjunction with a special event or under special circumstances as approved by the Community Development Director. *** 3.6 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 ba approved by the Community Development Department. *** 3.7 N© structures shall be constructed within the parking lot expansion area. (1) 3.8 Outdoor storage shall be prohibited within the parking lot expansion area. (1) 3.9 Ail construction operations' including engine warm up and deliveries of materials and equipment, shall be subject to the provisions of the City of Tustin Noise Ordinance as amended, and may take place only during the hours of 7:00 a.m. until 6:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, and 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. on Saturday, unless the Building Official determines that said activity will be in substantial conformance with the Noise Ordinance and the public health and safety will not be impaired, subject 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. (1) 3.10 "No Loitering,, signs shall be posted on the site, with sign details and locations to be approved by the Community Development Department. Exhibit A CUP 96-037 and DR 96-051 January 13, 1997 Page 5 PLAN SUBMITTAL (1) 4.1 Ail 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 1994 Uniform Mechanical Code with California Amendments 1994 Uniform Plumbing Code with California Amendments 1993 National Electrical Code with California'Amendments T-24 California Disabled Access Regulations T-24 California Energy Efficiency Standards City of Tustin Grading Ordinance City of Tustin Landscape and Irrigation Guidelines City of Tustin Private Improvement Standards City of Tustin Security Ordinance (1) 4.2 Drainage from new areas shall be collected and drained to the existing drainage system at Plaza La Fayette. At plan check, the capacity of existing systems shall be calculated to be adequate. (5) 4.3 At plan check, provide project data to show the total number of parking spaces and the number of existing spaces accessible to disabled persons. Additional accessible parking spaces may be required on-site based on the total number of parking spaces. ~ (5) 4.4 At plan check, 'a photometric study of the proposed lighting for the Parking lot expansion area shall be submitted to the Community Development Department. (5) 4.5 At plan check, three (3) sets of the site improvement plans, modified in accordance with this Exhibit, shall be submitted to the Community Development Department.. (1) 4.6 At plan check, three (3) inch striping detail shall be shown for all parking spaces. FIRE AUTHORITY (5) 5.1 ' Prior to the issuance of any building/grading permits, the applicant shall submit and obtain approval of plans for the parking lot, from the Fire Chief in consultation with the Manager, Traffic Engineering. The plans shall include the plan view; section view, and indicate the width of the drive aisle, measured flow line to flow line. All proposed fire apparatus turnarounds shall be clearly marked when a dead-end drive aisle'exceeds 150 feet or when other conditions require it. Exhibit A CUP 96-037 and DR 96-051 January 13, 1997 Page 6 5.4 FEES (5) 5.2 A fire lane shall be established for the drive aisle. (5) 5.3 Prior to the issuance of any grading/building permits, the applicant shall submit and obtain approval from the Fire Chief for parking lot plans with fire lanes shown. The plans shall indicate the locations of red curbing and signage.' A drawing of' the proposed signage with the height, stroke-and color of lettering and the contrasting background Color shall be submitted to and approved by the Fire Chief. Prior to the use of the parking lot, the approved fire lane marking plan shall be installed. (1) 6.1 Prior to issuance of any building permits payment shall (5) 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 permi Community Development Department. t fees to the b. 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 the apProPriate environmentaI document City to file · ation for the project If within such forty-eight (48) hou~ 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. RESOLUTION NO. 97-7 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN, DENYING THE APPEAL AND UPHOLDING THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S ACTION TO APPROVE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 96-037 AND DESIGN REVIEW 96-051, 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 13031 NEWPORT AVENUE AND TO THE WEST OF THE WOOD CREST APARTMENTS AT 12901-12943 NEWPORT AVENUE. 8 The City Council of the City 9 resolve as follows: 10 I. 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 of Tustin does hereby The City Council finds and determines as follows: A. That a proper application, Conditional Use Permit 96-037 and Design Review 96-051, was filed by C.L. Burnett 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. B. 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. C. That on December 10, 1996, Sharon Ramage, owner of the woodcrest Apartments, submitted an appeal of the zoning Administrator's action on this project. D. That a public hearing was duly called, 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. E. 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. 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2O 21 22 23 24 2S 26 27 28 Resolution No. 97-7 Page 2 F. That a public hearing was duly called, noticed and held on said appeal by the City Council on February 18, 1997. G. Ho 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, 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. The proposed parking spaces will not be permitted to count as required parking spaces for the shopping center or be used 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 10 11 12 13 14 Resolution No. 9 Page 3 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. . . Setbacks and site planning. Landscaping, parking area design and traffic circulation- Location, height and standards of exterior illumination- 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 II. 26 27 28 5. Location and method of refuse storage. 6. Physical relationship of proposed improvements to existing structures the neighborhood. 7. 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. j. This project is categorically exempt (Class 11) pursuant to Section 15311 of the california Environmental Quality Act. K. 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 denies the appeal and .upholds the Planning Commission's action to approve Conditional Use Permit No. 96-037 and Design Review 96-051 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, subject to the conditions contained in Exhibit A, attached hereto. Resolution No. 97-7 Page 4 PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City 2 Council, held on the 18th day of February, 1997. 3 5 Mayor Tracy Wills Worley 6 Pamela Stoker City Clerk STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF ORANGE ) CITY OF TUSTIN ) 10 I, Pamela Stoker, City Clerk and ex-officio Clerk of the City Council of the City of Tustin, California, do hereby 11 certify that the whole number of the members of the City Council of the City of Tustin is five; that the above and 12 foregoing Resolution No. 97-7 was duly passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the Tustin City Council, held on 13 the 18th day of February, 1997, by the following vote: 14 COUNCILMEMBER AYES: COUNCILMEMBER NOES: 15 COUNCILMEMBER ABSTAINED: COUNCILMEMBER ABSENT: 16 17 PAMELA STOKER CITY CLERK 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 EXHIBIT A RESOLUTION NO. 97-7 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 96-037 AND DESIGN REVIEW 96-051 GENERAL (1) 1.1 The proposed project shall substantially conform with the submitted plans for the project date stamped November 8, 1996,' 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. (1) 1.2 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. (1) 1.3 The subject project approval shall become null and void unless the use is established within twelve (12) months of the date of this Exhibit and'substantial construction is underway. Time extensions may be granted if a written request is received by the Community Development Department within thirty (30) days prior to expiration. (1) 1.4 Approval of Conditional Use Permit 96-037 and Design Review 96-051 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. (1)' 1,5 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. _-- -- 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 CUP 96-037 and DR 96-051 February 18, 1997 Page 2 S_ITE IMPROVEMENTS (4) 2.1 (4) 2.2 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 residentiaI 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, 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 Direct . for the 6'- 8" high ~~ or Plans ~ ou~u masonry wall shall be submitted to the Community Development Department at plan check. Ail of the parking stalls in the parking lot expansion area shall be a minimum of eight (8) feet in width and 17.5 feet in length plus an overhang of 2.5 feet. The drive aisle shall be a minimum of 25 feet in width. The turnaround space shall be a minimum of twe · n width and 17 5 fe ~ ~ ~ ........ lye (12) feet '. . · e~ ~, ~9un an~ snall be located a mmnmmum of three (3) feet from the north property line. Landscape plans within the parking area shall be approved by the Director of the Community Development Department. (5) 2.3 Lighting for the parking lot expansion area shall comply with the City of Tustin Security Ordinance and shall provide a minimum of one (1) footcandle of illumination throughout the site. Ail exterior light fixtures shall be directed 90 degrees down and not produce direct light or glare or have a negative impact on adjacent properties. Manufacturer, s details 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 four (4) feet in width shall be required along entire length of the east or west side of the parking lot expansion area. (4) 2.5 Six (6) inch raised concrete curbs shall be placed on- site.adjacent to the perimeter boundary walls and carpOrt walls, unless approved otherwise by the Community Development Director. Landscaping, gravel, concrete or other material acceptable to the Community Development Director may be placed between the curb and the walls. Exhibit A CUP.96-037 and DR 96-051 February 18, 1997 Page 3 (1) 2.6 The applicant shall be responsible for the daily maintenance and up-keep of the parking lot expansion · din but not limited to trash removal, area, lnclu ~ ........ val and maintenance of painting, graffiti Z~LL~ improvements to ensure that the facilities are maintained in a neat and attractive manner. 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. *** 2.7 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. USE RESTRICTION~ -- *** 3.1 The parking spaces located in the parking lot expansion area shall not be counted toward the required number of parking spaces for the shopping center. Likewise, the spaces shall not be used to accommodate additional parking intensive uses or use expansions in the shopping center unless additional City approvals are obtained. (5) 3.2 The use of the parking lot expansion area may be reviewed by the Community Development Director at least on a biannual basis. If in the future the Community Development Director determines that noise, security, uisance problems exist on the site or in and/or other s a resu±~ u~ ~ n ~= A~ ~he establishment of the the vicinity a . - ~ oommunitv Development exp ..... ~~ ~ ~rovide add~t~ona± parking lot ans~on area, ~ ....... require the apP~~ ~o = Director may mitigation measures to be reviewed and approved by the zoning Administrator or Planning Commission. said mitigation may include, but are not limited to, the following: a. Establish hours of use. b. Secure parking lot expansion area from adjacent parking area. c. Retain an on-site security guard Failure to satisfy the above condition could be grounds for the zoning Administrator or Planning Commission to reconsider Conditional Use Permit 96-037 and Design Review 96-051 which may result in revocation. Exhibit A CUP 96-037 and DR 96-051 February 18, 1997 Page 4 (5) 3.3 Ail conditions of approval of Planning Commissi Resolution Nos. 2502 (Variance No ~ ~, ~ on (Variance No. 95-011 - . . - ~-uu~j and 341 and Conditional Use Permit 95-019~ shall remain in full force and effect, unless made null and void by future City approvals. (5) 3.4 Prior to issuance of any permit, 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 arc shall file a lot line ad~uo~^~P~ el. .The applicant agreement or ..... = uuner ±e all . . . ces acceptable to the Cit~, of ~,,-~ = y binding instrument = ~=o~n uo 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. *** 3.5 The use of the parking lot expansion area Sha limited to employee parking only. Customer parking11 be shall be prohibited, except in conjunction with a special event or under special circumstances as approved by the Community Development Director. *** 3.6 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. *** 3.7 No structures shall be constructed within the parking lot expansion area. (1) 3.8 Outdoor storage shall 'be prohibited within the parking lot expansion area. (1) 3.9 Ail construction operations, including engine warm up and deliveries of materials and equipment, shall be subject to the provisions of the City of Tustin Noise Ordinance as amended, and may take place only during the hours of 7:00 a.m. until 6:00 p m , Monda t 9:00 a.m. to 5-00 ~ m ~' .... Y hrough Friday, and . . ' . ~- · ~ ~auu.rday, ~nless the Building Offzczal determznes that sazd 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. (1) 3.10 "No Loitering,, signs shall be posted on the site, with sign details and locations to be approved by the Community Development Department. Exhibit A CUP 96-037 and DR 96-051 February 18, 1997 Page 5 P__LAN 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 1994 uniform Mechanical Code with California Amendments 1994 uniform Plumbing Code with California Amendments 1993 National Electrical Code with california Amendments T-24 california Disabled Access Regulations T-24 California Energy Efficiency Standards City of Tustin Grading ordinance City of Tustin Landscape and Irrigation Guidelines City of Tustin Private Improvement Standards City of Tustin Security ordinance (1) 4.2 Drainage from new areas shall be collected and drained to the existing drainage system at Plaza La Fayette. At plan check, the capacity of existing systems shall be calculated to be adequate. (5) 4.3 At plan check, provide project data to show the total number of parking spaces and the number of existing Additional spaces accessible to disabled persons. accessible parking spaces may be required on-site based on the total number of parking spaces. (5) 4.4 At plan check, a photometric study of-the proposed lighting for the parking lot expansion area shall be submitted to the Community Development Department. (5) 4.5 At plan check, three (3) sets of the site improvement plans, modified in accordance with this Exhibit, shall be submitted to the Community Development Department. (1) 4.6 At plan check, three (3) inch striping detail shall be shown for all parking spaces. FIRE AUTHORITY -- issuance of any building/grading permits, (5) 5.1 Prior to the shall submit and obtain approval of plans the applicant for the parking lot, from the Fire Chief in consultation with the Manager, Traffic Engineering. The plans shall include the plan view, section view, and indicate the width of the drive .aisle, measured flow line to flow line. All proposed fire apparatus turnarounds shall be clearly marked when a dead-end drive aisle exceeds 150 feet or when other conditions require it. Exhibit A CUP 96-037 and DR 96-051 February 18, 1997 Page 6 (5) 5.2 A fire lane shall be established for the drive aisle. (5) 5.3 Prior to the issuance of any grading/building permits, the applicant shall submit and obtain approval from the Fire Chief for parking lot plans with fire lanes shown. The plans shall indicate the locations of red curbing and signage. A drawing of the proposed signage with the height, stroke and color of lettering and the contrasting background color shall be submitted to and approved by the Fire Chief. (5) 5.4 Prior to the use of the parking lot, the approved fire lane marking plan shall be installed. FEES __ .(1) 6.1 Prior to issuance of any building permits payment shall (5) 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. Within forty-eight (48) hours of approval of the subject project, the applicant shalI 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 th ' the.appropriate environmental docum e City to file entation 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. 101 00 00 00:00 159 P01 ts0•1s:1.1 aowlit Peet soi d►tieee1dyie doosreae to; I • Ibis *et' to trot; imedmmilleolagliaosmis v $. eottol►i tbie cover page. • , 'oaks art e•sowoprol to trrerotretoo. 'two ) 404.114085 r st fl � 'sz ' / ate 9d-�3/ { • • Re: Appeal on Conditional Use permit 96-037 & Design Review 96 -051 We, have been witness to boisterous individuals on the grounds of the shopping center. While we do not contend that every person who visits the shopping center is noisy and rowdy the fact that alcohol is served on the premises could lead a reasonable person to assume that some individuals would not be in complete control of their behavior. For the time being, these individuals are separated from residential units by the shopping center buildings. However, if the vacant Southern- Pacific right -of -way land were to be developed to support the shopping center, these individuals would be on property that butts up to our homes. We are not saying that individuals cannot be noisy and rowdy We just don't want it in our backyard. Before the right -of -way was fenced on either end, we experienced numerous occasions of car break -ins, theft, trash being thrown into our yards, and strangers walking across our property Since the fence went up, we have enjoyed a reasonable sense of safety and comfort. We are mainly families with children who moved to this area because of the peace an quiet. We are against anything that will disrupts this existence. Our lives within our homes should not be subject to disturbances such as the development of this land will inevitably create. Address e Xvialika (A-re 'i s I C' A 97 7 20 dtaim 04 goo nitslat@a2e0 sie h 23o Sr-kos e tom-. pd 7.2fp° hatsc N gmiejamc t• usT. 12_7 cat) (.3oi a Ce4�3,1sr�z �� 4 � 706- 0--SO l; 5 toJ Sni 1 �` s w A� Leg t1:-..lis./.40.32L it • • • Re: Appeal on Conditional Use permit 96-037 & Design Review 96-051 We, have been witness to boisterous individuals on the grounds of the shopping center. While we do not contend that every person who visits the shopping center is noisy and rowdy, the fact that alcohol is served on the premises could lead a reasonable person to assume that some individuals would not be in complete control of their behavior. For the time being, these individuals are separated from residential units by the shopping center buildings. However, if the vacant Southern- Pacific right -of -way land were to be developed to support the shopping center, these individuals would be on property that butts up to our homes. We are not saying that individuals cannot be noisy and rowdy We just don't want it in our backyard. Before the right -of -way was fenced on either end, we experienced numerous occasions of car break -ins, theft, trash being thrown into our yards, and strangers walking across our property Since the fence went up, we have enjoyed a reasonable sense of safety and comfort. We are mainly families with children who moved to this area because of the peace an quiet. We are against anything that will disrupts this existence. Our lives within our homes should not be subject to disturbances such as the development of this land will inevitably create. Name /tidy in, A eh nt5 06w1.Z , Address I D .2u2da l lL G 6 Xe ia1%%34F (zgz3 NOwror ,4vo -- uf¢-s, C'- 9znro % Col IWO1 0XCZ, tic ri/A/ tt� i i(A2.' —'A# J Court C c 1 1 7 pu LCROOC)----Ptiwrite � 2 73 /V 8LLT 44 3 %us % /A, CIE 92 71-0 I-301,9 Co L d i-S a 4-lq 902 /9 32- r 1LC LIS,71e 1�9 /Zw1`€ 919 BI -ea�411/ I2 • • Re Appeal on Conditional Use permit 96-037 & Design Review 96 -051 We, have been witness to boisterous individuals on the grounds of the shopping center While we do not contend that every person who visits the shopping center is noisy and rowdy, the fact that alcohol is served on the premises could lead a reasonable person to assume that some individuals would not be in complete control of their behavior For the time being, these individuals are separated from residential units by the shopping center buildings However, if the vacant Southern - Pacific nght -of -way land were to be developed to support the shopping center these individuals would be on property that butts up to our homes We are not saying that individuals cannot be noisy and rowdy We just don't want it in our backyard Before the nght -of -way was fenced on either end, we expenenced numerous occasions of car break -ms, theft, trash being thrown into our yards and strangers walking across our property Since the fence went up, we have enjoyed a reasonable sense of safety and comfort We are mainly families with children who moved to this area because of the peace an quiet We are against anything that will disrupts this existence Our lives within our homes should not be subject to disturbances such as the development of this land will inevitably create Name Address 0296f-C- ieJ r C, 44/ 4 eit,1 S I, /11i iS.ai./0 412At 461( /2-9/1 C / ,,)50rr Ave -7:-.54A_ /x993 tIe .4 T07N 3% 1 Netvr°ORT M 4' /I -7- 0STily, a '39 A GU, :7 • • Re Appeal on Conditional Use pernut 96-037 & Design Review 96 -051 We, have been witness to boisterous individuals on the grounds of the shopping center While we do not contend that every person who visits the shopping center is noisy and rowdy, the fact that alcohol is served on the premises could lead a reasonable person to assume that some individuals would not be in complete control of their behavior For the tune being, these individuals are separated from residential units by the shopping center buildings However, if the vacant Southern- Pacific right -of -way land were to be developed to support the shopping center, these individuals would be on property that butts up to our homes We are not saying that individuals cannot be noisy and rowdy We just don't want it in our backyard Before the nght -of -way was fenced on either end, we expenenced numerous occasions of car break -ins, theft, trash being thrown into our yards, and strangers walking across our property Since the fence went up we have enjoyed a reasonable sense of safety and comfort We are mainly families with children who moved to this area because of the peace an quiet We are against anything that will disrupts this existence Our lives within our homes should not be subject to disturbances such as the development of this land will inevitably create Name Address Jl /6 &2 ,92/ -7:A4.7 ; ,J (� a..I� • I L CY? 'Plaza A 46) 12 -1 ?l12 f int, no ni 1 r1/ l.% (ono /v7o� /6�7h Texdoinis F2-0f a 4v LA* • P& to D2 72'. h ,y, G9 ?.z6F(7 LoulsE3O yE I x-1702 PoczA tR i nsr /A/ CA 927 G 11oso, -- V-179?- Pia-2,4g £r rtik n G4 l2-70 /� a - 694 - - 12 PLd -lek ,k i tic i i4 Cat • • Re Appeal on Conditional Use permit 96-037 & Design Review 96-051 We, have been witness to boisterous individuals on the grounds of the shoppmg center While we do not contend that every person who visits the shopping center is noisy and rowdy, the fact that alcohol is served on the premises could lead a reasonable person to assume that some individuals would not be in complete control of their behavior For the time being, these individuals are separated from residential units by the shopping center buildings However, if the vacant Southern- Pacific nght -of -way land were to be developed to support the shopping center, these individuals would be on property that butts up to our homes We are not saying that individuals cannot be noisy and rowdy We just don't want it in our backyard Before the nght -of -way was fenced on either end, we expenenced numerous occasions of car break -ms, theft, trash being thrown into our yards, and strangers walking across our property Since the fence went up, we have enjoyed a reasonable sense of safety and comfort We are mainly families with children who moved to this area because of the peace an quiet We are against anything that will disrupts this existence Our lives within our homes should not be subject to disturbances such as the development of this land will inevitably create Name Address 25C �a9a9 p" at3 /,% /dzae7- ,4U a<sw,9 G% 7,277a tai • ur.► a 1.a II s 4 G c5.4 --lh / 29180 ctu pp --:l -qoq _p 36 9 c> 78c) 1 /2911 g ko /2t Nc'w3.onr Aaf _ 9t aq 35 r • • Re Appeal on Conditional Use permit 96 -037 & Design Review 96 -051 We, have been witness to boisterous individuals on the grounds of the shopping center While we do not contend that every person who visits the shopping center is noisy and rowdy, the fact that alcohol is served on the premises could lead a reasonable person to assume that some mdividuals would not be m complete control of their behavior For the time being, these individuals are separated from residential units by the shopping center buildings However, if the vacant Southern- Pacific right -of -way land were to be developed to support the shopping center, these individuals would be on property that butts up to our homes We are not saying that individuals cannot be noisy and rowdy We just don't want it in our backyard Before the nght -of -way was fenced on either end, we expenenced numerous occasions of car break -ins, theft, trash being thrown into our yards and strangers walking across our property Since the fence went up, we have enjoyed a reasonable sense of safety and comfort We are mainly families with children who moved to this area because of the peace an quiet We are against anything that will disrupts this existence Our lives within ow homes should not be subject to disturbances such as the development of this land will inevitably create Name Address 12-929 t4f-u - ,;s G ` i tit IerreZA / 72 7 /14,* —7 Le '_,1 KAri 1743s Neufty 1-__Ave b TGsfth /Z9z.Sdeeinori3d€€ F T vs77"/ 1,2903 1•))3`?OCv N1/4)r-44-__ /30 5 a 6 krdcr A-X/ �-# `7 rn fi d o ()t ��, /2917 !4 /Y&. .CrAvE 7 s?'it i9 976.70 i(29‘79 H Deopitf i1,( Ct ?22& j 1 i A10,,v if4/e On(fcci / ?ya/ -C % j - y�� 1� /z 131 - /9 No/Li p dv - Tiff 50 • • Re Appeal on Conditional Use permit 96-037 & Design Review 96 -051 We, have been witness to boisterous individuals on the grounds of the shopping center While we do not contend that every person who visits the shopping center is noisy and rowdy, the fact that alcohol is served on the premises could lead a reasonable person to assume that some individuals would not be in complete control of their behavior For the time being, these individuals are separated from residential units by the shopping center buildings However, if the vacant Southern- Pacific right-of-way land were to be developed to support the shopping center, these individuals would be on property that butts up to our homes We are not saying that individuals cannot be noisy and rowdy We just don't want it in our backyard Before the nght -of -way was fenced on either end, we expenenced numerous occasions of car break -ins, theft, trash being thrown into our yards, and strangers walking across our property Since the fence went up, we have enjoyed a reasonable sense of safety and comfort We are mainly families with children who moved to this area because of the peace an quiet We are against anything that will disrupts this existence Our lives within our homes should not be subject to disturbances such as the development of this land will inevitably create Address &WE liaz■ 70773/Fit,2e607 tale-- 1I` 1 •. 4- 1thAtel6i/y. l 2 q 2A- D Nei/Waft-C. or✓e- __g_EWM. V) v i- WO V 1 Wi4-R G .l oport kit .vet a 4 a . .‘ 12 -ct#C5ci `U e.v Jr ate isve S/fr Zee trivaik i ark.::// / / �n�,_ O /gbri C o �a✓1 its /WcP- 1655 N.ecaprar t '4c t7 "Dalit ✓r1 ct t /z9V�AC 47.229 , /.749bl r% /a g /2 -770 / A1/Qt, t 292.3 e- ocy, 7-654,6-t- 7-", Z3 e_ AG/W.IPo- + 1 u.5 • • Re: Appeal on Conditional Use permit 96-037 & Design Review 96-051 We, have been witness to boisterous individuals on the grounds of the shopping center While we do not contend that every person who visits the shopping center is noisy and rowdy, the fact that alcohol is served on the premises could lead a reasonable person to assume that some individuals would not be in complete control of their behavior. For the time being, these individuals are separated from residential units by the shopping center buildings. However, if the vacant Southern- Pacific right -of -way land were to be developed to support the shopping center, these individuals would be on property that butts up to our homes. We are not saying that individuals cannot be noisy and rowdy We just don't want it in our backyard. Before the right -of -way was fenced on either end, we experienced numerous occasions of car break -ins, theft, trash being thrown into our yards, and strangers walking across our property Since the fence went up, we have enjoyed a reasonable sense of safety and comfort. We are mainly families with children who moved to this area because of the peace an quiet. We are against anything that will disrupts this existence. Our lives within our homes should not be subject to disturbances such as the development of this land will inevitably create. Name 7/,%s /' 47 /d 73/ ne7(fDDI,A .1. �C t u ki .-'`C CCU% A 02?J Farr go' e �.. r WZL on GiLac±1 L2-V-5 -G Po.T ANC o R i) o n/ Ficietpikleafrig "P p( --142 z % X12 P Address /029 /5 H'/ Poe' ,We c- ZgAc irCik /J / 9 // fit #4 • • Re Appeal on Conditional Use permit 96-037 & Design Review 96-051 We, have been witness to boisterous individuals on the grounds of the shopping center While we do not contend that every person who visits the shopping center is noisy and rowdy, the fact that alcohol is served on the premises could lead a reasonable person to assume that some individuals would not be in complete control of their behavior For the time being, these individuals are separated from residential units by the shopping center buildings However, if the vacant Southern - Pacific right -of -way land were to be developed to support the shopping center, these individuals would be on property that butts up to our homes We are not saying that individuals cannot be noisy and rowdy We just don't want it in our backyard Before the right -of -way was fenced on either end, we experienced numerous occasions of car break -ins theft, trash being thrown into our yards, and strangers walking across our property Since the fence went up, we have enjoyed a reasonable sense of safety and comfort We are mainly families with children who moved to this area because of the peace an quiet We are against anything that will disrupts this existence Our lives within our homes should not be subject to disturbances such as the development of this land will inevitably create Name Address Tas4A Co., W1` s0 •� tLO v o c A 1291 -1 rile w ei-Y+ Clue `rue -h n c Zo Sze ->Jin VYleecon k2cSi o 7 Y4- ace. TfS4Ith GU O lb co 0 ::,L, 2 ; .;% civ_e *Lac", 0-99 dkcai- ax/JOrcy% s ,, ca9e7fo 74 ,�J! il�� S 2 Q op() y� 41,t \mc r � cp7 3o Ungar) !. 1 qi - r M Ave, -tV-7O 26// AUCGSOA% /293-7 —44,790r-/- /fi #75 '%5 '7 91 no n)e>uPat2-i Aur .U-no Lai izei l ‘ r (TGafo e Ia i \ .)qi i % kl e_ 4k Qi lTSB+n c(-).`190 11C(5&1( (rti 1 A 1 rinda _126 3 &aUpckr Vt b r 5- v, • • Re: Appeal on Conditional Use permit 96-037 & Design Review 96 -051 We, have been witness to boisterous individuals on the grounds of the shopping center. While we do not contend that every person who visits the shopping center is noisy and rowdy, the fact that alcohol is served on the premises could lead a reasonable person to assume that some individuals would not be in complete control of their behavior. For the time being, these individuals are separated from residential units by the shopping center buildings. However, if the vacant Southern- Pacific right -of -way land were to be developed to support the shopping center, these individuals would be on property that butts up to our homes. We are not saying that individuals cannot be noisy and rowdy We just don't want it in our backyard. Before the right -of -way was fenced on either end, we experienced numerous occasions of car break -ins, theft, trash being thrown into our yards, and strangers walking across our property Since the fence went up, we have enjoyed a reasonable sense of safety and comfort. We are mainly families with children who moved to this area because of the peace an quiet. We are against anything that will disrupts this existence. Our lives within our homes should not be subject to disturbances such as the development of this land will inevitably create. Name ar Address /J21,3 idsiterLAZze_ivAid '9,2172k /a fos ,9 "it aLaw< Ts4, Cc& 997 %b •6nii/ii2 Onhi1/L( IF - item - -- - • • 44 fr PET I P '- r 2 ti 5z y. 7 ) / 21 g ' NW,ar / l A 7s-o /25 c5a1 c 1 t _ Ts -L,j 9aVD l 73i- 1-Lig«D r-IA �� -Ts f A CA `I--3-2.4/0 jj'19 -3 Net" PO (27- g >/C T usrm/ (,4 9z 7 b° /0939 /ofsr -, e. Tsrr z 722a JIM N ,pm; 4 4--1T l),., gas vz. • • • Re Appeal on Conditional Use permit 96-037 & Design Review 96 -051 We, have been witness to boisterous individuals on the grounds of the shopping center While we do not contend that every person who visits the shopping center is noisy and rowdy, the fact that alcohol is served on the premises could lead a reasonable person to assume that some mdividuals would not be m complete control of their behavior For the time being, these individuals are separated from residential units by the shopping center buildings However, if the vacant Southern - Pacific right -of -way land were to be developed to support the shopping center, these individuals would be on property that butts up to our homes We are not saying that individuals cannot be noisy and rowdy We just don't want it in our backyard Before the right -of -way was fenced on either end, we expenenced numerous occasions of car break -ins, theft, trash being thrown into our yards, and strangers walking across our property Since the fence went up, we have enjoyed a reasonable sense of safety and comfort We are mainly families with children who moved to this area because of the peace an quiet We are against anything that will disrupts this existence Our lives within our homes should not be subject to disturbances such as the development of this land will inevitably create Name Address k amr el ;we i/'') saw air' 1 zit L -F qd7 8O 011 \ 0a-5- C. \ €W C T TiN't IrJ qa ) 977f J) /a?23 -B n ' 0, / g �8�$L ()l run/ P r/< 17.4.5 41// gZ7r977 • • Re Appeal on Conditional Use permit 96 -037 & Design Review 96 -051 We, have been witness to boisterous individuals on the grounds of the shopping center While we do not contend that every person who visits the shoppmg center is noisy and rowdy, the fact that alcohol is sewed on the premises could lead a reasonable person to assume that some individuals would not be in complete control of their behavior For the time being, these individuals are separated from residential units by the shopping center buildings However, if the vacant Southern- Pacific right -of -way land were to be developed to support the shopping center, these individuals would be on property that butts up to our homes We are not saying that individuals cannot be noisy and rowdy We just don't want it in our backyard Before the nght -of -way was fenced on either end, we experienced numerous occasions of car break -ins, theft, trash being thrown into our yards, and strangers walkmg across ow property Since the fence went up, we have enjoyed a reasonable sense of safety and comfort We are mainly families with children who moved to this area because of the peace an quiet We are against anything that will disrupts this existence Our lives within our homes should not be subject to disturbances such as the development of this land will inevitably create Name Address 0 7s-o? w_ 5T-ccuvf-aid R2- 70Y --Tc30 • liKA„,„„actts-i Traffic Observations in Plaza LaFayette Parking Lots Saturday 2/8 6.45 p.m. Noted 2 Nieuport 17 (N17) patrons who used center lot. Rear lot: 12 self - parked cars in north side of accessway Seven cars parked on street. At least 20 empty spaces in front /center lot. Valets using only center rear and nearest portion of north side. Seem to be reserving N17 parking (south side of accessway) for later? Three lights now out in back, plus missing lamp Graffiti still there (front and back) Five ladders /scaffolds in alleyway Adjacent parking lots: • Radio Shack lot completely empty • Red Hill Center lot fairly full. • Commercial lots to west completely empty 6.50 p.m. 19 empty spaces in Ni 7 -only side Only 12 (of 57) self - parked on north side Therefore, assume employees not parking in rear lot. N17 employees seem to use south N 17 -only spaces. 7:00 p.m. Approx. 20 empty spots in front. Red Jeep Cherokee, two drunk guys going to TBD Circled front lot twice, radio blasting looking for closest spot. Shouting four - letter words, laughing loudly Similar condition when they left an hour later 7.15 p.m. McGuire's empty and closing Lot is fuller but several spaces available at all times. 21 spots used north of entry 12 self - parked rest valet. White Blazer (valet parked) taking two spaces in N17 lot. 14 spots vacant in N17 lot. Limo 'loitering behind parked cars waiting for patrons to emerge from N17 Entertainer parked in front lot, entered N17 with guitar over shoulder 7.45 p.m Valet warming car up smoking cigarette outside car lights on, motor running for approximately 5 minutes. Two cars 'break through. Asked one man, said he was familiar with lot, valets didn't try to stop him Now 14 self - parked cars north of entry including dancer for Greek restaurant. Front lot quite full, mostly come - and -go No one seems to be circling more than once No one seems to be pulling out of lot for lack of parking 8:00 p.m Situation seems stable. Parking still available in rear Went home 9.40 p.m. Returned for check. No parking problems, many open spaces, valet parking sign removed open street parking Throughout Observation Period Quite a few patrons of Great Western ATM. Noted 5 cars turning around upon seeing valet parking sign. Over 1.25 hours, noticed at least 15 parties from N17 parking in front lot. • • CURRENT PARKING CONDITIONS Premise: P :aza is not using current parking lots to capacity Therefore no expansion should be considered at this time. • Signs make threat of towing very clear Dee Anne Santa 12919 -e Newport Av Tusbn CA 92680 • Parking closest to Brewery marked 30 Patrons circle looking for .he few slots with adequate time limits. w • Tw yv 4 Is Violators wID be cited and towed away at vehicle owner's expense. CVC 22658A Towed vehicles must be reclaimed_ by telephoning Tustin Police Dept 544-5424 NOTICE NO PARKING IN "ED ZONES VIOLATING VEHICLES WILL BE CITED OR TOWrn • Signs seemingly direct patrons to rear BUT • After 6 00 only entrance to rear parking area has "Valet only sign which deters patr in self parking Sign says says Valet Parking Keep Right o Causes rear lot to be nearly vacant except for valet parked v hides I' N o L a -• c N O 0 z 3 o N -o N U C N (0 CO J > m C m U c O) N 7) • E 3 a) a a N _• T N O T y O a> p a a — E O p N ° 3 o o 0 c m m U U N o c T a N N co 0 3 v IO p a C co M 0 U CO Cn E 5 C c p 0 > Y > N p N no O N 2 a N m o a` p N m o x co • O p pl O m N C U N a U C c p a p co d N U n N ■ The additional parking spaces are unnecessary and would not be used if constructed. • • PROXIMITY OF PROPOSED PARKING TO HOMES 0 C C N O C _ O N U O E i r N N a O J a 'O C m CO m p) N N a 5 -o 0 N a) a? o __ _N N a N O ] CD N N D 0 _r O .0 (0 0) C a) N a) (c. O a) Li O Y O C U O co JC on U ? (0 c o 9 a) " _ co () — C x r a p) of m E c m N y " y al 0 F m N O N O N 3 N 0) N 0 m ) 0 y a a N > m u C_ a U C m > C N N y m - U a N N - N -3) N U C p) II) O O O N O 0) C D p a N O E", ,-.,°) O C O CL U N 0 C 'O — 1:1, N C r0 N 0 C11 U U- - (0 O: 2 T. '3 3 iveway showing current Plaza parkin. WAS • 0 0 03 CO CD C 03 -o 0) -o C >- (U a) C • tf C e•t, of sloe •y - ustin'. V 1 • Parking lo, boundary wall viewed from position parallel lo front door of homes o Demonstrates proximity of noise pollution and access to living room/bedroom windows of apartments Bedroom window Df. St, • be tjt ' r ),t it 1,4,40 Vt'Ols • Driveway looking west toward lot • View of homes from center of lot • o Grassy conditions deter jumping over wall from driveway into lot o Note direct line of sight from proposed parking area to bedroom windows • View of proposed lot from bedroom windov, Note line -of -sight to proposed lot. Imagine light standards, car headlights, noise, illicit activity z Wider buffer no line -of- sight. However note ease of access over wall from hidden area in bushes. Conclusion. Expansion of parking would seriously degrade standards and safety of Woodcrest. Would lead to more property crimes, increased vacancy rates and an immediate decline in property value for private owners. • 13 13 T) co co -0 C C E 01 C 01 ••=--; • ea 0 a C 3 10 C 0 -0 a -o a co U) X 0 • -0 • No Trespassing sign and gate (2 views) dam' ESPRSSING dI PAM: SIDh 0 A'dh -i. tat r TIOh 6D" ` F ■ 1, POLICE O-PARTM Ii r4 44 -5424 co be o o Directly across from gang graffiti Signage obviously doesn't deter troublemakers o Note portion of fence bent when used to climb over gate and /or wall into Woodcrest (This wall is higher than current wall on west ) o Who is supposed to enforce trespassing? What is the penalty for failure? • Skateboarders frequent the area The proposed lot will be a skateboarder s paradise —and skateboarding is very noisy Conclusion Current conditions and violations exist at the Plaza that affect the safety, health and comfort of adjacent residents rendering further assurances — either verbal or written — meaningless • • SPECIAL CONSIDERATION GIVEN TO PLAZA Premise. Tustin brewing Company (Tat) has already received ext. aoruinary consideration and cooperation from the Cry of Tustin with regard to parking— Encluding a total of three variances despite inadequate parking and street parking changes Further accommodations that adversely affect neighboring residents should not be made until all other measures have been tried • Street par king has already been hastily changed to accommodate Brewery 6 -9 new spaces have been created • Conflicting signs still up. • Parking allowed 9.30 a.m to midnight. o Parking obviously directed toward TBC (the only business open until midnight) Did nese spaces not count toward spaces needed • Curb painted from red to gray o Shows City's haste to accommodate Plaza businesses. • Considerations in Conditional) se Permit 96 -037 include whether the health, safety morals, comfort, or general welfare of neighbors is adversely affected, and whether expansion will be injurious or detrimental to property or improvements in the neighborhood. o Safety of persons and property will be jeopardized by easy isolated unpatrolled access. Morals will be affected by direct line -of -sight to sexual activity urination and possible fights — activities common to isolated pub parking lots. Comfort will be affected because bedroom and living room windows will be open to light and to vehicle, radio and people noise until 2:00 a.m. —plus unauthor ized activity 24 hours a day Health will be affected by vehicle exhaust, interrupted sleep. o Ignoring the pleas of residents does not erase the deleterious effects of the expansion. o If no viable tenants can be found for apartments abutting lot, or if safety and comfort are degraded, property values for Dr and Mrs. Richard Ramage will decrease. • With full prior knowledge that the Tustin City Code would require more on -site parking spaces than planned the City approved initial construction of the Plaza followed by two expan- sions. One variance actually reduced the number of parking spaces from 327 to 241 o Note the TBC variance stated, A parking study was submitted to the City which determined that adequate on -site parking was provided on the subject property to adequately serve the aggregate parking demand generated by uses occupying Plaza LaFayette. • The variance for TBC required mitigation measures, including adding parking 'by purchase and /or lease of property within 500 feet of the property All have been rejected by Mr Burnett and the City has not required consideration. o Adjacent Plaza s west lot is existing commercial lot with 119 spaces. • An easement/ lease arrangement should be explored before damaging the health and safety of 329 good neighbors. o Is the real issue lack of parking or the owner's desire to acquire additional property? • Other viable mitigation measures (Exhibit A) include hours of use, securing expansion from adjacent lot, and hiring a security guard. All were rejected out -of -hand when suggested by Woodcrest. • So far the Plaza has received three variances and a Conditional Use Permit. o Everything they've asked for they've received. Every consideration Woodcrest's brought to the City has been derided, ignored and dismissed. • (a) 'Landscaping will not be required within the parking lot expansion area because the area is isolated from the remainder of the shopping center (b) (TJhe width of the property and the parking lot layout would not provide adequate planter width to plant trees. (c) 'The isolated location would create maintenance concerns. o (a) It's acceptable for Woodcrest's residents to view an ugly parking lot each day from their bedroom windows, so long as the elite Plaza shoppers don't have to see it for a few minutes. (b) If there s no room for a tree, the layout would seem to be manipulated to accommodate parking. (c) Why doesn't the acknowledged isolation arouse safety concerns? Conclusion: The Plaza and business (read tax dollars) seemingly takes precedence over residents who comprise this community • VIABLE OPTIONS • Premise Seve,di viable options ex,s, and s`iould br e >plo.ed to ellevia,e the alleged parking problems at Plaza LaFa),e„e • Former Mobil station location directly across 0 Would eliminate current neglected lot from Brewery Explore development and shared (eyesore) use with property owner 0 Would provide nearly as many spaces as railroad right of way lot Patrons already use that lot, clearly preferring it to rear parking (if they could get to it) o Cross walk provideseasy access leading directly to TBC door o Further parking exists at Radio Shack • Explore shared use /leasing amen, v,rh owner of commercial properties vectly west of Nleupo't 17 Levis • ° oparties etc ) • Farhing space o' them) al•ead■, exist • Lighting alreac■ in place - No resioen•ia) are ?s a,ie- ec - Access ,hroug'n ! cojid .e drive througk foot t.e _ c rl\ and /or gaged • Would allow expanded vale parking for Nieupor 17 without restricting patrons of other restaurants __; n5r r4, It; r.. 1 A 5 • LIFE.E. T WOODCREST APARTItTS Premise. Uv'ners and tenants have cooperated to raise V'ooacres- err a near -slum 20 years ago to one of Tustin s mos, success•ul apartment communities, malunc he area easible for Plaza LaFayette s up -scale businesses to operate here. 0.4:,'-;, • o Three photos taken Saturday afternoon, 2/1/97 Note distance from children's play area and apartment entries to boundary wall. Conclusion: Woodcrest has been here since 1965 predating the Plaza by over two decades. Our longest residencies date from 1971 The steady improvement of the area, and of Woodcrest, have made this a viable location for the Plaza and provide an atmosphere where clientele feel safe and comfortable. If Woodcrest declines, so does the Plaza. Further the 100 families of Woodcrest, who now patronize the Plaza will take our business elsewhere, hastening the decline. .Y DEC 3 1005 I Sunda Scan THE ORANGE COUNTY REGISTER [NEIGHBORHOOD Tustin residents look out for each other CITIES Dwellers in the 100 unit Woodcrest Apartments seem like a big happy family By NANCY LUNA The Orange County Register TUSTIN — Stephanie Irvin was pregnant living in a new home and had no family or friends when she and her husband Thomas, moved to California from Utah three years ago Irvin 29 said somehow he Woodcrest Apartment neighbor — strangers at the time — knew how to cheer her up 'I didn't know anybody and one of the managers threw me a big old baby shower Irvin said Terry Jones the Woodcrest of lice manager arranged the party — thrown in a vacant apartment complete with decorations gifts and games 'That's just the way we are We try to make everybody feel at home, said Jones a tenant since 1987 Woodcrest Apartments is a 100- unit complex tucked between a Ko- rean Baptist church and Lafayette Plaza in Tustin Blink and you might miss the Newport Avenue apartments 'We kinda get lost in the shut Ile said Denise Ildefonso who lives at Woodcrest with her hus band, Steve and two children Summertime barbecues friend ly faces and holiday parties are the keys to creating a neighborhood atmosphere at Woodcrest say the tenants The baby shower is an example I got tons of gifts I didn't have to buy anything for three or four months It was prett overwhelm ing ' Irvin said Jones said about 90 percent of the tenants are not from Califor nia That's part of the reason man agement tries to make new resi dents feel welcome she said Residents are not bounded by met rules If they want to build CINDY YAMANAXARhe Orange County Reg AFFECTIONATE PLAYMATES Christian Ildefonso 2 left plays with his friend and neighbor Rachel Irvin also at their Tustin apartment complex_ Residents of he 100 -unit Woodcrest Apartments are a tightly knit bunch patio decks plant gardens or pound pictures on the wall they are free to do so 'We want you to touch our walls put up curtains or wallpaper ' Jones said Irvin, an assistant office manag er at Woodcrest said she was afraid to move to California be- cause she'd heard about the crime But at Woodcrest she quickly dis covered that people take care of each other — from baby - sitting each other's children to reporting strangers lurking in the complex Everybody watches over each other here she said Ildefonso said she loved Wood crest so much that she didn't stop paying rent on her three- bedroom apartment after her husband s job forced them to relocate to Sunny vale and later Manhattan Beach 'I didn't want to lose the apart m ent said the former Tustin Ma rb who hoped to return to the 5- acre ,.omplex which is about five miles from the Tustin Marine Corps Air Station About three years later Ddefon so's family found its way back 'It was nice to move back after 3i years and see the same faces' she said Ildefonso said her children — grianna 7 and Christian 2 —love to play at Woodcrest s modest playground — a grass) tree-coy ered area with four yellow swings and one slide There she said she can count on her neighbors to watch out for her kids if she's busy 'That's one of the things that drew me to the place said Ilde- fonso 'It's a safe place for Brianna to go out and play I don't have to worry about her sin into an apartment Catering to the 100 children ing in the complex Woodcrest ants will gather Saturday for t annual Cbristm8s potluck p featuring that)olly old elf • THE TENANTS OF WOODCREST APARTMENTS Apt. Last Name (Primary Tenant) Length of Tenancy (Yrs) 01A Mork 10 01B Hudkins 1'1 01C Crawford 1'1 03A Miller 4'/ 03B Grundy '4 03C DeLeo 2 1/2 05A Hassan 1 05B Johnson 17 05C Weaver 2 07A Guanero 4 07B Kruger 21 07C Moss 1 07D Quiroz 1 09A Eley 2 09B Mondoza 21/2 09C Osterkamp /< 09D DeGuzman 12 1 1 A Child 2 113 Lavigne 9'1 1 1 0 Dracker 1 11D Keys 25 13A Silverman * 5 13B Santoya 8 13C Casa 1'1 13D Burnell 3'1 15A Ildefonso * 3'1 15B Morgan 4 Dee Anne Santos 12919 -B Newport Ave. Tustin CA 92680 Apt. Last Name (Primary Tenant) Length of Tenancy (Yrs) 15C Morgan 9 15D Galbraith 17'1 17A Purkiser 2 1/2 17B Boer 1 17C Small 141/2 17D Willamston 11 19A Ramos / 19B Santos 24 19C Allen 1 19D Farnham 18 23A Francis 1 23B Pounds 14 23C Ross 12 23D Del Mar * New 23E Rasch 9 23F Schulte 18 23G Obering 3'1< 23H Hicks * 1'1 25A Lee 11''A 25B Fraser 2 25C Balcom 11'1 25D Rutledge 1/2 25E Scott 8 25F Graham 9 %I 25G Gilbert 1 25H Price * 4/ 27A Hutchinson 2 / 0) a) o) o) M M Cl M M Cl M d' <t d' d' a <Y 0 M m N O co N Z N S Y V O N a`+ O tU E c N Q — i U) w (� > = co N It U) Sc 2 CC Q a_ > Z 0 Q U O W W 0 2 Q a7 0 0 W lL C 2 m 0 Q N 0) 0) O) 6) O) m 11) U) N N N N N N N N N M M M M Cl M M CO M M M r N Q) N > u3 o O co la 'a C E a C O E 2 - a) N > Q C 0 E F- c- -0 2 p NO m V) m N m Q 0) m o) 0 0) 0 LL (9 2 Q Cl) 0 IL C7 2 0) a) o) o) M M Cl M M Cl M d' <t d' d' a <Y 0 M m N O co N Z N S Y V O N a`+ O tU E c N Q — i U) w (� > = co N It U) Sc 2 CC Q a_ > Z 0 Q U O W W 0 2 Q a7 0 0 W lL C 2 m 0 Q N 0) 0) O) 6) O) m 11) U) N N N N N N N N N M M M M Cl M M CO M M M