Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutITEM NO 4 PUBLIC COMMENTS RECEIVED 12-10-24 KARLIN FIRM LAW L L. Scott Karlin F'KA P L I Nr I R M p David E.Karlin r R� Michael J.Karlin Rex Reeves Dan Danet Linda Deyuan Lin reply to: 13522 Newport Ave.Ste.201 Tustin,CA,92780 T.714.731,3283 F.714.731.5741 Re: December 10, 2024 Planning Commission Meeting www.karlinlaw.com Agenda item 4 City of Tustin, California Resolution No. 4512 — _ considering Conditional Use Permit CUP 2024 g (CUP) 0016 to establish an "animal boarding facility" which is not an animal boarding facility but rather a coffee shop which allows animals inside. To: Justina L. Willkom, and the Planning Commission. Our law firm represents the owner of the building adjacent to the proposed coffee shop which will also house animals and will be located at 13562 Newport Ave in Tustin. I am also the managing member of Newport Bryan, LLC, which is the owner of the adjacent building located at 13522 Newport Ave, in Tustin. We object to the issuance of the CUP as proposed. Additionally, we are seeking a continuance of the consideration of the CUP for the reasons set forth below: 1. The CUP does not address the amount of seating to be allowed for the customers of the coffee shop and mischaracterizes the use as an animal boarding facility. The use is almost 100% for a coffee shop, and as such, the parking requirements should be the same as for a coffee shop. 2. The claimed number of parking spaces in the "Project" is overstated by almost 100%. The City should correct its records. 3. The proposed coffee shop is part of a strip center which already has three major restaurant tenants, and the proposed use will adversely impact parking. This will add a fourth restaurant tenant and will have a direct impact on parking for the medical and dental patients who need to park near the entry of the building adjacent to the proposed coffee shop/boarding facility. 1 Detailed discussion A. The CUP should have a restriction on the number of seats and seating. The CUP characterizes the coffee shop as an animal "boarding facility." This is a mischaracterization. This is not a facility where a person drops off his or her animal for the day or for overnight stays. The facility does not take in the customer's animal(s) for boarding. The facility is a coffee shop featuring housed cats that customers will be allowed to interact with. As such, the parking requirements are misstated. Figure 2 on page three of the report shows two "areas." One area, called the "coffee shop area," is where coffee (and I would assume other drinks and/or food) can be purchased. The second area, called the "Cat area", is in fact park of the coffee shop — it is the area where customers sit after purchasing their drinks. This is no different than any other coffee shop where there is an area where a customer places his or her order, then takes the item to the seating area. Figure 2 and Figure 3 show several tables in the seating area (called the "cat area"). It appears to show 7 small tables and what appears to be only one chair next to each table. This gives the impression that the maximum customer seating is 7 (plus standing areas for the purchasing line). However, there is no restriction on the number of tables to be placed in the seating area, nor the number of chairs at each table. If the current ratio for a coffee shop that has both seating and a standup line to form to-go orders is 1 parking space for every 250 square feet (versus 1 for every 100 square feet), then the proposed use will require, at a minimum, 6 spaces. However, assuming there are three employees, and one person standing in line to order coffee, that only allows for 2 additional persons in the facility if each of the 6 drove separately to the facility. If the use is allowed, the CUP should study the actual area to be used by the customer's purchase of coffee and customer seating. The CUP's analysis should then determine the appropriate parking needed for this use. Finally, the CUP should address the maximum allowable seating in the proposed facility consistent with the findings. 2 B. The claimed number of parking spaces in the "Project" Is overstated by almost 100%. Item 11 on page 2 of Attachment 2 shows the existing parking to be the following: 319 parking spaces This is incorrect and is overstated by approximately 140 parking spaces. The City should correct its records. This was brought to the attention of the City in approximately 2019, at which time we had assumed that the City had updated its records.At that time, we provided documentation to show that the title records are clear that any historical reciprocal parking was Y a very replaced b ve limited P agreement pertaining to only 15 spaces following a legal dispute over the number of parking spaces the strip center was allowed to use. The City is again invited to contact our office for detailed information and documentation on this subject. C. The strip center already has 3 restaurants and adding an additional coffee shop will adversely affect not only the businesses and public access to the businesses within the strip center, but also adversely affect patients of the medical and dental offices in the adjacent building. It appears from the layout of the proposed space that the use will require as much space as a restaurant of the same size -- perhaps even more so. A traditional restaurant will have "back room" area for refrigeration and storage. Traditionally, this is not intended for people who are in line for take-out orders. The proposed use has no back room area and will allow for take-out orders. The impact on parking is likely much higher than a traditional restaurant. Without the voluntary use of the parking area at 13522 Newport Ave for some of the employees and customers of the strip center, there would not have been enough parking for the three existing restaurants in the strip center . Of course, this says nothing about adding a fourth. The ownership of 13522 Newport cannot agree to provide the additional parking because of its clear adverse impact on the public needing to use the medical and dental offices located at 13522 Newport Ave. This particular cafe is very close to these medical entry ways and the ADA spaces serve individuals with disabilities, as well as people who may not be able to walk long distances due to a temporary medical condition. Adding yet another cafe/restaurant to a strip center already burdened with a lack of sufficient parking is not only problematic, but harmful for those seeking urgent medical assistance. 3 Conclusion and Request For the above-stated reasons, the owner of 13522 Newport Ave, Tustin, objects to the issuance of the CUP and, at a minimum, requests the matter be continued to allow time to further study and evaluate possible conditions of the issuance of a CUP. eve _k L. Scott Karlin, Attorney for Newport Bryan LLC, Owner of 13522 Newport Ave, Tustin, California 92780 4