The Dana Point Planning Commission on Aug. 25 adopted a resolution approving Conditional Use Permit CUP 25-0004 to allow a shared-parking program at a new FS8 Pilates studio in a four‑suite commercial center near Del Obispo and Stonehill. The permit lets the studio operate in a 3,600-square-foot suite in a center that currently provides 33 parking stalls.

Staff and a transportation consultant told the commission the center contains about 27,000.5 square feet of site area and a 6,600-square-foot multitenant building divided into four inline suites (a dry cleaner, a Subway takeout restaurant, a dentist and the proposed studio). Senior Planner Danny Giamenia said strict application of the city’s code parking standard for a recreational/gym use (one stall per 100 square feet) would require 36 stalls for the studio alone and create a theoretical shortfall relative to the center’s full mix of uses.

The shared-parking analysis used the Urban Land Institute shared-parking methodology and found that peak demand under the proposed operations would be smaller than the strict calculation suggests. The consultant’s weekday peak analysis showed a shortfall of two stalls at the highest weekday peak; the weekend peak showed a shortfall of four stalls. To mitigate those shortfalls, staff and the applicant proposed operational limits: weekday hours roughly 5:30 a.m. to 7 p.m., weekend hours 7 a.m. to noon, class sizes limited to 18 students for the primary reformer-based classes, up to four concurrent recovery‑room customers and two staff (a design occupancy of 24), a 15‑minute turnover buffer between classes, and use of the studio’s online booking system to cap attendance during peak windows. The resolution adopted by the commission includes a condition requiring the studio to restrict class sizes during identified peak periods.

Commissioner Opel asked staff to clarify capacity after the presentation. Senior Planner Danny Giamenia explained that the studio’s 18 reformers set the class size for the group sessions and that the additional four recovery-room customers plus two staff yield the 24-person occupancy figure the plan used. Commissioners also discussed that the parking model assumes automobile travel by each attendee and does not reduce demand to account for walking, cycling, drop-offs or shared vehicle trips.

A commissioner noted that future tenant changes (for example, if Subway or the dentist relocate) could alter the center’s parking profile. Giamenia confirmed that, as with other shared-parking programs, future changes in uses that materially increase parking demand would require review and could be handled administratively by the director or returned to the planning commission if outside the director’s authority.

After brief public hearing (no speakers), a commissioner moved to adopt the resolution approving CUP 25-0004 and another commissioner seconded. The commission voted to approve the permit. The motion passed and the permit was approved by the vote recorded by the commission.

The permit approval includes monitoring and operational conditions intended to keep peak parking demand within the shared-parking model. If parking or circulation problems emerge after occupancy or if leasing changes increase demand, staff indicated the city can require modifications or additional review.