HomeMy WebLinkAbout- - ZA-12-10 Attachment 5 - 5/15/2012\ -1 0
ATTACHMENT 5
APPROVAL LETTER AND EXHIBITS
coq
I . 1
..'�,.,. CITY OF COSTA MESA
March 26, 2012
P.O. BOX 1200 - 77 FAIR DRIVE • CALIFORNIA 92628-1200
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT
Stephen Thorp
1100 Newport Center Drive. #150
Newport Beach, CA 92660
RE: ZONING APPLICATION ZA-12-10
MINOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO CONVERT A PORTION OF A
BUILDING CONTAINING A DRIVE-THROUGH FOR A FORMER CREDIT
UNION TO A DRIVE-THROUGH FOR A COFFEE SHOP
450 EAST 17TH STREET, COSTA MESA
Dear Mr. Thorp:
Staffs review of your zoning application for the above -referenced project has been
completed. The application, as described in the attached project description, has been
approved, based on the findings and subject to the conditions of approval and code
requirements (attached). The decision will become final at 5 p.m. on April 2, 2012,
unless appealed by an affected party including filing of the necessary application and
payment of the appropriate fee or called up for review by a member of the Planning
Commission or City Council.
If you have any questions regarding this letter, please feel free to contact the project
planner, Mel Lee, at (714) 754-5611, or at mel.lee ,costamesaca.gov.
Sincerely,
WILLA BOUWENS-KILLEEN, AICP
Zoning Administrator
Attachments: Project Description
Findings
Conditions of Approval, Code Requirements, and Special District
Requirements
Applicant's Project Description Letter and Parking Study
Approved Conceptual Plans
cc: Engineering
Fire Protection Analyst
Building Safety Division
Building Division (714) 754-5273 • Code Enforcement (714) 754-5623 • Planning Division (714) 754-5245
FAX (714) 754-4856 • TDD (714) 754-5244 • www.ci.costa-mesa.ca.us
450 East 17th Street Associates, LLC
1100 Newport Center Drive, #150
Newport Beach, CA 92660
Toby Walker
Post Office Box 8083
Newport Beach, CA 92658
David Harris
455 Cabrillo Street
Costa Mesa, CA 92627
Bob Small
465 Cabrillo Street
Costa Mesa, CA 92627
gn
ZA-12-10
March 22, 2012
Page 3 of 10
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
• The property is located on the north side of East 17th Street, between Tustin Avenue
and Irvine Avenue, and contains a 5,800 square -foot building (formerly Schools First
Federal Credit Union) and 30 on-site parking spaces. The building has an existing
154 -foot deep drive-through lane that accommodated a drive -up automated teller
machine (since removed). The property is zoned C1 (Local Business District) and
has a general plan land use designation of General Commercial.
The applicant is requesting approval of a Minor Conditional Use Permit for a future
2,356 square -foot coffee house with the parking demand and traffic characteristics
of a Starbucks Coffee Shop ("coffee shop") with drive-through service. According to
the applicant, the remaining portion of the building, approximately 2,185 square feet,
has been allocated for a future restaurant tenant use (a specific tenant has not been
identified) bringing the total net rentable area to 4,541 square feet. An existing
1,250 square -foot second floor mezzanine within the building will be removed as
part of the building remodel. Outdoor patios are also proposed, which has also
been factored into the parking analysis discussed below.
Staff Justifications for Approval
Staff recommends approval of the MCUP for the following reasons:
Staff believes that the independent shared parkinq study prepared for the proiect
rather than the straight parking requirements in the Code, generally identifies the
oarkina demand for the nroiect, althouqh subsequent parkinq monitorinq shall be
required. A shared parking analysis dated March 1, 2012, was prepared for the
project by Linscott, Law & Greenspan Engineers (LLG), a copy of which is attached
to this letter. A shared parking analysis is a tool to identify peak parking demand in
multi -tenant commercial centers. In some cases, depending on the different mix of
land uses, it may show a lower parking requirement compared to straight "Code -
required" parking requirements. This parking study analyzed 2,356 square feet of
the building being occupied with a drive-through coffee shop and the balance of the
building (2,185 square feet) being occupied by a food service tenant.
In this case, Code -required parking is calculated based on a scenario wherein both
spaces are occupied by eating and drinking establishments, which is consistent with
the applicant's proposed use of the property. However, even under the assumption
that the building is fully leased and occupied, the study concludes that, based on the
proposed mix of uses, there would be a surplus of 3 parking spaces (39 spaces
required; 42 parking spaces provided) during the PM peak times on the weekdays
and weekends. The study concluded that there would be adequate parking.
The parking study has been reviewed by the City's Transportation Services and
Planning Divisions, and staff generally concurs with the study methodology,
suggested parking rates, and the consultant's conclusions in concept. However, the
parking study is based on theoretical assumptions of the parking demand
io2
f
ZA-1 2-10
March 22, 2012
Page 4 of 10
characteristics of drive-through coffee shops. At this level, the parking study does
not take into account that, unique to some coffee shops, some customers may tend
to stay/park for longer periods to use the Wi-Fi services for social networking or
business purposes. As a result, parking supply may become limited due to the
extended duration of customer visits. Therefore, staff believes it is necessary to
validate the parking conclusions based on real-time parking counts once the coffee
shop is fully operational. Given that the other tenant space is 2,185 square feet and
parking shall be in common, staff believes it is important to take into account these
customer characteristics to ensure adequate parking is available for both tenants.
Staff recommends the following condition of approval:
• Zoning approval and business license authorization for a proposed
establishment where food and beverages are served shall be contingent
upon validation of the parking conclusions of the March 1, 2012 parking
study. This validation shall be in the form of real-time parking counts
conducted within 180 days of the coffee shop being fully operational. As an
alternative to real-life parking counts and to expedite negotiations with
prospective tenants of the second lease area, the Development Services
Director may elect to approve a revised parking study that addresses the
unique customer characteristics of similar coffee shops in lieu of real-time
parking counts. The intent of this condition is to ensure that the unique
characteristics of coffee shop customers (i.e., tendency for extended visits)
are taken into account for parking purposes. If parking shortages or other
parking -related problems occur during the operations of any coffeehouse use
on this property, the landlord shall institute whatever reasonable operational
measures necessary to minimize or eliminate the problem. These measures
may include identifying select parking spaces for short-term parking (i.e. 30
minutes, 1 hour, etc.), reserving certain parking spaces for the other tenant,
and/or any other measures as deemed appropriate by the Development
Services Director.
A condition of approval also requires an interim parking plan to address the
anticipated high surge of customers during the coffee shop grand opening for 90
days. This condition ensures that employees are parked away from the main
entrance and adequate parking is available to customers during peak hour traffic. A
condition of approval has also been incorporated requiring the property owner or
applicant to install bike racks on the site for patrons and employees.
• Design of drive-through lane provides adequate vehicle queueing and circulation.
The main entrance to the drive-through lane site is provided via the easterly
driveway entrance from East 17th Street with a queue for several vehicles exiting
from the westerly driveway approach onto East 17th Street. Per Code, the minimum
length of the drive through lane from the entry to the pickup window is 160 feet; 154
feet is proposed. The design of the queueing lane has been reviewed by the City's
Transportation Services Division, and they have no concerns with the design or the
length of the lane.
N
ZA-12-10
March 22, 2012
Page 5 of 10
complement to the East 17"n Street streetscape. The building will have
contemporary colors and materials that will be an improvement over the existing
appearance of the building. Additionally, the landscaping along the street frontage
will be required to be planted with appropriate -sized trees and groundcovers per
current code requirements.
The conceptual plans show the proposed patio located within the required street
landscape setback. Staff has included a condition of approval requiring that the
applicant work with staff to reconfigure the proposed outdoor patios to minimize the
encroachment into the required street setback landscape planters, subject to
approval by the Planning Division.
• Noise impacts to residential uses will be minimized. The existing drive-through is set
back approximately 140 feet from the nearest single-family residences to the north
(rear), which is separated by an existing masonry block wall at least 6 feet in height
and an existing 14 -foot wide landscape planter, where the existing mature trees
were recently removed. A condition of approval has been incorporated requiring this
landscape planter to be densely re -planted with trees minimum 24 -inch box size and
other landscape materials. While this landscape area will not buffer noise as
effectively as the existing block wall, it will also provide an effective visual barrier
from the abutting residences, therefore, minimizing any adverse impacts to the
adjacent residences.
The use, as conditioned, is consistent with the Zoning Code and the City's General
Plan because, with the proposed conditions, the proposed use should not adversely
impact surrounding uses.
FINDINGS
A. The information presented complies with Costa Mesa Municipal Code Section 13-
29(g)(2) in that the proposed use is compatible with developments in the same
general area. Granting the minor conditional use permit will not be detrimental to
the health, safety and general welfare of the public or other properties or
improvements within the immediate vicinity. Granting the minor conditional use
permit will not allow a use, density or intensity, that is not in -accordance with the
general plan designation for the property. Specifically, staff does not anticipate
any parking impacts because the parking study prepared for the project has been
reviewed by the City's Transportation Services Division, and they concur with the
study methodology, suggested parking rates, and the consultant's conclusions
regarding adequate parking. If -the remaining space is occupied by a food use,
zoning approval and business license authorization shall be contingent upon
validation of the parking conclusions of the parking study prepared for the project.
This validation shall be in the form of real-time parking counts conducted within
180 days of the coffee shop being fully operational. - Additionally, if parking
shortages or other parking -related problems arise, the landlord shall institute
X04
ZA-12-10 K >
March 22, 2012
Page 6 of 10
whatever reasonable operational measures necessary to minimize or eliminate
the problem. Design of the drive-through lane provides adequate vehicle
queueing and circulation. The building will be remodeled with contemporary
architecture to provide a positive complement to the East 17th Street streetscape.
Adverse impacts to residential uses will be minimized due to the requirement that
the existing landscape planter at the rear of the property (adjacent to residential)
be densely re -planted with trees to provide an additional buffer for residential
properties.
B. The proposed project complies with Costa Mesa Municipal Code Section 13-29
(e) because:
1. The proposed use is compatible and harmonious with uses both on-site
as well as those on surrounding properties.
2. Safety and compatibility of the design of the buildings, and other site
features including functional aspects of the site development such as
automobile and pedestrian circulation have been considered.
3. The use is consistent with the General Plan designation because the
project will not exceed the allowable General Plan intensity for the site.
C. The project has been reviewed for compliance with the California Environmental
Quality Act (CEQA), the CEQA Guidelines, and the City environmental
procedures, and has been found to be exempt under Section 15301, Class 1,
Existing Facilities, of the CEQA Guidelines.
D. The project is exempt from Chapter XII, Article 3, Transportation System
Management, of Title 13 of the Costa Mesa Municipal Code.
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
Ping. 1. The uses shall be limited to the type of operation as described in the staff
report and conditions of approval. Any change in the operational
characteristics of any use including, but not limited to, the hours of
operation and additional services provided, shall require review by the
Planning Division and may require an amendment subject to approval by
the Zoning Administrator.
2. If parking shortages or other parking -related problems arise, the
business operator shall institute whatever reasonable operational
measures necessary to minimize or eliminate the problem. These
measures may include identifying select parking spaces for short-term
parking (i.e. 30 minutes, 1 hour, etc.), reserving certain parking spaces
for the other tenant, and/or any other measures as deemed appropriate
by the Development Services Director.
3. The use shall be conducted, at all times, in a manner that will allow the
quiet enjoyment of the surrounding neighborhood. The applicant and/or
business owner shall institute whatever reasonable security and
operational measures are necessary to comply with this requirement.
4. The applicant shall contact the Planning Division to arrange a Planning
i D.57
ZA-12-10
March 22, 2012
Page 7 of 10
inspection of the site prior to commencement of the business. This
inspection is to confirm that the conditions of approval and code
requirements have been satisfied.
5. Prior to the grand opening of the coffee shop, the applicant shall submit
an interim parking plan to the Planning Division for review and approval
to ensure that adequate employee parking is available on-site or on at
an authorized site through an agreement with its property owner. In
addition, the plan shall indicate that employees shall be available to
minimize any impacts to circulation on the adjacent streets and
surrounding properties. This interim plan shall be in place for a
minimum of 60 days during the "Grand Opening" and may be extended
for an additional 30 days to meet customer demands as deemed
appropriate by the Development Services Director. The interim plan
shall be approved prior to issuance of certificate of occupancy.
6. After the Grand Opening period when the interim parking plan is no
longer in place, employees of the fast food restaurant shall park on-site.
Employee parking shall occur in any of the parking stalls on, the -
property. Employee parking on the public streets fronting residential
properties shall be considered a violation of the'terms of approval of the
minor conditional use permit. If repeated violations occur,. the
Development Services Director shall have the discretion to require
employee parking spaces be' assigned on the property, or to require
other appropriate measures to ensure on-site, employee parking.
7. Zoning approval and business license authorization for a proposed
establishment where food and beverages are served shall be contingent
upon validation of the parking conclusions of the March 1, 2012 parking
study. This validation shall be in the form of real-time parking counts
conducted within 180 days of the coffee shop being fully operational.
As an alternative to real-life parking counts and to expedite negotiations
with prospective tenants of the second lease area, the Development
Services Director may also elect to approve a revised parking study that
addresses the unique customer characteristics of similar coffee shops in
lieu of real-time parking counts.
8. The conditions of approval for ZA-12-10 shall be blueprinted on the face
of the site plan as part of the plan check submittal package.
9. No modification(s) of the approved building elevations including, but not
limited to, changes that increase the building height, removal of building
articulation, or a change of the finish material(s), shall be made during
construction without prior Planning Division written approval. Failure to
obtain prior Planning Division approval of the modification could result in
the requirement of the applicant to (re)process the modification through
a discretionary review process such as a minor design review or a
variance, or in the requirement to modify the construction to reflect the
approved plans.
10. No exterior roof access ladders, roof drain scuppers, or roof drain
downspouts are permitted.
11. It is recommended that the project incorporate green building design
I O �0
ZA-12-10
March 22, 2012
Page 8 of 10
and construction techniques where feasible. The applicant may contact
the Building Safety Division at (714) 754-5273 for additional information.
12. The existing landscape planter at the rear of the property shall be
densely re -planted in order to provide an additional buffer for the
residential properties with minimum 24 -inch box size trees, subject to
review and approval by the Planning Division.
13. The property owner or applicant shall install bike racks for patrons and
employees on the site. The bicycle racks shall be decorative in design.
This condition shall be completed prior to final occupancy/start of
business, under the direction of the Planning and Building Divisions.
14. The applicant shall work with staff to reconfigure the proposed outdoor
patios to minimize the encroachment into the required street setback
landscape planters, subject to approval by the Planning Division.
15. Transformers, backflow preventers, and any other approved above-
ground utility improvement shall be located outside of the required street
setback area and shall be screened upon view, under direction of
Planning staff. Any deviation from this requirement shall be subject to
review and approval of the Development Services Director.
CODE REQUIREMENTS
The following list of federal, state, and local laws applicable to the project has been
compiled by staff for the applicant's reference. Any reference to "City" pertains to the
City of Costa Mesa.
Ping. 1. Approval of the zoning application is valid for one (1) year from the
effective date of this approval and will expire at the end of that period
unless applicant establishes the use by one of the following actions: 1)
obtains building permits for the authorized construction and initiates
construction; and/or 2) obtains a business license and/or legally
establishes the business. If the applicant is unable to establish the
use/obtain building permits within the one-year time period, the applicant
may request an extension of time. The Planning Division must receive a
written request for the time extension prior to the expiration of the zoning
application.
2. Permits shall be obtained for all signs according to the provisions of the
Costa Mesa Sign Ordinance.
3. Use shall comply with all requirements of Articles 3 and 9, Chapter V,
Title 13 of the Costa Mesa Municipal Code relating to commercial
development standards.
4. Use shall comply with all requirements of Sections 13-49 and 13-50 of
the Costa Mesa Municipal Code relating to development standards for
establishments within 200 feet of residentially zoned property and
development standards for drive-through operations.
5. Street address shall be visible from the public street and shall be
displayed on the freestanding sign. If there is no freestanding sign, the
street address may be displayed on the fascia adjacent to the main
10-7
ZA-12-10J;
March 22, 2012
Page 9 of 10
()8
entrance or on another prominent location. Numerals shall be a
minimum twelve (12) inches in height with not less than three -fourth -
inch stroke and shall contrast sharply with the background.
Identification of individual units shall be provided adjacent to the unit
entrances. Letters or numerals shall be four (4) inches in height with
not less than one -fourth -inch stroke and shall contrast sharply with the
background.
6.
Parking stalls shall be double -striped in accordance with City standards
7.
Two (2) sets of detailed landscape and irrigation plans, which meet the
requirements set forth in Costa Mesa Municipal Code Sections 13-101
through 13-108, shall be required as part of the project plan check review
and approval process. Plans shall be forwarded to the Planning Division
for final approval prior to issuance of building permits.
Landscaping and irrigation shall be installed in accordance with the
.8.
approved plans prior to final inspection or occupancy clearance.
9.
Two (2) sets of landscape and irrigation plans, approved by. the
Planning Division, shall be attached to two of the final building plan
sets.
Bldg. 10.
Comply with the requirements of the 2010 California Building Code,
2010 California Residential Code, California Electrical Code, California
Mechanical Code, California Plumbing Code, California Green Building
Standards Code and 2010 California Energy Code (or the applicable
adopted California Building Code, California Residential Code
California Electrical Code, California Mechanical Code California
Plumbing , Code, California Green Building Standards and California
Energy Code at the time of plan submittal) and California Code of
Regulations also known as the California Building Standards Code, as
amended by the City of Costa Mesa.
11.
Provide a plan to the County of Orange Health Dept. for review. and
approval.
Bus. 12.
All contractors and subcontractors shall have valid business licenses to
Lic.
do business in the City of Costa Mesa. Final inspections,_ final
occupancy and utility releases will not be granted until all such licenses
have been obtained.
13.
Business license(s) shall be obtained prior to the initiation the
business(es).
Eng. 14.
For demolition, grading, or building permits involving projects with a
valuation of $10,000 or more, the contractor shall use a City -permitted
hauler(s) to haul any debris or solid waste from the job site (refer to
Section 8-83(h), Regulations, of Title 8 of the Costa Mesa Municipal
Code). Use of a City -permitted hauler for such projects is the
responsibility of the designated contractor. Non-compliance is subject
to an administrative penalty as follows: $1,000 or 3% of the total
project value, whichever is greater.
()8
ZA-12-10 `
March 22, 2012
Page 10 of 10
SPECIAL DISTRICT REQUIREMENTS
The requirement of the following special districts are hereby forwarded to the applicant:
Sani. 1. It is recommended that the applicant contact the Costa Mesa Sanitary
District at 949.645.8400 for current district requirements.
AQMD 2. Applicant shall contact the Air Quality Management District at
800.288.7664 for potential additional conditions of development or for
additional permits required by the district.
Bldg. 3. Comply with the requirements of the California Department of Food and
Agriculture (CDFA) to determine if red imported fire ants exist on the
property prior to any soil movement or excavation. Call CDFA at (714)
708-1910 for information.
1 100 Newport Center Dr., Suite 150 Newport Beach, CA 92660-6297
February 15, 2012
VIA HAND DELIVERY
Mr. Melvin Lee
Senior Planner
City of Costa Mesa
77 Fair Drive
Costa Mesa, CA 92626
RE: 450 E. 17th Street
Costa Mesa, CA 92627
Dear Mel,
Please accept this letter along with the enclosed documents as our formal submittal for the remodel of
the subject property. The property, which was formally occupied by Schools First Federal Credit Union,
is an antiquated building that is no longer consistent with the quality of retail properties along the 17th
Street Promenade. Several years ago the City of Costa Mesa went to great lengths to improve East 17th
Street, and we are excited that we will be a part of the continued efforts to improve the 17th Street
Promenade.
As a brief matter of background, Schools First Federal Credit Union formerly occupied the property as a
credit union branch that offered an array of services, including a drive-through teller. The property did
not undergo any substantial improvements during the past 30 years, and it now shows its age. While
the interior improvements of the building are in good condition, the property deserves to be upgraded
in order to accommodate new retail uses for the neighboring communities of East Side Costa Mesa.
One of the most important physical transformations that the property will undergo is the creation of a
new storefront for each of the new suites (two suites total) that front 17th Street. Currently, there are
no windows on the westerly elevation fronting 17th Street, thus resulting in a poor presence for the
property. As you can see in the illustrations below, the planned improvements for the elevation will
create a completely new appearance for the property.
Before
110
After
00 �� �0
Mr. Melvin Lee
City of Costa Mesa
February 15, 2012
Page 2 of 3
The current configuration of the elevation facing East 17th Street is currently monolithic in nature and
does not provide any variation in architectural style. The materials that will be used on the exterior
feature sustainable organic materials which include reclaimed wood, natural steel, and smooth stucco.
By creating two distinctive storefronts, the building will take on a new life which will lend itself to the
transition of unique properties along the 17th Street Promenade. The existing drive-through canopy and
window system will also be improved in order to accommodate a coffee/food user.
Another very important aspect of the property's remodel is the improvement that will be made to the
common patio areas that front 17th Street. As the 17th Street Promenade continues to become an
established pedestrian corridor, it is important to create more "people places" for gathering. As such,
the renovation of the property will not only include the rehabilitation of the existing patio area, but it
will also address new architectural enhancements such as a water feature or fire pit, sustainable
landscaping utilizing drought tolerant plant materials and ornamental grasses, and bicycle racks and
stroller parking area — all of which encourage the continued increase in pedestrian traffic and
community gathering.
Currently, the building is approximately 5,800 square feet, however, there is a 1,250 square foot
mezzanine space that will be abandoned as a part of the remodel of the property. The result will be a
leasable area of approximately 4,550 square feet. Following a minor reconfiguration of the on-site
parking lot, the property will provide 42 on-site parking spaces which equates to a 9.3:1 parking ratio.
Additionally, significant improvements will be made to the ADA accessibility and parking in order to
bring the property into compliance with ADA standards.
The proposed use of the property (retail, restaurant, service, etc.) is not only consistent with the past
use, but it is also substantially compatible with current uses permitted along the 17th Street Promenade.
The proposed uses would not be materially detrimental to other properties in the same area.
Mel, we are very excited about this opportunity to re -imagine and improve another property in the City
of Costa Mesa and' we look forward to working with you and the rest of your team to bring this project
to fruition. Should you have any questions, please feel free to contact me anytime.
Best regards,
450 E. 17th St. Associates, LLC
By: Burnham -Ward Properties LLC
ephen T orp
cc: Bryon Ward
r
March 1, 2012
Mr. Stephen K. Thorp, Executive Vice President
Burnham USA
1100 Newport Center Drive, Suite 150
Newport Beach, CA 92660
LLG Reference No. 2.12.3265.1
Subject: Parking Analysis for the Remodel and Tenancy Modification
Former Orange County Teacher's
Federal Credit Union (OCTFCU) Site at 450 E. 17t" Street
Costa Mesa, California
Dear Mr. Thorp:
As requested, Linscott, Law, & Greenspan, Engineers (LLG) is pleased to submit this
Parking Analysis for the proposed "redo" and reuse of the former (and currently
100% vacant) OCTFCU branch at 450 E. 17th Street in Costa Mesa. The proposed
remodel would make way for a Starbucks Coffee location (with drive-thru) as well as
an expected "quick serve" restaurant use. Together, these two tenancies are herein
after referred to as the Project.
A parking study has been required by the City of Costa Mesa to evaluate the parking
requirements and operational needs of the Project site at future full occupancy with
the proposed two tenancies in place. This report evaluates those needs based on
application of City code, and the further application of the Urban Land Institute's
(ULI) Shared Parking methodology as adopted by the City of Costa Mesa.
Engineers & Planners
Traffic
Transportation
Parking
Linscott, Law &
Greenspan, Engineers
1580 Corporate Drive
Suite 122
Costa Mesa, CA 92626
714.641.1587 T
714.641.0139 F
www.11gengineers.com
Pasadena
Costa Mesa
San Diego
Las Vegas
Based on prior field study experience, LLG has concluded that the proposed
Starbucks does not quite fit the parking ratio and time -of -day profile associated with a
"restaurant" use as carried in the City's code and shared parking methodology. As Philip M.Linscott, PEfts2a-2aool
such, the LLG approach presented below evaluates the total parking needs of the site Jack M. Greenspan, PE l8ecl
William A. Law, PE Iaecl
by applying the City methodology to the expected "quick serve" restaurant pawl n Wilkinson, PE
component, and further adding an explicit parking ratio and time -of -day profile as John P. Keating, PE
derived from prior LLG field study for the Starbucks component. David S. shender, PE
John A. Boarman, PE
Our study approach is detailed in the following sections of this report. Clare M. Look -Jaeger, PE
Richard E. Barretto,PE
Keil D. Maberry, PE
112 •
An LGZW8 Company Founded 1966
Mr. Stephen K. Thorp
March 1, 2012
Page 2
Briefly, we conclude that the "design level" parking demands of the site will peak at
39 spaces. This results from a shared parking evaluation integrating the City's own
procedures, with the further refinement and integration of Starbucks field study data
compiled by LLG. The Project proposes a supply of 42 spaces, up to three of which
could be utilized by tenants and visitors of the adjoining parcel at 462 E. 17th Street.
After accounting for that use of up to 3 spaces, the minimum "net" Project -specific
supply of 39 spaces will exactly balance with expected "design level" parking needs
of the Project.
PROJECT LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION
The Project site is located on the north side of 17th Street generally between Tustin
Avenue and Irvine Avenue. Figure 1, located at the rear of this letter report, presents
the proposed site plan.
An A.L.T.A. survey of the site prepared in 2011 indicates an existing building floor
area of 4,619 SF and a parking total of 30 spaces (to include 2 handicap parking
spaces). Further review of that survey indicates a nonexclusive easement (dating back
to 1982) on the 450 E. 17th Street Project site for ingress, egress and parking purposes
benefiting the adjoining parcel to the east (462 E. 17th Street, where tenancies now
include One West Bank, Blonder Salon, and a vacant suite.) The easement area
appears to include up to three existing parking spaces at the 450 E. 17th Street Project
address, and from clarifying conversations with you, it is LLG's understanding that
the net effect of that easement is an obligation of the Project to make available up to
three nonexclusive parking spaces for use by tenants of and visitors to the 462 E. 17th
Street address. As such, the parking calculations that follow track not only the needs
of the proposed Starbucks and "quick serve" restaurant, but also presume, as a worst
case that the adjoining uses at 462 E. 17th Street will add a further demand for three
spaces.
When compared to existing development on the site, the proposed Project plan
essentially remodels the existing building and divides it to two tenant spaces, the
northern -most totaling 2,356 SF and constituting the Starbucks location (with
immediate proximity to a remodeled drive-thru lane carried over from the prior
financial tenancy), and the southern suite totaling 2,185 SF, for a resulting building
area of 4,541 SF. From Figure 1, the plan also depicts a square footage total for each
of three patio areas. For parking requirement calculation purposes, the City code
requires patio area to be included as part of the restaurant floor area. Given that
requirement, the floor area input to the "quick serve" parking needs calculation totals
2,535 SF (2,185 SF within the building plus patio areas of 100 SF and 250 SF). The
113
Mr. Stephen K. Thorp
March 1, 2012
Page 3
treatment of the 250 SF of patio immediately adjoining the Starbucks suite is
described later in this report.
The Figure 1 site plan modifies the current provision of 30 spaces on the site, and
increases that supply to 42 spaces (including 2 handicap spaces).
"CODE" PARKING REQUIREMENTS AND ADAPTIVE METHODOLOGY
The "code" parking calculation for the Project is based on the City's requirements as
outlined in Chapter 6 — Off -Street Parking Standards City of Costa Mesa Municipal
Code. For restaurant uses, the City's Municipal Code requires ten (10) spaces per
1,000 SF of GFA for the first 3,000 SF, and twenty (20) spaces per 1,000 SF of GFA
for each additional 1,000 SF.
The City's code requires patio seating area to be summed as part of the building floor
area when performing the "code" calculation. On that basis, the floor area to be input
to the code calculation totals 5,141 SF (summed as 2,356 + 2,185 +250 + 100 + 250).
The resulting requirement breaks out as follows:
3,000 SF @ 10 spaces per 1,000 SF 30 spaces
5-141 SF — 31000 SF = 2,141 SF (a 20 spaces per 1,000 SF = 43 spaces
Total Requirement = 73 spaces
This 73 -space requirement does not reflect the potential use of up to three additional
spaces by the adjoining parcel.
For projects with a mix of land use types, the "City of Costa Mesa Procedure for
Determining Shared Parking Requirements" typically applies. While LLG's
experience is that coffee uses such as Starbucks do not fit the same "restaurant" ratio
and time -of -day parking profiles applicable to the "quick serve" restaurant tenancy of
the proposed Project, City procedures do not recognize that distinction. The analysis
that follows does make that distinction, and combines a Project -specific Starbucks
parking ratio and hourly profile with a "code" calculation and City shared parking
application for the "quick serve" restaurant.
SHARED PARKING ANALYSIS
Shared Parking Methodology
Accumulated experience in parking demand characteristics indicates that a mixing of
land uses results in an overall parking need that is less than the sum of the individual
i14
Mr. Stephen K. Thorp
March 1, 2012
Page 4
peak requirements for each land use. This is true even for the subtle variation in
parking needs for the Starbucks tenancy combined with those of the expected "quick
serve" venue. The latter has typically a lunch-time and dinner trade, while Starbucks
demand clearly peaks in the early to mid-morning hours in a complimentary pattern
when compared to a more traditional "restaurant" use. The objective of this shared
parking analysis is to forecast the peak parking requirements for the Project based on
the combined demand patterns of these different tenancy types at the site.
Shared parking calculations recognize that different uses often experience individual
peak parking demands at different times of day, or days of the week. When. uses
share common parking footprints, the total number of spaces needed to support the
collective whole is determined by adding parking profiles (by time -of -day for
weekdays versus weekend days), rather than individual peak ratios as represented in
the City of Costa Mesa Zoning Code. In that way, this shared parking approach starts
from the City's own code ratios for restaurants, supplements this with Starbucks -
specific characteristics, applies the City's own procedures for determining shared
parking requirements, and results in the "design level" parking supply needs of the
Project site.
It should be noted that the "demand" results of this shared parking calculation are
intended to be used directly for comparison to the proposed Project site supply, after
accounting for the up to 3 spaces that may be used by the adjoining site. No further
adjustments or contingency additions are needed because such contingencies are
already built into the peak parking ratios and time -of -day profiles used in the
calculations.
Shared Parking Ratios and Profiles
The expected "quick serve" restaurant tenancy of the site has been input to the shared
parking calculations at the City code ratio of 10 parking spaces per 1,000 SF, an
interior plus patio area of 2,535 SF, resulting peak requirement of 25 spaces, and the
time -of -day profiles represented in the City's shared parking methodology.
The Starbucks representation within those calculations is based on prior LLG field
study (in year 2000) of two existing Starbucks sites, without, drive-thru lanes. The
study sites and other findings from the data are as follows:
• Existing Starbucks location of 1,464 SF at 14948 -Imperial Highway in La
Mirada, adjoining the La Mirada/Imperial intersection ("Site 1 ").
• Existing Starbucks location of 1,520 SF at 505 N. State College. Boulevard in
Fullerton, adjoining the State College/Chapman intersection ("Site 2").
11�
Mr. Stephen K. Thorp
March 1, 2012
Page 5
• Both sites had some patio seating (3-5 tables, 8-16 seats). While the interior
floor area of each site was known, the patio area was not. Peak parking ratios
calculated from field study data are derived from those interior floor areas as
a "blended" factor to be applied only to the interior floor area of a new
location, but which also accounts for patio seating at that location.
• The peak observed parking demand 'on a weekday equated to a demand factor
of 11.06 spaces per 1,000 SF of interior (versus interior plus patio) floor area.
The peak weekend ratio was 10.05 spaces per 1,000 SF of building area.
• These field studies resulted in a peak parking "design factor" of 12.0 spaces
per 1,000 SF of building area, which also accounts for the parking needs of
the of the adjoining patio.
• Time -of -day profiles were also derived, and brought forward to the Project
calculation based on the anticipated 2,356 SF Starbucks tenancy (noting
further that this calculation inherently accounts for the presence of patio
seating).
The attached Appendix Table A-1 and Table A-2 present the Starbucks ratio and
profile derivation as well as its application to the Project site. As indicated, the peak
Starbucks requirement tops out at 28 spaces at 8 AM on a weekday. Demand reduces
significantly from this peak during other hours of the day. Weekend needs are
incrementally less, with a peak focused more to the mid-morning hours.
It should be noted that the derived Starbucks peak ratio and parking profiles are
rooted in field studies of sites without drive-thru lanes. This is concluded to be a
conservative approach. At sites with a drive-thru lane, Starbucks has advised that
40% to 60% of 'its sales volume uses the drive-thru lane (inferring some
corresponding reduction in parking demand). While this drive-thru split does not
translate directly to an equivalent reduction in peak parking demand, the peak "design
level" ratio of 12.0 spaces per 1,000 SF is concluded to have at least a ten to twenty
percent integrated contingency.
Application of Shared Parking Methodology to Proposed Project
Tables 1 and 2 present the future weekday and weekend (typically Saturday) parking
demand profiles for the proposed Project based on the shared parking methodology.
They integrate the "quick serve" and Starbucks calculations as described in the prior
section.
Review of Tables 1 and 2 indicates that the weekday and weekend peak parking
demands will occur in the evening hours, with "design level" peak demands of 39
spaces. The minimum Project surplus is 3 spaces, which would off -set the potential
I I �O
Mr. Stephen K. Thorp
March 1, 2012
Page 6
use of up to three spaces by the adjoining site. It will also be noted that the City
methodology results in relatively modest calculated restaurant demand levels at
midday, with surpluses of at least 15 spaces (18 as shown minus up to 3 spaces being
used by the adjoining site). The calculated midday surplus would facilitate stronger
parking demand levels by the "quick serve" restaurant than anticipated by the City
methodology.
Based on the results of Tables 1 and 2, we conclude that the proposed 42 -space
supply will result in a balanced condition with peak demand, even after accounting
for up to three spaces being used by tenants and visitors of the adjoining 462 E. 17I'
Street parcel.
We appreciate the opportunity to prepare this analysis for Pacific Plaza. Should you
have any questions or need additional assistance, please do not hesitate to call us at
(714) 641-1587.
Very truly yours,
Linscott, Law.& Greenspan, Engineers
Paul W. Wi ' son, P.E.
Principal
Attachments
cc: file
11-7
O
(o
TABLE 1
WEEKDAY SHARED PARKING DEMAND ANALYSIS [a]
450 EAST 17TH STREET, COSTA MESA
Starbucks Total
Restaurant Based on Parking
USE 1st 3K Empirical Demand
(Sq. Ft.) Data [b] by Hour
Comparison
with Parking
Supply
by Hour
(surplus)
SIZE
'2,535
2,356
-
-
RATIO
0.01
-
-
-
SUPPLY
-
-
-
42
PK DEMAND
25
28
53
-
6:00 AM
0
17
17
25
7:00 AM
1
27
28
14
8:00 AM
1
28
29
13
9:00 AM
3
26
29
13
10:00 AM
5
12
17
25
11:00 AM
8
10
18
24
NOON
13
7
20
22
1:00 PM
18
6
24
18
2:00 PM
15
7
22
20
3:00 PM
15
10
25
17
4:00 PM
13
9
22
20
5:00 PM
18
9
27
15
6:00 PM
23
13
36
6
7:00 PM
25
7
32
10
8:00 PM
25
11
36
6
9:00 PM
25
14
39
3
10:00 PM
23
10
33
9
11:00 PM
18
1 6
24
18
Shared Parking Table
1VIAXIMUM WEEKDAY DEMAND 39
NET PARKING SUPPLY [c] 39
PARKING SURPLUS (+) OR DEFICIENCY (-) 0.
Notes:
[a] Source: Based on City of Costa Mesa adopted procedures
[b] Empircal Data Based on Average Ratios taken from the
Parking Study for the Proposed Starbucks Coffee in Harbor Town Square dated April 3, 2000.
[c] Accounts for 3 spaces on project site required to provide parking to the adjoining
commercial site at 462 E. 17th Street.
gig
3/1/2012
TABLE 2
WEEKEND SHARED PARKING DEMAND ANALYSIS FOR EXISTING SITE [a]
450 EAST 17TH STREET, COSTA MESA
Starbucks
Restaurant Based on
USE 1st 3K Empirical
(Sq. Ft.) Data [b]
SIZE
Comparison
Total
with Parlung
Parldng
Supply
Demand
by Hour
by Hour
(surplus)
SIZE
2,535
2,356
-
-
RATIO
0.01
-
SUPPLY
-
-
-
42
PK DEMAND
25
28
53
-
6:00 AM
0
3
3
39
7:00 AM
1
9
10
32
8:00 AM
1
15
16
26
9:00 AM
2
25
27
15
10:00 AM
2
26
28
14
11:00 AM
3
21
24
18
NOON
8
16
24
18
1:00 PM
11
18
29
13
2:00 PM
11
7
18
24
3:00 PM
11
11
22
20
4:00 PM
11
13
24
18
5:00 PM
15
10
25
17
6:00 PM
23
10
33
9
7:00 PM
24
15
39
3
8:00 PM
25
14
39
3
9:00 PM
25
14
39
3
10:00 PM
24
112
36
6
11:00 PM
22
J 15
37
1 5
MAXIMUM WEEKDAY DEMAND 39
NET PARKING SUPPLY [c] 39
PARKING SURPLUS (+) OR DEFICIENCY (-) 0
Notes:
[a] Source: Based on City of Costa Mesa adopted procedures
[b] Empircal Data Based on Average Ratios taken from the
Parking Study for the Proposed Starbucks Coffee in Harbor Town Square dated April 3, 2000.
[c] Accounts for 3 spaces on project site required to provide parking to the adjoining
commercial site at 462 E. 17th Street.
Shared Parking Table 1 3/1/2012
I l9
H
0
0
0
CL
O
rtU
U �
Q K
� W
Q � o
y J O
a �
laza
CL g
QN
fA CJ ,yp N cc
U'yoO L0wz
aFFaarna
❑ m. m 1
1 A 4
1 a I
p oliva A
H31NVld AL
i o . T
I �IlVM301S .� o' j
M
Y
1001SZL 3 .00.00105 S �
iILO oa �
H31NVld
oo_Bte
3 ..00;gaos s
.. �.. �.. •.___--
�..� ��.-�. �� ..
•J
i
Ole
____..
�
i
_
(A
I
I
1
li
II
LO
N
I
1
. I
11
•�
i i
1
• I
I
I I
1
of I
O
°tl
i
! i
R
(�7
110 1.74
R
i
1
�j
i
40-17z
j
IBL X .6
IBL X IB
I
IBL X 16
jr
17V1S dAl
llV1S al
I 111V1S
i i
dAl
TR
Li
1
�o
I"
o
MH1-Mua F
r
9NUSIX3
�W
i
to
1
I p
jZ
C7 OC
®
Lu
z x
U
LU
a
I
WI
w
of
x >
o
I
p•
W W
WU
X110'IZ
1S dAlaFe`Jz
ke"
010Ex
_
n W %.
0
0
0
CL
O
rtU
U �
Q K
� W
Q � o
y J O
a �
laza
CL g
QN
fA CJ ,yp N cc
U'yoO L0wz
aFFaarna
❑ m. m 1
1 A 4
1 a I
p oliva A
H31NVld AL
i o . T
I �IlVM301S .� o' j
M
Y
1001SZL 3 .00.00105 S �
iILO oa �
APPENDIX
LINSCoTr, LAW & GREENSPAN, englneers LLG Ref. 2-12-3265
450 East 17'" Street, Costa Mesa
NA321M2123261-451 East 17th Street, Costa Mesa\P..,o A3265 Appendix Covmloc
�2�
TABLE A-1
DERIVATION AND APPLICATION OF STARBUCKS PARKING PROFILE - WEEKDAY
TIME
No. of Spaces Occupied by Starbucks
Customers/ Employees
(1)
Total
Occupied
Spaces
(2)
Actual
Parking
Ratio (1)
Divided by
2.984sf
(3)
Actual
Parking
Ratio
Divided by
Maximum
of 11.06
(4)
12x2.356x%
Site 1
1,464 SF
Site 2
1,520 SF
6:00 AM
9
11
20
6.70
61%
17
7:00 AM
11
21
32
10.72
97%
27
8:00 AM
15
18
33
11.06
100%
28
9:00 AM
16
14
30
10.05
91%
26
10:00 AM
6
8
14
4.69
42%
12
11:00 AM
6
6
12
4.02
36%
10
12:00 PM
3
5
8
2.68
24%
7
1:00 PM
2
5
7
2.35
21%
6
2:00 PM
4
4
8
2.68
24%
7
3:00 PM
7
5
12
4.02
36%
10
4:00 PM
4
6
10
3.35
30%
9
5:00 PM
4
7
11
3.69
33%
9
6:00 PM
7
8
15
5.03
45%
13
7:00 PM
4
4
8
2.68
24%
7
8:00 PM
6
7
13
-4.36
39%
11
9:00 PM
11
5
16
5.36
48%
14
10:00 PM
6
6
12
4.02
36%
10
11:00 PM
4
3
7
2.35
21%
6
122
TABLE A-2
DERIVATION AND APPLICATION OF STARBUCKS PARKING PROFILE - WEEKEND
TIME
No. of Spaces Occupied by Starbucks
Customers/ Employees
(1)
Total
Occupied
Spaces
(2)
Actual
Parking
Ratio (1)
Divided by
2.984sf
(3)
Actual
Parking
Ratio
Divided by
Maximum
Weekday
of 11.06
(4)
12x2.356x%
Site 1
1,464 SF
Site 2
1,520 SF
6:00 AM
4
0
4
1.34
12%
3
7:00 AM
10
0
10
3.35
30%
9
8:00 AM
13
4
17
5.70
52%
15
9:00 AM
17
12
29
9.72
88%
1 25
10:00 AM
13
17
30
10.05
91%
26
11:00 AM
11
13
24
8.04
73%
21
12:00 PM
7
12
19
6.37
58%
16
1:00 PM
11
10
21
7.04
64%
18
2:00 PM
3
5
8
2.68
24%
7
3:00 PM
6
7
13
4.36
39%
11
4:00 PM
6
9
15
5.03
45%
13
5:00 PM
6
6
12
4.02
36%
10
6:00 PM
5
7
12
4.02
36%
10
7:00 PM
6
11
17
5.70
52%
15
8:00 PM
11
5
16
5.36
48%
14
9:00 PM
11
5
16
5.36
48%
14
10:00 PM
9
5
14
4.69
42%
12
11:00 PM1
10
7
17
5.70
52%
15
123
r
J
F-
LL LL
M a V
C
CD LON
LO 00T-
_ M
Ir CV N
cn
xLiu
❑
'k
I
--------
lul
in
15-
t0
llz�
4' t
6
�D
t
zj!�
�i
I
:-
k'C3. Aw
A
6
�D
t
zj!�
PLANNING COMM/SS/ON
SUPPLEMENTAL MEMORANDUM
ITEM NUMBER: V1. 2a
MEETING DATE: APRIL 23, 2012
SUBJECT: APPEAL AND REVIEW OF ZONING APPLICATION ZA-12-10 MINOR CONDITIONAL
USE PERMIT FOR A DRIVE-THROUGH COFFEE SHOP
450 EAST 17TH STREET
DATE: APRIL 19, 2012
FROM: PLANNING DIVISION/DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT
PRESENTATION BY: MEL LEE, SENIOR PLANNER
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: MEL LEE, AICP (714) 754-5611
mel.lee@costamesaca.gov
Attached is the following supplemental information related to the above project:
1. Request by the appellant (Toby Walker) to continue the item to the May 14, 2012
meeting.
2. Two additional letters from residents.
3. Response to appeal prepared by Linscott, Law and Greenspan Engineers (LLG) also
referenced on Page 5 of the original staff report.
With regard to the appellant's request for continuance, the appellant was informed by
staff that granting the request was at the discretion of the Planning Commission.
Additional condition of approval
If the Planning Commission upholds the Zoning Administrator's approval, the following
additional condition of approval is recommended with regard to the issue with the existing
easement:
16. City understands that the adjacent property may hold certain easement rights over
the property that is the subject of this decision. The city is not in a position to determine
the legal rights between the two parcels with respect to this easement. Accordingly, the
City's approval is made expressly subject to the project being in full compliance with any
existing duties, rights and obligations set forth in any easements or other encumbrances
recorded against the property. Any construction initiated by applicant is performed at
applicant's own risk that it may be inconsistent with existing easements and
encumbrances.
Attachments
a2
cc: City Council
Chief Executive Officer
Assistant Chief Executive Officer
Interim Development Services Director
Deputy City Attorney
City Engineer
Transportation Services Manager
Fire Protection Analyst
Staff (4)
File (2)
Toby Walker
P.O. Box 8083
Newport Beach, CA 92658
450 East 17th Street Associates, LLC
1100 Newport Center Drive, #150
Newport Beach, CA 92660
David Harris
455 Cabrillo Street
Costa Mesa, CA 92627
Bob Small
465 Cabrillo Street
Costa Mesa, CA 92627
Ardy Hurst
451 Cabrillo Street
Costa Mesa, CA 92627
Jaime & Stephen MacLeod
461 Cabrillo Street
Costa Mesa, CA 92627
12-9
ATTACHMENT 1
From: Toby Walker [mailto:tawalker@cox.net]
Sent: Wednesday, April 18, 2012 12:56 PM
To: LEE, MEL
Cc: BOUWENS-KILLEEN, WILLA; Wendy Leece; 'Rob Hamers'; 'Fanny Chen'
Subject: [BULK]
Importance: Low
Mel —
I am writing you at Willa's instruction to my engineer, Rob Hamers. I am unfortunately already
committed to be in Florida the early part of next week and have respectfully asked for a
continuance of the referenced matter.
That notwithstanding we will be prepared to present to the commission that the developer's
approval for the 450 E. 17th is in violation of a recorded Mutual Egress and Ingress Easement as
of 1982. That developer's proposal severely abridges the rights granted in that easement with
respect not only to the demarcated parking spaces in Lot 2 of that easement but also with respect
to both the physical ingress and easement of Lot 1 of that same easement (see attached).
As was outlined in our appeal, no attention was paid by the developer to what is the sole access
over this easement to the adjoining property ( 462 E. 17th St.,) — how it is affected by the
additional angled parking spaces, the drive thru lane as well as the circulation of the 450 property
which now requires a vastly different and more complicated access to its own parking and as I
pointed out the negative affect on Lot 2 of the easement.
Thank you for your attention in this matter. We will wait to hear from you.
Toby Walker
i 30
ATTACHMENT 2 Received
City of Costa Mesa
Development Services Department
APR 18 2012
April 17, 2012
VIA HAND DELIVERED
Mr. Melvin Lee
Senior Planner
City of Costa Mesa
77 Fair Drive
Costa Mesa, CA 92626
Re: Zoning application ZA-12-10
450 E. 17 h Street
Costa Mesa, CA 92727
Dear Mr. Lee:
Regarding the above zoning application and its potential impact on the
surrounding area, as you knowB Small and I had a productive meeting
with Mr. Bryon Ward reg ing our con erns about this project. Via a
gentleman's agreement, ollow by an e- ail containing the details of our
agreement we decided n to appeal thi application.
Sincer ly,
David Harris
Robert "Bob" Small
131
Receivers
TO: Planning commission City of Costa Mesa
City of Costa Mesa Development Services Department
APR 19 2012
Attn: Mel Lee, AICP
Senior Planner
Subject: 650 E. 17`h Street
Forty years ago we purchased our home here at 451 Cabrillo Street. There was no building behind us
on E. 17"' Street. I realize that is zoned for business. I also know this street was zoned single -
residential. There is no buffer between the two. Mistake #1 !
The bank was ideal as there was no activity after 6:00 P.M. Now, the owner wants to convert the
building to 2 restaurants — one a coffee "drive-thru" with the order box pointed my way. The hours will
be from 6:00 A.M. To 11:00 P.M. Can you imagine the noise and smells from the cars and ordering
from a "drive-thru" on warm summer nights when we are trying to sleep with our windows open?
That is a very small lot for so much activity and the driveway is inadequate for all the business' there.
Please consider this carefully and I'm hoping you say NO to this particular business. To say yes would
be like a thorn in our side. Also, the valuation of our property would no doubt go down. We are all
very proud of our street!
Sincerely,
Ardy Hurst
451 Cabrillo St.
Costa Mesa, CA 92627
.132
ATTACHMENT 3
LEE, MEL
From: Stephen Thorp [sthorp@burnhamusa.com]
Sent: Tuesday, April 17, 2012 3:07 PM
To: LEE, MEL
Cc: Bryon Ward
Subject: 450 E 17th St. - LLG Responses - 1 of 2
Attachments: Response to Comments 2 123265 14-17-12 .pdf
Mel,
Please find attached LLG's responses to Toby Walker's comments that were identified in his appeal. As you will
find, Toby Walker's claims are without merit, and furthermore, he provides no factual evidence for his claims.
Notwithstanding, LLG has concluded that our plans approved by the City will have little to no impact on the
easement area as Toby Walker projects. Nevertheless, please rest assured that the civil matters mentioned in
Toby Walker's appeal, more particularly the non-exclusive ingress/egress easement and parking easement, have
been taken into careful consideration in our plans and we will continue to fulfill our obligations as set forth in
the easement agreements until they expire.
Please note that the attached is LLG's narrative, and a second e-mail will follow that will contain the exhibits.
Should you have any questions, please feel free to call me at anytime. Thank you.
Best regards,
Steve
Stephen K. Thorp
Executive Vice President
Burnham USA Equities, Inc.
1100 Newport Center Drive, Suite #150
Newport Beach, CA 92660
Phn: (949) 760-9150
Fax: (949) 760-0430
Eml: sthorp@burnhamusa.com
This electronic transmission, and any documents attached hereto, (a) are protected by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act (18 USC §§ 2510-2521), (b)
may contain confidential information, and (c) are for the sole use of the intended recipient named above. If you have received this electronic message in error,
please notify the sender and delete the electronic message. Any disclosure, copying, distribution, or use of the contents of the information received in error is
strictly prohibited.
It is understood that this email and any response hereto or any oral or written communication or any document which may be sent by or on behalf of either party to
the other shall not have any binding effect on either parry. Further, such understanding shall nullify any claim that either parry or its representatives or agents is
obligated to perform any act or expend time, money or effort based on this communication.
133
04/17/2012
Engineers & Planners
April 17, 2012 Traffic
Transportation
Parking
Mr. Stephen K. Thorp, Executive Vice President Linscott, Law
Greenspan, Engineers
Burnham USA 1580 Corporate ltrlve
1100. Newport Center Drive, Suite 150 suite 122
Newport Beach, CA 92660
Costa Mesa, CA 92626
714.641.1587 T
714.641.0139 F
LLG Reference No. 2.12.3265.1 www.11gengineers.com
Subject: Response to Appeal Comments by Toby Walker Pasadena
Approval of Zoning Application ZA-12-10 Costa Mesa
Remodel and Tenancy Modification for Former Orange County San Diego
Teacher's Federal Credit Union (OCTFCU) Site Las Vegas
450 E. 17th Street
Costa Mesa, California
Dear Mr. Thorp:
At your request, we have reviewed the subject appeal package submitted by Toby
Walker, representing the property at 462 E. 17th Street ("462"). That property lies
immediately east of your property at 450 E. 17th Street ("450'x, the latter being the
subject of a recent Zoning Application approval by the City of Costa Mesa.
The ZA-12-10 application addressed the remodel of your site, and re -tenancy with a
Starbucks drive-thru as well as unspecified future quick serve food use. The parking
aspects of the proposed plan were the subject of a parking analysis prepared by
Linscott, Law & Greenspan, Engineers (LLG) and dated March 1, 2012. That study
concluded a parking balance for the proposed plan based on the parking supply
revisions/increase at "450", the parking needs of the proposed tenancy types at "450",
and after accounting for a 3 -space supply component on "450" (responding to a non-
exclusive easement agreement executed in 1982 between the two property owners)
for the benefit of parkers attributable to "462".
Philip M. Linscon, PE (1924-m66(
Mr. Walker has cited seven grounds ("comments") as the basis of his appeal. This Jack M. Greenspan, PE(Bati
letter was prepared to address each of those in anticipation of a future Planning William A.Law, PE(Bet)
Commission hearing on the appeal. Each of Mr. Walker's comments is repeated Paul W. Wilkinson, PE
below followed by LLG's response. Additionally, Mr. Walker included attachments John P. Keating, PE
to his appeal (generally without explanation) that have also been. extracted and David S. Shender, PE
attached to this response package for further discussion by LLG. John A. Boorman, PE
Clare M. Look -Jaeger, PE
Richard E. Barrette, PE
Kell D. Maberry, PE
13 An LGZWB Company Founded 1968
Mr. Stephen K. Thorp
April 17, 2012
Page 2
LLG's prior submittal of March 1 was focused to future parking demand, supply, and
balance at the "450" site. Mr. Walker's current comments go beyond the scope of that
prior analysis and include a focus to easement and site circulation issues. To facilitate
our responses, and to provide supporting technical information, attached to this letter
are the following:
Figure 1: Using an existing aerial photo as its base, provides a snapshot of
current traffic volumes along the easement area and at the existing "shared
driveway" serving both "450" and "462". It comes from a March 10, 2012
(Tuesday) field study during the morning and afternoon periods when the
traffic for the combined sites would generally experience its peak. What
turned out to be incidental traffic using the "450" exit -only driveway
(Location E) is also shown. The tabular summary further presents parking
demand by hour for the survey period, sorted between the "450" and "462"
addresses. From Figure 1, it is evident that existing "shared driveway" traffic
volumes are very light, and peak at 25 vehicles/hour in the AM period and 34
vehicles per hour in the PM period. Because "450" is now vacant, all of this
traffic can be attributed to "462". Additionally, parking demand peaked at 28
spaces (9AM and 4PM), again all presumably related to "462". It is interesting
to note that while all 28 spaces of peak demand can be attributed to "462",
only 19 of these parked. vehicles were actually in the "462" lot (which
provides an inventoried supply of 29 spaces). "462" parking in the "450" lot
ranged from 3 to 13 spaces, depending on time of day. Coincidentally, the
aerial photo base of this figure illustrates the typical location of "462" parking
demand in the "450" lot.
Exhibits Y through 4. Given Mr. Walker's concerns relative to the easement,
these ground -level photos illustrate the existing actual condition at photo
locations as referenced in Figure 1. Exhibit I is the "long view" looking
northward from 17th Street along the easement area; the "450" building is to
the left and the "462" building is to the right. Exhibit 2 coincides with the
portion of "450" towards the end of that "long view", with the camera location
adjoining the access connection to the "462" lot. Exhibit 3 is the Exhibit 2
view from a slightly different angle. Exhibits 2 and 3 illustrate an. existing
pavement arrow near the "450"-"462" property line indicating an intended
one-way northbound flow passing to the right (east) of the 3 specific spaces
intended (by easement) for use by "462" packers. Those three spaces are
"carved out" by the three parking stops appearing in the middle of the image.
Exhibit 4 shows the area of those three spaces in greater detail, and further
illustrates the mounting brackets for four surface -mounted bollards, which
would presumably "call out" these spaces in the midst of what appears to most
drivers as a travel aisle; although the actual bollards are missing. It is worth
noting that Exhibits 2 and 3 further illustrate "blacked out" pavement
�> n
Mr. Stephen K. Thorp
April 17, 2012
Page 3
markings of a previous northbound directional arrow (near the left edge of the
aisle) and angled parking (near the aisle's right edge).
Exhibits 5 and 6: These were attached to Mr. Walker's appeal without
additional explanation, and have been brought forward to this response
package for further discussion. Exhibit 5 is the original easement "sketch"
from the 1982 Grant of Easements document. Parcel 1 of that "sketch" is, in
essence, the intended access and circulation area. Parcel 2 is the parking
"footprint". Relative to Parcel 2, the actual spaces are not shown, but the 18'
x 27' rectangle provides for three standard spaces, side-by-side, with north -
south orientation.
The actual field location of the 3 spaces in Parcel 2 (see Figure 4) is
consistent with the easement sketch of Figure 5. The Parcel 1 footprint is also
consistent between "sketch" and field except for an existing planter on the
"450" site along its eastern property line with "462".
The timing of the easement recordation versus the construction of this planter
is unknown. Its presence, however, reduces the aisle width immediately east
of the 3 easement spaces to 14 feet, making it conducive to only one-way
travel. Viewed in the context of the existing parking lot plan for "450", the
Parcel 2 spaces make for a "tough fit", and their presence adversely impacts
the parking and circulation continuity of the immediately surrounding area.
The parking and circulation improvements of the proposed site plan will
resolve that difficulty.
Figure 6 is also from Mr. Walker's package with the mark-up of the plan
presumably by Mr. Walker. The figure uses an unknown base which appears
consistent with the existing parking and circulation configuration of the site.
The area in green exactly corresponds to Parcel 1 of the easement. The
location of the 3 spaces in the red -shaded area corresponds to Parcel 2 of the
easement.
From Exhibit "A" of the Grant of Easements document, Parcel 1 is described
as "An easement for ingress and egress over that portion of ...". No mention
of parking is included in the Parcel 1 description. Parcel l is described in the
same document as "An easement for ingress, egress and parking purposes
over that portion of ...".
Referring back to Exhibit 6, and based on the excerpted Grant wording above,
the 3 spaces shown in the red area are consistent with the easement
description. The spaces in the green area are not consistent with the Grant
wording, so the intent of the 11 spaces (in green) near the eastern border of
"450" is not known. They do not correspond with the existing condition, and
13b
Mr. Stephen K. Thorp
April 17, 2012
Page 4
they are not shown on the proposed plan. If the spaces in green were added,
"red" spaces i through 3 would be in direct conflict with "green" spaces 3
through 5; they could not function together. Additionally, it is important to
note that the areas depicted in red and green are not exclusive easements. So
while the easement details are important, the easement and adjoining areas
should function cohesively, and the proposed site plan will take steps to
correct the shortcomings of the existing configuration.
Table 1: Provides a traffic generation summary for both "450" and "462".
The top of the table presents generation factors for estimating likely future
trips in the AM and PM peak hours for each of the indicated uses. At the
middle of the table is a summary for the "450" project, indicating "zero' trips
for the current vacant condition, and the potential trips to be generated if
reoccupied at its current square footage with a "drive-in" bank use. The
proposed plan is also considered, and it will be noted that the Starbucks has a
dominant AM peak hour trip generation potential which amounts to roughly
80 vehicles arriving and then departing in the same hour (typically involving
a short stay for drive-thru as well as many counter -service customers); the PM
peak hour trip -making potential is much less.
The bottom of Table 1 focuses to "462", and pulls forward the actual counted
volumes from Figure 1. From aerial images, "462" is estimated to have a
building area of about 7,000 sf. Field review indicates existing bank, salon,
and Pilates studio tenancies using an estimate 90% 'of floor area, with the
remaining 10% an existing vacancy. To represent a full occupancy condition,
that table presents an "Existing (Full Occupancy)" line item. The mix of uses
now at "462" are not well represented in source information for trip
generation factors (like those at the top of the table), but a "benchmark"
calculation is presented to illustrate a total bank versus total specialty retail
characteristic. Other permutations would be possible in keeping with an
indication from Mr. Walker that a change of use for "462" may increase
demand on the ingress -egress ("shared driveway") easement.
Figure 2: Using the proposed site plan and count or forecast -based traffic
characteristics of Table 1, this figure presents a "snapshot" of future/full
occupancy peak hour traffic volumes at key locations in the plan. The stacking
capacity of the drive-thru lane, between the service window and the lane entry
point, is also illustrated. That equates to a total storage length of eight vehicles
before the cross aisle at the entry point would be affected.
The above materials are referred to in the responses that follow.
137
Mr. Stephen K. Thorp
April 17, 2012
Page 5
Comment No. I
The owner of 450 E. 17th Street has never offered the owner of 462 E. 17" Street a
modification to the existing access and parking easement, therefore, if the
development is approved in its current configuration, 462 E. 17`" Street tenants will
not be able to park in the area specified in the easement and there will be a planter
blocking use of the ingress lane. No resolution of this issue has been proposed.
Response to Comment No. 1
The easements established the right of "462" to circulate and park 3 vehicles on the
"450" site. The owners of "450" will continue to be obligated to that requirement,
and have given thoughtful consideration to the access and parking rights of "462"
employees and visitors throughout the remaining term of the easement.
The proposed site plan will greatly enhance the flow of traffic and parking for the
"450" site and the "462" property. The parking "retrofit" configuration illustrated on
the proposed site plan anticipates that "462" packers (that would otherwise use the 3
explicit but non-exclusive spaces within the existing recorded easement) would be
entitled to use 3 spaces anywhere in the "450" plan.
While the easement has been in place for many years, our technical review concludes
that it is an outdated arrangement and not a workable "footprint". Its literal
incorporation within a remodel/update plan at "450" is not advised. Taken literally,
the existing arrangement of these 3 spaces within the easement (at a perpendicular to
the long axis of the easement) permits residual. width for only a one-way northbound
travel lane to extend past them so as to access the 3 spaces in the easement. A turn
from that access lane to one of the 3 spaces requires a "button hook" movement or
three-point turn, and once parked, there is no way for these vehicles to leave their
space without travelling the wrong way in that northbound access lane, or travelling
outside the easement. Additionally, the existing depiction of this configuration "on
the ground" is confusing to motorists (parking stops at mid aisle, missing bollards,
conflicting pavement markings). Only regular visitors to the site seem to sort things
out, and the Figure 1 data and aerial photo as well as Exhibit 1 through 4 images
illustrate that those visitors routinely prefer the angled spaces outside the easement to
the 3 perpendicular spaces within it.
As such, the parking arrangement of the proposed site plan is the technical solution to
a challenging existing condition that would be made worse by re -occupancy of the
"450" site without the proposed parking and circulation enhancements.
Comment No. 2
Of critical importance, the current site plan causes all of the following ingress -
egress activities to simultaneously occur in the same area, thereby causing a
confluence" of conflicting vehicle movements:
Mr. Stephen K. Thorp
April 17, 2012
Page 6
a. Two-way ingress and egress in the 20 foot wide easement
b. Cars and delivery trucks entering the 450 E. 17th Street site crossing to the left
through the egress lane to enter angled parking.
c. Cars and delivery trucks backing out of the angled parking spaces through the
egress lane.
d. Cars in the drive-thru lane queue standing and occupying the middle of the
confluence area.
e. Cars and delivery trucks entering and exiting 462 E. 17th Street in this same
confluence area in the limited area allocated for this use. This is the only
means of ingress and egress for cars and other vehicles to access the parking
area for 462 K 17th Street.
Response to Comment No. 2
It is common for a mix of internal traffic flow patterns to "share" a common
"footprint" within an on-site circulation configuration. While referred to as a
confluence, the area described in the comment is really an internal "T" intersection
(there are three "legs" with approaching traffic) with a fourth leg carrying only
"leaving" intersection traffic as it enters the drive-thru lane. In this case, the "stem" of
the "T" would be the exiting movement from the "462" parking lot, and as the side
approach, that movement would normally be subject to STOP control. It is expected
that the north -south movements along the aisle would not be subject to STOP control.
Figure 2 illustrates forecast future volumes based on the existing traffic counts plus
adjustment for full occupancy at "462" as well a full future occupancy at "450". In
considering the above comment, it is important to understand not just the pattern of
flows but the expected volume on each movement. Based on the Figure 2 peak hour
volume projections, it can be concluded that future traffic volumes at this internal
intersection will be consistent with its overall design configuration including the
presence of a possible STOP control on the "462 side street" approach.
Responding to the above individual comments by letter:
a) The Figure 2 volumes along the easement are consistent with a two-lane
parking lot drive aisle including one with 20' overall width. The peak hour
northbound (entering) volume equates to an average flow rate of roughly 1 to
2 vehicles per minute. The peak hour southbound (exiting) movement equates
to a rate of less than 1 vehicle per minute. While clearly measurable, these
volumes are not large and clearly within the capabilities of this traffic
configuration.
159
Mr. Stephen K. Thorp
April 17, 2012
Page 7
b) The angled parking spaces on the entering driver's left (west side of the aisle)
total three regular spaces and two handicapped (HC). The location of the latter
is consistent with ADA and Title 24 expectations related to building proximity
and path of travel, noting further that HC spaces tend to be used less
frequently (and have lower turnover) than regular spaces. The lower turnover
characteristic is a favorable one in reducing the potential for conflicts as
expressed in the comment. Related to the three regular spaces, parking to both
sides of a two-way parking lot aisle, carrying traffic with flow rates described
in a), above, is a normal condition. Additionally, in our experience, delivery
vehicles will only rarely, if ever, use a conventional parking space. Thus use
of these spaces will be by employee and visitor traffic in conventional
vehicles.
c) Given the volume projections discussed above, with the further clarification in
Response a above, significant issues are not anticipated.
d) The Figure 2 "snapshot" indicates an AM peak hour drive-thru lane volume of
24 vehicles per hour (representing the morning "surge" of Starbucks customer
traffic). All of these vehicles would arrive in the drive-thru lane by making a
left turn within the site. That left turn would have an "opposin�" southbound
volume (leaving the "450" parking lot and headed towards 17 Street) of 30
vehicles per hour. On a volume basis alone, we conclude that the potential for
conflict is minimal.
Also from Figure 2, the overall stacking (queuing) capabilities of the drive-
thru lane totals eight vehicles (three to the order board and five vehicles from
the order board to the service window). From prior research of "fast food"
sites, this stacking length provides sufficient storage distance for at least the
85U' percentile confidence level. On that basis, a standing queue as stated in
the comment is unlikely and would certainly not represent a common
condition. It is acknowledged that the available storage at the order board
might be infrequently exceeded, but enough periods of lesser demand would
permit those instantaneous peak demands to clear. Additionally, it has been
observed that queuing at drive-thru lanes tends to be 'self regulating. That is,
arriving customers at the site will evaluate whether it would be faster to enter
the drive-thru, or park their car and walk in. Further, operators like Starbucks
are keenly aware of the experiences at their competition, and are therefore
focused to delivering the best possible service times to their guests, which in
turn translates to managed queue lengths.
For all of the above reasons, standing queues within the confluence area are
expected to be very limited in nature if they occur at all.
e) Please see responses, above.
2161
Mr. Stephen K. Thorp
April 17, 2012
Page 8
Comment No. 3
With the expected traffic generated from the applicant's proposed food service
establishments, which have high traffic volumes, it is likely there will occur a
standstill condition and an inability to maneuver.
Response to Comment No. 3
Based on the site analysis details presented above, which consider the explicit trip -
making potential of the proposed "450" tenancies in the presence of existing/full
occupancy "462" traffic, a "standstill condition" is extremely unlikely. Conversely,
the on-site traffic volume conditions during peak hours are concluded to be within the
operating capabilities of the "450" remodel and enhancement plan.
Comment No. 4
The traffic study does not address the confluence area, which is a critically important
consideration for continuing successful use of each parcel.
Response to Comment No. 4
The prior LLG submittal of March 1 was focused to a demand -supply parking
analysis of the combined "450" and "462" sites. It did not include a traffic
assessment. This letter provides that assessment, with conclusions as stated above.
Comment No. 5
Fire department access and response time is of concern because of the impact of the
confluence area.
Response to Comment No. 5
The confluence area conditions described/presumed above by the commenter were
not validated by the analysis that accompanies this response package. Reasonable
operating conditions are expected on site, and the potential impact on fire department
response times is expected to be negligible.
Comment No. 6
There is also the possibility that a change of use for 462 E. 17th Street will increase
the demand on the ingress -egress easement and confluence area. Whereas 450 E. 17th
Street is considering a more upscale and active use, the use and traffic study should
include parallel improvements to 462 E. 17'h Street.
Response to Comment No. 6
A modest/reasonable increase (to full "462" building occupancy) is anticipated by the
above analysis. We can also conclude that further reasonable increases in traffic
focused to the "462" site could also be possible in conjunction with the pending
Mr. Stephen K. Thorp
April 17, 2012
Page 9
"450" improvement plan, but in the absence of further "462" site plan details,
analysis of an intensification and/or change of use on the "462" site is not possible.
It is noted, however, that existing observed site parking needs for "462" peak at 28
spaces. Parking supply available to "462" includes its own lot of 29 spaces plus 3
"easement" spaces at "450", for a total supply of 32 spaces. Expanding the current
peak observed demand of 28 spaces by an assumed factor of 10% to account for full
building occupancy infers a need of 31 spaces, for a theoretical surplus of 1 space.
Comment No. 7
There is the possibility that the standstill condition will cause cars and delivery trucks
to wait on 17th Street until space occurs for ingress.
Response to Comment No. 7
From the above analysis, we conclude that the indicated scenario is extremely
unlikely. Again, the traffic forecasting and analysis presented above leads us to
conclude that the traff. is generating potential of the combined "450"/"462" site would
be reasonably well served by the proposed, traffic and parking changes reflected in the
pending "450" site plan.
We appreciate the opportunity to prepare this supplemental traffic analysis and
response package for your "450" site. Should you have any questions or need
additional assistance, please do not hesitate to call us at (714) 641-1587.
Very truly yours,
Linscott, Law & Greenspan, Engineers
Paul W. nson, P.E.
Principal
Attachments
cc: file
N?
TABLE
TRIP GENERATION CHARACTERISTICS'
ITE Land Use Code /
AM Peak Hour
PM Peak Hour
Enter
Exit
Total
Enter
Exit
Total
Project Description
Generation Factors.
• 814: Specialty Retail Center
0.61
0.39
1.00 2
1,19
1.52
2.71
(TE/1,000 SF)
• 911: Walk-in Bank
-_
5.34
6.79
12.13
(TE/1,000 SF)
• 912: Drive-in Bank
6.92
5.43
12.35
12.91
12.91
25.82
(TE/1,000 SF)
• 932: High Turnover Restaurant
5.99
5.53
11.52
6.58
4.57
11.15
(TE/1,000 SF)
0 Starbucks3
34.62
34.61
69.23
15.39
15.38
30.77
(TE/1,000 SF)
Generation Forecast.-
orecast.450
450E. 17'h Street (Site)
o Existing (Vacant)
0
0
0
0
0
0
o Existing/Reoccupied Financial (4,619 SF)
32
25
57
60
59
119
Proposed
o Coffee/Starbucks (2,356 SF)
82
81
163
36
36
72
o Quick Service Food (2,185 SF)
13
12'
25
14
10
24
Proposed Subtotal.
95
93
188
SD
46
96
462 E. 17`h Street (Neighbor)
o Existing (Counted)
25
1
26
17
18
35
o Existing (Full Occupancy) °
28
1
29
19
20
39
Benchmark
o Specialty Retail (7,000 SF)
4
3 •
7
8
11
19
o Financial (7,000 SF)
--
--
--
37
48
85
Notes:
TE/1,000 SF = Trip ends per I,000 square foot of development
Source: Trip Generation, 8'" Edition, Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE), Washington, D.C. (2008).
' AM trip rates are from ITE: 820 Shopping Center.
3 Source: Trip Generation Studyfor the Proposed Starbucks at a Street/Pacific Coast Highway prepared by LLG (2000).
4 The floor area vacancy was estimated to be 10%, so existing counts have been increased by 10% to reflect a full occupancy condition.
13
SOURCE: GOOGLE EARTH
PHOTO , LINSCOTT COUNT DATE: DATE.
TU TUESDAY/, 41/10/12 FIGURE 1
KEY
GREENSPAN = PHOTO LOCATION EXIST
No SCALE ING TRAFFIC VOLUMESAND PARKING DEMAND
450 AND 462 EAST 17TH STREET, COSTA MESA
lq�
3
.r
t •.. SITE:
450 EAST
17TH STREET
3
"NEIGHBOR":
452 EAST
17TH STREET
f''
illi
e.
EXISTING SITE TRAFFIC SUMMARY
0
N
"SHARED DRIVEWAY"
N
INBOUND MOVEMENT OUTBOUND MOVEMENT
"IV
N
TIME
A
B DWY c D
DWY
2—WAY
W
DEAY
R
SUBTOTAL
SUBTOTAL
TOTAL
(MOVEMENT
E)
N
7AM—BAM
3
3 5 0 0
0
6
0
0
8AM-9AM
5
13 21 0 1
1
22
1
a
0
AM PEAK
11
14 25 0 0
0
25
1
HOUR
m
3PM-4PM
3
13 15 3 11
14
30
1
a
4PM-5PM
0
5 5 2 13
15
21
0
I
N
5PM-6PM
2
3 5 2 11
13
18
2
1.7
a
P K
3
14 17 3 14
17
34
1
0
HOUR
v
e
a
U
EXISTING PARKING
SUMMARY
SITE (450)
NEIGHBOR (_462)
PARKING
TIME
PARKING
PARKING
TOTAL
(SUPPLY = 30)
(SUPPLY = 29)
(SUPPLY = 59)
"
7AM
3
0
3
°
SAM
6
3
9
9AM
13
15
28
0
a
3PM
8
19
27
4PM
7
21
2B
N
N
N
0
0
N
5PM
5
14
19
6PM
3
6
9
N
SOURCE: GOOGLE EARTH
PHOTO , LINSCOTT COUNT DATE: DATE.
TU TUESDAY/, 41/10/12 FIGURE 1
KEY
GREENSPAN = PHOTO LOCATION EXIST
No SCALE ING TRAFFIC VOLUMESAND PARKING DEMAND
450 AND 462 EAST 17TH STREET, COSTA MESA
lq�
1 \�
C\2 E-
C:) LLI
W
v� Q
z o
r�•`,
v
H
wLLI
w
ou)
o�
L)U)
Q
W
(N
�!
E-+
D
p
rmq Q
Q
V
Z
O
F
=
�V)
d
O
ILF-
LLJ
z
'fO
ICY
O
C�
Y d
U
m
�
�
Q
u
u
.q
X
'I
.N«.;,
I
•
i
f;.
�I I
I
I
A
!Kill
�.
_
nl®
"r �,:
E[ 1,77i
..
Well
C roFrtij
f
i'�yl ;tl�fK ul '.
`�, si'+y"a.7e
kn �.i.. .:
..a."av e"#i"'i/I.S�• i�r..n.a� h ."'^� -�".�
tial ;�t: rY
f
1 \�
C\2 E-
J
Q
U
N
C:) LLI
W
v� Q
z o
r�•`,
v
H
wLLI
w
ou)
o�
L)U)
Q
W
(N
�!
E-+
D
p
rmq Q
Q
V
Z
O
F
=
�V)
d
O
ILF-
LLJ
z
'fO
ICY
O
C�
Y d
U
m
�
�
Q
u
u
X
J
Q
U
N
4
Y ;
i
r
•
r�
l
•
. .
A.4 M
Af sovobdW azoo'
FiPA RCE -1. I
1 �� JVSU�L7�CXa`Y!�0 ipas.
all
D! =m OF
sV�
w
jj
fow
00 40-00
tv 50-002;0-w lza,.CX7
W6M4 FARGOSANK
PTAt 6P A.af 483
ALJG.5,IW 5ob-00L-00. W-12150
1,50
Exhibit 5
Source: Walker.
16►
�u•
Exhibit 6
Source: Walker Appeal
,A
y
.l ..
16►
�u•
Exhibit 6
Source: Walker Appeal