Laserfiche WebLink
OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY <br />OPINION NO. 73-69 <br />December 6, 1973 <br />SUBJECT: Athletic Club Off-street Parking <br />Requirements <br />REQUESTED BY: Planning Department <br />OPINION BY: James A. Withers, City Attorney <br />By Richard E. Lay, Deputy City <br />Attorney <br />QUESTION: Where a nonconforming use of pro- <br />perty is changed to a permitted use <br />and such change involved various <br />structural alterations, including <br />the installation of a roof-top <br />running track and a second interior <br />floor level, does the property be- <br />come subject to the City Code's <br />off-street parking requirements? <br />ANSWER: Yes <br />ANALYSIS <br />a <br />This office has previously written an opinion per- <br />taining to off-street parking requirements and their applica- <br />tion to the subject premises (City Attorney Opinion 73-67) in <br />which the facts are set out. The conclusion was rendered that <br />the premises would appear to fall within the parking require- <br />ments exception of Santa Ana Alunicipal Code Section 41-685 if <br />tie applicant confined his use of the premises to the C-2 <br />portion and did not sell alcoholic beverages. <br />Certain additional facts have now been brought out <br />which compel a modification of this conclusion. The applicant <br />has been granted building permits for the construction of the <br />following: (1) a roof, (2) a foundation and floor, and (3) walls <br />for handball courts. The applicant also intends to construct <br />a second (mezzanine) floor within the existing structure and <br />a running track on the roof_-top. The question thus tx~comes <br />whether such construction has the effect of requiring the ~~~p~~li- <br />cant to bring his premise "up to code," including the off-street-. <br />parking requirements. <br />Relevant code sections read as follows: <br />Sec. 41-681. Adding to, enlarging or structurally <br />altering. <br />152 <br />