The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutPC RES 4099RESOLUTION NO. 4099 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN, APPROVING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 07-023 AUTHORIZING THE ESTABLISHMENT OF AN OUTDOOR RECREATIONAL VEHICLE STORAGE WITHIN THE PARKING AREA OF THE I-5 SELF STORAGE FACILITY AT 2631 MICHELLE DRIVE The Planning Commission does hereby resolve as follows: The Planning Commission finds and determines as follows: A. A proper application for Conditional Use Permit 07-023 was filed by Claudine Martin and Jordan Architects on behalf of I-5 Self Storage, LLC., requesting authorization to establish an outdoor recreational vehicle storage within the parking area of the I-5 Self Storage Facility at 2631 Michelle Drive. B. The project site is located within the Planned Community Commercial/Business General Plan land use designation, Planned Community Industrial (PC-IND) zoning district, and is subject to the Irvine Industrial Complex Planned Community District regulations. C. The Planned Community Commercial/Business General Plan land use designation and the Planned Community Industrial zoning designation allow for a variety of retail and service commercial, offices, and industrial land uses. In addition, the project has been reviewed for consistency with the Air Quality Sub-element of the City of Tustin General Plan and has been determined to be consistent with the Air Quality Sub-element. D. Section VI.C.14 of the Irvine Industrial Complex Planned Community District Regulations adopted through Ordinance No. 1278 allows the establishment of an outdoor recreational vehicle storage facility with the approval of a conditional use permit. E. A public hearing was duly called, noticed, and held for Conditional Use Permit 07-023 on August 26, 2008, by the Planning Commission. F. The establishment, maintenance, and operation of the proposed use will not, under the circumstances of this case, be detrimental to the health, safety, morals, comfort, or general welfare of the persons residing or working in the neighborhood of such proposed use, nor be injurious or detrimental to the property and improvements in the neighborhood of the subject property, or to the general welfare of the City of Tustin in that: Resolution No. 4099 Page 2 1) Ordinance No. 1278 adopted on July 21, 2003, allows outdoor RV storage as a conditionally permitted use to the Irvine Industrial Complex Planned Community District Regulations and established development standards for such a use. 2) The proposed project is in compliance with all development standards related to outdoor RV storage in the Irvine Industrial Planned Community District in that the RV storage area is accessory to the main self storage use; is located on the rear half of the lot; does not cover more than twenty-five (25) percent of the total lot area; is screened from public view on all sides; does not encroach into required parking spaces; does not block any exits or entrances from any building; the RVs will not be sold, serviced or maintained on-site or inhabited while being stored; and no septic dumping station will be established. 3) The operational characteristics and features of the facility are appropriate for the location in that the proposal to add outdoor RV storage to a self storage facility in an industrial area is compatible with the surrounding uses and consistent with the Irvine Industrial Complex Planned Community District Regulations. 4) There is adequate parking provided on-site to accommodate the proposed use in addition to the existing use. 5) The Engineering Division has reviewed the proposal and has concluded that there will be no adverse traffic impacts, and there is sufficient street capacity to support the proposed use. G. An initial study checklist attached hereto as Exhibit A was completed and found that no substantial change has occurred and no new information has surfaced since the previous analysis. Pursuant to Section 15162(a) of the CEQA Guidelines, no further environmental analysis is required. II. The Planning Commission hereby approves Conditional Use Permit 07- 023 authorizing the establishment of an outdoor recreational vehicle storage facility within the parking lot of the I-5 Self Storage Facility at 2631 Michelle Drive subject to conditions attached hereto as Exhibit B. Resolution No. 4099 Page 3 PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Planning Commission of the City of Tustin, at a regular meeting on the 26th day of August, 2008. C CHARLES E. PUCKETT Chairperson Pro Tem -'~ ,~' ELIZABETH A. BINSACK Planning Commission Secretary STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF ORANGE ) CITY OF TUSTIN ) I, Elizabeth A. Binsack, the undersigned, hereby certify that I am the Planning Commission Secretary of the City of Tustin, California; that Resolution No. 4099 was duly passed and ado~ted at a regular meeting of the Tustin Planning Commission, held on the 26t day of August, 2008. --~ _ ELIZABETH A. BINSACK Planning Commission Secretary EXHIBIT A TO RESOLUTION NO. 4099 INITIAL CHECK LIST TUSTII`~! ~~,.,, ,. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT 300 Centennial Way, Tustin, CA 92780 (714) 573-3100 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS CHECKLIST For Projects With Previously Certified/Approved Environmental Documents: Negative Declaration for Adding Outdoor Recreational Vehicle (RV) Storage as a Conditionally Permitted Use in the Irvine Industrial Complez This checklist and the following evaluation of environmental impacts takes into consideration the preparation of an environmental document prepared at an earlier stage of the proposed project. The checklist and evaluation evaluate the adequacy of the earlier document pursuant to Section 15162(a) of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines. A. BACKGROUND Project Title(s): Conditional Use Permit (CUP) 07-023 Lead Agency: City of Tustin, 300 Centennial Way, Tustin, California 92780 Lead Agency Contact Person: Cari Meyer Phone: (714) 573-3354 Project Location: 2631 Michelle Drive, Tustin, CA 92780 Project Sponsor's Name and Address: I-5 Self Storage, LLC 620 Newport Center Drive, 11 th Floor Newport Beach, CA 92660 General Plan Designation: Planned Community Commercial/Business Zoning Designation: Planned Community Industrial Project Description: Request to allow outdoor recreational vehicle storage at the I-5 Self Storage Facility Surrounding Uses: North: Interstate 5 Freeway South: Offices East: Schick/Allied Moving Warehouse West: Apria Healthcare Office/Warehouse Previous Environmental Documentation: Negative Declaration for Zone Change 03-004 and Conditional Use Permit 03-008 certified by the Tustin City Council on July 7, 2003. B. ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED '€ The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least ors impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact" as indicated by the checklist in Section D below. ^Land Use and Planning ^Population and Housing ^Geology and Soils ^Hydrology and Water Quality ^Air Quality ^Transportation & Circulation ^Biological Resources ^Mineral Resources ^Agricultural Resources ^Hazards and Hazardous Materials ^Noise ^Public Services ^Utilities and Service Systems ^Aesthetics ^Cultural Resources ^Recreation ^Mandatory Findings of Significance C. DETERMINATION: On the basis of this initial evaluation: ^ I fmd that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. ^ I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there wi?' not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described on an attached sheep have been added to the project. A NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. - ^ I fmd that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. ^ I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect(s) on the environment, but at least one effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets, if the effect is a "Potentially Significant Impact" or "Potentially Significant Unless Mitigated." An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. ^ I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there WILL NOT be a significant effect in this case because all potentially significant effects 1) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR pursuant to applicable standards, and 2) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project. ® I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there WILL NOT be a significant effect in this case because all potentially significant effects 1) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and 2) hav~j been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions o mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project. Preparers ~~lN ~`' Cari Meyer, Assistant anner Elizabeth A. Binsack, Community Development Director D. EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS Date: g ~ `~ ' ~ Date 6''• ~/• d8' See Attached EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS I. AESTHETICS -Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings? d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? II. AGRICULTURE RESOURCES: In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1997) prepared by the California Dept. of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. Would the project: a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Fannland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non- agricultural use? b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? c) Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use? III. AIR QUALITY: Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations. Would the project: a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation? c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non- attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people? No Substantial New More Change From Significant Severe Previous Impact Impacts Analysis ^ ^ o a ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ a o ^ ^ ^ ^ IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES: -Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? V. CULTURAL RESOURCES: -Would the project: a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in § 15064.5? b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to § 15064.5? c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries? VI. GEOLOGY AND SOILS: -Would the project: a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: No Substantial New More Change From Significant Severe Previous Impact Impacts Analysis ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ No Substantial New More Change From Significant Severe Previous Impact Impacts Analysis i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42. ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? iv) Landslides? b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse? d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks to life or property? e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water? ^ ^ a o ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ 0 0 ^ ^ ^ ^ VILHAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS: Would the project: a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? a a a o ^ ^ ^ ^ a ^ ^ ^ No Substantial New More Change From g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an Significant Severe Previous Impact Impacts Analysis adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized azeas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? VIII. HYDROLOGY AND WATER OUALITY• -Would the project: a) Violate any water quality standards or waste dischazge requirements? b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (e.g., the production rate of pre- existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)? ~ ~ c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site? ~ d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off-site? e) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoffl f) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? g) Place housing within a 100-yeaz flood hazazd area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazazd delineation map? h) Place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures which would impede or redirect flood flows? i) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam? ~ ~ i j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? E ~ ~ IX. LAND USE AND PLANNING -Would the project: a) Physically divide an established community? ~ ~ b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan? X. MINERAL RESOURCES -Would the project: a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state? b) Result in the loss of availability of alocally-important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan? XI. NOISE - Would the project result in: a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels? c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excess noise levels? XII.POPULATION AND HOUSING - Would the project: a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? No Substantial New More Change From Significant Severe Previous Impact Impacts Analysis ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ a ^ ^ No Substantial New More Change From p Sign cant Severe Previous # _ Impact Impacts Anal sis c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? XIIL PUBLIC SERVICES a) Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services: Fire protection? Police protection? Schools? Parks? Other public facilities? XIV. RECREATION - a) Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ a a ^ ^ XV. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC -Would the project: a) Cause an increase in traffic which is substantial in relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system (i.e. result in a substantial increase in either the number of vehicle trips, the volume to capacity ratio on roads, or congestion at intersections)? b) Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of service standard established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks? '_ d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g. f sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? e) Result in inadequate emergency access? f) Result in inadequate parking capacity? o a o a No Substantial New More Change From Significant Severe Previous Impact Impacts Analysis g) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? XVI. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS - Would the project: a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? b) Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? c) Require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed? e) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project's projected demand in addition to the provider's existing commitments? fj Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs? g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste? XVII. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE a} Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate unportant examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? b) Dces the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects)? c) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ a o ^ ^ ^ ^ EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 07-023 I-5 SELF STORAGE OUTDOOR RV STORAGE 2631 MICHELLE AVENUE, TUSTIN BACKGROUND The property is located within the Irvine Industrial Complex Planned Community District and is surrounded by the I-5 freeway to the north, a SchicklAllied moving warehouse to the east, a newly remodeled office building to the south, and an Apria Healthcare office/warehouse to the west. The site is improved with five (5) interconnected buildings and one (1) stand-alone building currently being developed for use as a self storage facility, and one (1) stand alone building currently being developed for use as a self storage and an office, for a total of seven (7) buildings. The conversion and construction of these buildings to accommodate a self storage use was approved under Design Review (DR) OS-014 on January 19, 2006. The proposed project is to add outdoor recreational vehicle (RV) storage to the existing self storage facility. The project is being considered through Conditional Use Permit (CUP) 07-023. Outdoor RV storage was added to the Irvine Industrial Complex Planned Community District Regulations as a conditionally permitted use in 2003 through the adoption of Ordinance 1278 for Zone Change 03-004. An analysis of environmental impacts due to the zone change and a proposed outdoor RV storage project was completed and a negative declaration was prepared and certified by the City Council on July 7, 2003, by Resolution 03-89. In addition, a mitigated negative declaration was prepared in conjunction with DR OS-014, finding that with the mitigation measures, the self storage facility would not have a significant effect on the environment. The proposal to add outdoor RV storage to the self storage facility at 2631 Michelle Drive is defined to be a "project" under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Section 21065. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines, Section 15162(a), no new environmental documentation is required unless there are substantial changes from the previous negative declaration. This analysis is required to ensure that all potential impacts identified by the previous negative declaration are addressed and there is no substantial change in impacts since the previous environmental analysis. The following evaluation provides background support for the conclusions identified in the Initial Study Checklist. The proposed project is in compliance with the standards established by the Irvine Industrial Complex Planned Community District Regulations in regards to outdoor RV storage. The RV storage will be accessory to the primary self storage facility, located on the rear half of the lot, not covering more than 25% of the total lot area, and screened from public view on all sides. In addition, the storage area will not encroach into any required parking spaces or landscaped area and will not obstruct any required building entrance or exit. The project will be conditioned so that sale, service, and maintenance of RVs will not be permitted, septic dumping stations will not be established on site, and no RV will be inhabited while being stored. Evaluation of Environmental Impacts CLIP 07-023 (RV Storage) Page 2 I. AESTHETICS Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings? d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare, which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? Items a, b c & d - No Substantial Change From Previous Analysis: The proposed outdoor RV storage will not involve the creation of any significant aesthetic impacts. The previous environmental analysis determined that any potential impacts related to the appearance of new outdoor RV storage uses were reduced to a level of insignificance through the development standards adopted for outdoor RV storage and would be enforced through the conditional use permit process. These standards include: • Outdoor RV storage would be accessory to a primary self-storage facility use; • The RV storage area would be located on the rear half of a lot and on a corner lot, the storage area would be located in the least visible area from a private or public roadway on the rear half of the lot; ~ • The RV storage area would not cover more than twenty-five (25) percent of the lot area; • The RV storage area would be screened on all sides with an effective combination of solid walls, solid gates, and dense landscaping; and, • The RV storage area would not encroach into required parking spaces or landscape areas. The proposed establishment of outdoor RV storage at 2631 Michelle Drive complies with all of these development standards. The site is being developed as aself-storage facility and is surrounded by industrial development. The introduction of outdoor RV storage will not affect any scenic vistas or scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway, nor will it substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings. No additional lighting is proposed as a part of this project. No impacts beyond those previously identified in the negative declaration are anticipated. No substantial change is expected from the previously completed analysis. The previous environmental analysis did not require any additional mitigation or monitoring. No new mitigation is required for this project. Mitigation/Monitoring Required: None Required Evaluation of Environmental Impacts CUP 07-023 (RV Storage) Page 3 Sources: Submitted Plans Site observation Tustin City Code Negative Declaration for ZC 03-004 & CUP 03-008 (Resolution 03-89) II. AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES Would the project: a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use? b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? c) Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use? Items a, b & c - No Substantial Chance From_Previous Analvsis: The proposed outdoor RV storage will not affect any agricultural resources. At the time the zone change was adopted, the Irvine Industrial Complex was an urban, developed area, where no farmland existed. These conditions have remained the same; the project site is in an urban, developed area, and is developed with aself-storage facility. This CUP will not have an impact on any farmland or conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, an existing Williamson Act contract, or result in conversion of farmland to non-agricultural use. No substantial change is expected from the previously completed analysis. The previous environmental analysis did not require any mitigation or monitoring. No new mitigation is required for this project. Mitigation Measures/Monitoring Required: None Required Sources: Tustin General Plan Field Inspection Submitted Plans Tustin City Code Negative Declaration for ZC 03-004 & CUP 03-008 (Resolution 03-89) III. AIIZ QUALITY Would the project: a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation? Evaluation of Environmental Impacts CUP 07-023 (RV Storage) Page 4 c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions that exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people? Items a, b, c. d. & e - No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis: The proposed outdoor RV storage will not involve any significant impacts to air quality. The previous environmental analysis determined that allowing outdoor RV storage to be added to the Irvine Industrial Complex as a conditionally permitted use did not conflict with or obstruct implementation of any applicable air plan, violate any air quality standard, result in a cumulatively considerable increase of any criteria pollutant as applicable by federal or ambient air quality standards, nor would it expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations, or create objectionable odor affecting a substantial number of people. It was assumed that outdoor RV storage area would likely be in an area proposed for, or used as, a parking lot, that RVs would be parked for long periods of time, and the vehicles would be operational for significantly less time than passenger vehicles in a parking lot. The proposed project is consistent with these assumptions. In addition, development standards limit the use to storage only, on no more than twenty-five (25) percent of the lot area, limiting the total number of vehicles to be stored. The proposed project does not include any new structures and would be located in an area that is currently approved for and being developed as passenger vehicle parking. The only change would be in the layout of the parking lot. Therefore no impacts from construction or construction dust are anticipated. Since the proposed project complies with all development standards adopted for outdoor RV storage within the Irvine Industrial Complex, no impacts beyond those previously identified in the negative declaration are anticipated and no substantial change is expected from the previously completed analysis. The previous environmental analysis did not require any additional mitigation or monitoring. No new mitigation is required for this project. Mitigation Measures/Monitoring Required: None Required Sources: Project Application Field Inspection General Plan Tustin City Code Negative Declaration for ZC 03-004 & CUP 03-008 (Resolution 03-89) Evaluation of Environmental Impacts CUP 07-023 (RV Storage) Page 5 IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional or state habitat conservation plan? Items a, b, c, d, e, & f - No Substantial Change From. Previous Analysis: The proposed outdoor RV storage will not impact any biological resources. The Irvine Industrial Complex is an urban, developed area, and the project site is developed with aself- storage facility. No unique, rare, or endangered species of plant or animal life identified in local or regional plans, policies or regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service are known to exist in the area addressed by the Irvine Industrial Complex District Regulations or on the project site at 2631 Michelle Drive. No substantial change is expected from the previously completed analysis. The previous environmental analysis did not require any additional mitigation or monitoring. No new mitigation is required for this project. Mitigation Measures/Monitoring Required: None Required Sources: Field Inspection Submitted Plans Tustin City Code Negative Declaration for ZC 03-004 & CUP 03-008 (Resolution 03-89) Evaluation of Environmental Impacts CUP 07-023 (RV Storage) Page 6 V. CULTURAL RESOURCES Would the project: a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in §15064.5? b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to § 15064.5? c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries? Items a, b, c, & d - No Substantial Change From Previous. Anal The proposed outdoor RV storage will not impact any cultural resources. The Irvine Industrial Complex is an urban area that has developed and the project site is being developed as aself-storage facility. No historical, archaeological, or paleontological resources are known to exist in the Irvine Industrial Complex or the project site at 2631 Michelle Drive. The proposed project does not involve any grading or soil excavation that might disturb unknown artifacts. No substantial change is expected from the previously completed analysis. The previous environmental analysis did not require any additional mitigation or monitoring. No new mitigation is required for this project. Mitigation Measures/Monitoring Required: None Required Sources: Submitted Plans Tustin Zoning Code Tustin City Code Tustin General Plan Tustin Historical Resources Survey Report Negative Declaration for ZC 03-004 & CUP 03-008 (Resolution 03-89) VI. GEOLOGY AND SOILS a. Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: i. Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning map, issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42. ii. Strong seismic ground shaking? iii. Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? Evaluation of Environmental Impacts CUP 07-023 (RV Storage) Page 7 iv. Landslides? b. Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? c. Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse? d. Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks to life or property? e. Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater? Items a, b, c, d, & e - No Substantial Chance From Previous Analysis: The proposed outdoor RV storage will not significantly impact geology and soils. While the Irvine Industrial Complex is not located in an area shown on the Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map, the area is known to be located on expansive soils, which have the potential to subject people or structures to strong seismic ground shaking and seismic-related ground failure including liquefaction. While new outdoor RV storage uses generally would not require the construction of new structures, the previous negative declaration determined that any potential impacts related to geology and soils could be considered on a case-by-case basis through the conditional use permit process and would likely be reduced to a level of insignificance through compliance with code provisions. The proposed project at 2631 Michelle Drive does not include any new structures and would be located in an area that is currently approved for and being developed as passenger vehicle parking. The storage area would not be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, and would not result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, or collapse. No impacts beyond those previously identified in the negative declaration are anticipated. No substantial change is expected from the previously completed analysis. The previous environmental analysis did not require any additional mitigation or monitoring. No new mitigation is required for this project. Mitigation Measures/Monitoring Required: None Required Sources: Tustin General Plan Tustin City Code 2007 California Building Code Project Application Field Evaluation Negative Declaration for ZC 03-004 & CUP 03-008 (Resolution 03-89) Negative Declaration for Design Review OS-014 Evaluation of Environmental Impacts CUP 07-023 (RV Storage) Page 8 VII. HAZARDS AND HA7ARnOUS MATERIALS Would the project: a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use or disposal of hazardous materials? b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonable foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to .the public or the environment? e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles or a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? Items a, b c d e f ~ & h - No Substantial Change From Previous Analysis: The proposed outdoor RV storage will not involve the creation of a hazard or hazardous materials. At the time of the previous environmental analysis, allowing outdoor RV storage in the Irvine Industrial Complex was not anticipated to involve the storage, use, or transport of hazardous materials or wastes. It was determined that any potential impacts related to hazards or hazardous materials could be considered on a case-by-case basis through the conditional use permit process and would likely be reduced to a level of insignificance through compliance with code provisions and conditions of approval prohibiting hazardous materials. The area is not located within the vicinity of an airport or an area subject to wildland fires. While the proposed self storage facility would not generate hazards or hazardous materials and does not include any hazardous material storage, the site was once occupied by a manufacturing company which left industrial contamination within subsurface soils. Following the closing of the facility, in 2003, the State Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) informed the City of its final decision on the termination request by Shipley of its Resource Conservation and Recovery Act Hazardous Waste Facility Permit (RCRA Permit). DTSC final decision prohibits any residential uses, hospitals, or school uses without further approval from DTSC, and requires a notice of the presence of Evaluation of Environmental Impacts CUP 07-023 (RV Storage) Page 9 E_ industrial contaminants in subsurface soils be provided to any contractor engaged to perform subsurface work at the site. Since the proposed self storage use does not include a residential unit or manager's quarter, and the outdoor RV storage would be conditioned so that no habitation would be allowed while the vehicles aze being stored, no impact to human habitation is anticipated. The storage azea would not conflict with emergency access to the building or other properties in the vicinity. No impacts beyond those previously identified in the negative declaration are anticipated. No substantial change is expected from the previously completed analysis. The previous environmental analysis did not require any additional mitigation or monitoring. No new mitigation is required for this project. Mitigation Measures/Monitoring Required: None Required.. Sources: 2007 California Building Code Submitted Plans Tustin General Plan Negative Declazation for ZC 03-004 & CUP 03-008 (Resolution 03-89) Negative Declaration for Design Review OS-014 VIII. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY Would the project: a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements? b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge, such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (e.g., the production rate of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)? c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site? d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner, which would result in flooding on- or off-site? e) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned storm water drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? f) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? g) Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood hazard Boundary of Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map? Evaluation of Environmental Impacts CUP 07-023 (RV Storage) Page 10 h) Place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures, which would impede or redirect flood flows? i) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam? j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? Items a, b c d e f g~h: i & ,~- No Substantial Change From Previous Analysis: The proposed outdoor RV storage will not significantly impact hydrology or water quality. While the Irvine Industrial Complex is not located in a flood zone area nor a dam, seiche, tsunami, or mudflow inundation azea, the previous analysis recognized that allowing outdoor RV storage in the Irvine Industrial Complex could result in potential impacts to groundwater or the quality of storm water runoff due to potential oil and gas seepage into the ground or storm drain system. Therefore, development standards were adopted which did not allow for service, maintenance, or septic dumping on site. The previous analysis concluded that any potential impacts related to hydrology and water quality could be considered on a case-by-case basis through the conditional use permit process and would likely be reduced to a level of insignificance through compliance with code provisions, the National Pollution Dischazge Elimination System, and conditions of approval requiring proper containment and dischazge. The proposed project at 2631 Michelle Drive would be located in an area that has been approved and is being developed as part of a self storage parking lot. Since the proposed project will continue to use the site as a parking lot including outdoor storage of recreational vehicles, and using the previously approved buildings and landscaping as screening, there will be no new construction that has the potential to alter the drainage of the site. The site is not located in a flood zone or inundation azea and the project would not substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere with groundwater rechazge. Oil and gas seepage from the storage of recreational vehicles could affect the quality of storm water runoff, however, as required, the site would be permitted to only store vehicles and would not be permitted to service or maintain the vehicles. A Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) was prepazed and approved by the City's Public Works Department when the self storage facility was approved. An amended WQMP, taking the proposed RV storage into account, will be required to be approved by the Public Works Department prior to issuance of any permits related to RV storage or establishment of outdoor RV storage on the project site. Any potential impacts related to water quality will be reduced to a level of insignificance through compliance with existing code provisions and the National Pollution Dischazge Elimination System, requiring proper containment and dischazge. No impacts beyond those previously identified in the negative declazation are anticipated. No substantial change is expected from the previously completed analysis. The previous environmental analysis did not require any additional mitigation or monitoring. No new mitigation is required for this project. Mitigation Measures: None Required. Evaluation of Environmental Impacts CUP 07-023 (RV Storage) Page 1 I ~~~ Sources: Field Verification Submitted Plans Tustin City Code California Seismic Hazard Zone Map, Tustin Quadrangle Federal Insurance Rate Map Negative Declaration for ZC 03-004 & CUP 03-008 (Resolution 03-89) Project WQMP, dated December 20, 2006 IX. LAND USE AND PLANNING Would the project: a) Physically divide an established community? b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan? Items a, b & c - No Substantial Change From Previous Aalysis• The proposed outdoor RV storage will not directly cause land use and planning impacts. The previous environmental analysis determined that adding outdoor RV storage as a conditionally permitted use is consistent with the "Planned Community CommerciaUBusiness" General Plan land use designation for the Irvine Industrial Complex, which provides for a variety of commercial and industrial uses. In general, storage facilities are consistent with uses in the CominerciaUBusiness land use designation in that they aze a service-oriented activity serving a community wide area. It was determined that potential land use impacts of new outdoor RV storage facilities could be addressed through the conditional use permit process and any potential impacts can be reduced to a level of insignificance through compliance with the development standards and the imposition of conditions of approval. The proposed project at 2631 Michelle Drive would be located in an azea with similaz uses, and would comply with the General Plan Land Use designation and Irvine Industrial Complex regulations. The facility would be located on a developed property, in an azea currently approved for and being developed as vehicle parking. The project will not physically divide an established community or conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan. No substantial change is expected from the previously completed analysis. The previous environmental analysis did not require any additional mitigation or monitoring. No new mitigation is required for this project. Mitigation Measures: None Required. Evaluation of Environmental Impacts CUP 07-023 (RV Storage) Page 12 Sources: Submitted Plans Tustin City Code Tustin General Plan Tustin Zoning Map Negative Declaration for ZC 03-004 & CUP 03-008 (Resolution 03-89) X. MINERAL RESOURCES Would the project: a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be a value to the region and the residents of the state? b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan? Items a & b - No Substantial Change From Previous Analysis: The proposed outdoor RV storage will not impact any mineral resources. The previous environmental analysis did not anticipate that allowing outdoor RV storage in the Irvine Industrial Complex would result in the loss of a known mineral resource or availability of a locally important mineral resource recovery site delineated on the General Plan or other applicable land use maps. Any potential impacts related to a known mineral resource are considered on a case-by-case basis through the conditional use permit process. The proposed project at 2631 Michelle Drive is currently under development to include buildings totaling 227,139 square feet to be used as self storage, a 2,774 square foot office, a parking lot, and landscaped area. There is no known mineral resource, or availability of a locally important mineral resource recovery site. No substantial change is expected from the previously completed analysis. The previous environmental analysis did not require any additional mitigation or monitoring. No new mitigation is required for this project. Mitigation Measures/Monitoring Required: None Required Sources: Submitted Plans Tustin City Code Tustin General Plan Negative Declaration for ZC 03-004 & CUP 03-008 (Resolution 03-89) Negative Declaration for Design Review OS-014 XI. NOISE a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in ezcess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? Evaluation of Environmental Impacts CUP 07-023 (RV Storage) Page 13 b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive ground borne vibration or ground borne noise levels? c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? Items a, b, c, d, e & f - No Substantial Change From Previous Anal The proposed outdoor RV storage will not involve the creation of any significant noise impacts. The previous environmental analysis concluded that allowing outdoor RV storage as a conditionally permitted use within the Irvine Industrial Complex would not expose persons to noise levels in excess of local standards or permanent ambient noise levels existing without the project. However, it was determined that there is the potential to expose persons to ground borne vibrations and temporary ambient noise above levels existing without the project. Long-term vehicle storage may result in vehicle owners starting stored vehicles and allowing them to idle for longer periods of time compazed to passenger vehicles parked in a pazking lot. However, since all vehicle storage facilities are required to comply with the Tustin Noise Ordinance and are required to occur on the rear of the lot, adequately screened, and not permitted to conduct vehicle servicing or maintenance, no significant increase in ambient noise levels were anticipated. New projects are considered on a case-by-case basis for potential noise impacts to the neighboring properties. Any development within the City is subject to the City's noise standards thus reducing any potential impacts to a level of insignificance. The proposed outdoor storage facility at 2631 Michelle Drive includes long-term vehicle storage, which may result in vehicle owners starting stored vehicles and allowing them to idle for longer periods of time compared to passenger vehicles pazked in a parking lot. This could potentially increase the ambient noise level in the vicinity of the project. However, as the storage facility is located on the rear half of the lot, surrounded by other buildings in the same self storage complex, not located in close proximity to any residential uses, in compliance with all development standards established for outdoor RV storage, and in an azea developed with industrial buildings, it is not anticipated to have any negative impacts in the vicinity of the project. No impacts beyond those previously identified in the negative declaration are anticipated. No substantial change is expected from the previously completed analysis. The previous environmental analysis did not require any additional mitigation or monitoring. No new mitigation is required for this project. Evaluation of Environmental Impacts CUP 07-023 (RV Storage) Page 14 Mitigation Measures/Monitoring Required: None Required Sources: Submitted Plans Tustin City Code Tustin General Plan Tustin Zoning Code Negative Declaration for ZC 03-004 & CUP 03-008 (Resolution 03-89) XII. POPULATION & HOUSING Would the project: a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? Items a, b & c - No Substantial Change From Previous Analysis: The proposed outdoor RV storage will not directly cause population and housing impacts, nor induce substantial population growth in the area. The previous environmental analysis determined that allowing outdoor RV storage as a conditionally permitted use within the Irvine Industrial Complex would not be expected to induce substantial population growth in the area. Outdoor RV storage is conditionally permitted only as an accessory use to a self- storage facility, therefore it does not displace existing housing or people resulting in construction of replacement housing elsewhere. The Irvine Industrial Complex is developed with non-residential uses, and the project site is being developed as aself-storage facility. Since the lot has been approved for and is being developed as aself-storage facility and parking facilities, continuing to use the parking areas as vehicle storage would not displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere. No substantial change is expected from the previously completed analysis. The previous environmental analysis did not require any additional mitigation or monitoring. No new mitigation is required for this project. Mitigation MeasuresJMonitoring Required: None Sources: Submitted Plans Tustin City Code Tustin General Plan Negative Declaration for ZC 03-004 & CUP 03-008 (Resolution 03-89) Evaluation of Environmental Impacts CUP 07-023 (RV Storage) Page 15 XIII. PUBLIC SERVICES Would the project: a) Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services: i. Fire Protection? ii. Police Protection? iii. Schools? iv. Parks? v. Other Public Facilities? Item a - No Substantial Chance From Previous Analysis: The proposed outdoor RV storage will not directly cause public services impacts. The Irvine Industrial Complex is an urban, developed area where fire and police protection are currently provided, and the project site is being developed with aself-storage facility. An increase in public services, or demand for an alteration of, or addition to, government facilities or services (i.e. schools, parks, and other public facilities), was not anticipated as a result of adding outdoor RV storage to the Irvine Industrial Complex District Regulations. The proposed project at 2631 Michelle Drive, as it complies with all development standards established by the previous zone change, is not anticipated to change the demand for public services. No substantial change is expected from the previously completed analysis. The previous environmental analysis did not require any additional mitigation or monitoring. No new mitigation is required for this project. Mitigation Measures/Monitoring Required: None Sources: Submitted Plans Tustin City Code Tustin General Plan Negative Declaration for ZC 03-004 & CUP 03-008 (Resolution 03-89) XIV. RECREATION Would the project: a) Would the project increase the use of ezisting neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities, such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities, which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? Evaluation of Environmental Impacts CUP 07-023 (RV Storage) Page 16 Items a & b - No Substantial Change From Previous Analysis: The proposed outdoor RV storage will not directly cause recreation impacts. Since recreational vehicles are intended for long-distance travel, and destination-oriented locations, adding outdoor RV storage as a conditionally permitted use to the Irvine Industrial Complex was not anticipated to increase the use of existing parks or contribute to a substantial deterioration of pazk facilities or include recreational facilities that would have an adverse physical effect on the environment. No parkland dedication was required as a result of the zone change or by the establishment of a conditionally permitted outdoor RV storage facility. The project at 2631 Michelle Drive complies with all development standards established by the zone change and no substantial change is expected from the previously completed analysis. The previous environmental analysis did not require any additional mitigation or monitoring. No new mitigation is required for this project. Mitigation Measures/Monitoring Required: None Required Sources: Submitted Plans Tustin City Code Tustin General Plan Negative Declazation for ZC 03-004 & CUP 03-008 (Resolution 03-89) XV. TRANSPORTATION & CIRCULATION Would the project: a) Cause an increase in traffic, which is substantial in relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system (i.e., result in a substantial increase in either the number of vehicle trips, the volume to capacity ratio on roads, or congestion at intersections)? b) Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of service standard established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks? d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? e) Result in inadequate emergency access? f) Result in inadequate parking capacity? g) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? Evaluation of Environmental Impacts CUP 07-023 (RV Storage) Page 17 Items a, b, c, d, e f & g - No Substantial Chance From. Previous Analvsis: The proposed outdoor RV storage will not directly cause transportation and circulation impacts. The previous environmental analysis determined that, while allowing outdoor RV storage in the Irvine Industrial Complex would not result in a change in air traffic patterns or conflict with adopted policies, plans or programs supporting alternative transportation, it could result in potential impacts to on-site parking since the RVs would possibly be stored within existing parking spaces. The previous analysis determined that any potential impacts related to parking could be considered on a case-by-case basis through the conditional use permit, and would likely be reduced to a level of insignificance through compliance with existing code provisions and as required by the proposed development standards. It was also not anticipated to cause a significant increase in traffic, exceed a level of service standards for designated roads or highways, or result in inadequate emergency access. Based upon the Tustin General Plan Traffic Analysis, the Average Daily Trip (ADT) trip generation rate for light industriaUindustrial parks is 13.00 trips per Thousand Square Feet (TSF); the ADT trip generation rate for a storage use is 2.00 per TSF. No impacts were anticipated related to traffic. The proposed facility at 2631 Michelle Drive would be located in an area that is currently approved for and being developed as a parking lot for a self storage facility. According to the parking standards of the Irvine Industrial Complex, the self storage facility is required to have eighty-eight (88) parking spaces. In addition to the proposed RV parking spaces, ninety-one (91) passenger vehicles parking spaces axe proposed to be provided for customer parking along with seven (7) additional loading spaces. The use is also not anticipated to cause a significant increase in traffic, exceed level of service standards for designated roads or highways, or result in inadequate emergency access. No impacts beyond those previously identified in the negative declaration are anticipated. No substantial change is expected from the previously completed analysis. The previous environmental analysis did not require any additional mitigation or monitoring. No new mitigation is required for this project. Mitigation Measures/Monitoring Required: None Required Sources: Submitted Plans Tustin General Plan Tustin City Code Negative Declaration for ZC 03-004 & CUP 03-008 (Resolution 03-89) XVI. UTILITIES & SERVICE SYSTEMS Would the project: a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? b) Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? Evaluation of Environmental Impacts CUP 07-023 (RV Storage) Page 18 c) Require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed? e) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider, which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project's projected demand in addition to the provider's existing commitments? f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs? g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste? Items a, b c d e f & ~ - No Substantial Change From Previous Analysis: The proposed outdoor RV storage will not significantly impact utilities and service systems. The previous environmental analysis determined that allowing outdoor RV storage in the Irvine Industrial Complex would not permit a use that generates solid waste disposal. As adopted, a septic dumping station would not be permitted to be established on-site, and the use was not anticipated to exceed wastewater treatment requirements, or require new water, wastewater, or storm water drainage facilities. The previous environmental analysis determined that outdoor RV storage facilities could be considered on a case-by-case basis through the conditional use permit process and would likely be reduced to a level of insignificance through compliance with code provisions and conditions of approval. The proposed facility at 2631 Michelle Drive would be located in an area that is currently being developed for passenger vehicle parking for a self storage facility. The proposed use would be primarily the same as the existing use, and is not anticipated to exceed wastewater treatment requirements, or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities, or require the construction of new storm water drainage facilities. As required by the district regulations, no septic dumping stations will be permitted to be established on site, therefore the site is not anticipated to produce a significant amount of solid waste, and would comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations. No impacts beyond those previously identified in the negative declaration are anticipated. No substantial change is expected from the previously completed analysis. The previous environmental analysis did not require any additional mitigation. or monitoring. No new mitigation is required for this project. Mitigation Measures/Monitoring Required: None Required. Sources: Submitted Plans Tustin City Code Tustin General Plan Negative Declaration for ZC 03-004 & CUP 03-008 (Resolution 03-89) Evaluation of Environmental Impacts CUP 07-023 (RV Storage) Page 19 XVII. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important ezamples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects.) c) Does the project have environmental effects,. which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? Items a, b & c - No Substantial Change From Previous Analvsis• Based upon the foregoing, the proposed project does not have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitats or wildlife populations to decrease or threaten, eliminate, or reduce animal ranges, etc. The proposed project does not cause unmitigated environmental effects that will cause substantial effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly. In addition, the proposed project does have air quality impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable when viewed in connection other outdoor RV storage facilities. The previous environmental analysis determined that adding outdoor RV storage to the Irvine Industrial Complex as a conditionally permitted use and conditionally pernutting the use at self storage facilities would comply with the regulations of the Community Development Department, Air Quality Management District, and Orange County Fire Authority, which reduces any potential impacts, related to aesthetics, air quality, biological resources, geology and soils, hydrology and water quality, traffic, and noise to a level of insignificance. The project does not have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment nor achieve short-term environmental goals to the disadvantage of the long- term. It does not have impacts that are individually limited but cumulatively considerable or that would cause substantial adverse impacts on human beings. Sources: Submitted Plans Tustin City Code Tustin General Plan Negative Declaration for ZC 03-004 & CUP 03-008 (Resolution 03-89) EXHIBIT B ~ ~ RESOLUTION NO. 4099 ~ CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 07-023 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL GENERAL (1) 1. 1 The proposed project shall substantially conform with the submitted plans for the project date stamped August 26, 2008, on file with the Community Development Department, as herein modified, or as modified by the Director of Community Development in accordance with this Exhibit. The Community Development Director may also approve subsequent minor modifications to the use if such modifications are consistent with provisions of the Tustin City Code. (1) 1.2 This approval shall become null and void unless the use is established within twelve (12) months of the date of this Exhibit. Time extensions may be granted if a written request is received by the Community Development Department within thirty (30) days prior to expiration. (1) 1. 3 All conditions in this Exhibit shall be complied with, subject to review and approval by the Community Development Director. f (1) 1.4 Conditional Use Permit 07-023 may be reviewed annually or more often, if deemed necessary by the Community Development Department, to ensure compliance with the conditions contained herein. If the use is not operated in accordance with conditions of approval included in Exhibit A of Resolution No. 4099 or is found to be a nuisance or negative impacts are affecting the surrounding tenants or neighborhood, the Community Development Director may impose additional conditions to eliminate the nuisance or negative impacts or may initiate proceedings to revoke the Conditional Use Permit. (1) 1. 5 Approval of Conditional Use Permit 07-023 is contingent upon the property owner signing and returning to the Community Development Department a notarized "Agreement to Conditions Imposed" form and the property owner signing and recording with the County Clerk-Recorder a notarized "Notice of Discretionary Permit Approval and Conditions of Approval" form. The forms shall be established by the Director of Community Development, and evidence of recordation shall be provided to the Community Development Department. SOURCE CODES (1) STANDARD CONDITION (5) RESPONSIBLE AGENCY (2) CEQA MITIGATION REQUIREMENTS (3) CALIFORNIA CODE/S (6) LANDSCAPING GUIDELINES (4) DESIGN REVIEW (7) PC/CC POLICY **'` EXCEPTIONS Exhibit B Resolution 4099 CUP 07-023 Page 2 (1) 1. 6 As a condition of approval of Conditional Use Permit 07-023, the applicant shall agree, at its sole cost and expense, to defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City, its officers, employees, agents, and consultants, from any claim, action, or proceeding brought by a third party against the City, its officers, agents, and employees, which seeks to attack, set aside, challenge, void, or annul an approval of the City Council, the Planning Commission, or any other decision-making body, including staff, concerning this project. The City agrees to promptly notify the applicant of any such claim or action filed against the City and to fully cooperate in the defense of any such action. The City may, at its sole cost and expense, elect to participate in defense of any such action under this condition. (1) 1. 7 Any violation of any of the conditions imposed is subject to the payment of a civil penalty of $100.00 for each violation, or such other amounts as the City Council may establish by ordinance or resolution, and for each day the violation exists, subject to the applicable notice, hearing, and appeal process as established by the Tustin City Code. (1) 1.8 The applicant shall be responsible for costs associated with any necessary code enforcement action, including attorney fees, subject to the applicable notice, hearing, and appeal process as established by the Tustin City Code. USE RESTRICTIONS (1) 2. 1 Only recreational vehicles meeting the definition contained in Section III of the Irvine Industrial Complex Planned Community District Regulations, adopted by Ordinance 1278, shall be authorized to be stored on-site. (1) 2. 2 The RV Storage shall be accessory to the primary self-storage facility. If the primary use ceases, the use of the outdoor recreational vehicle storage shall cease. (1) 2. 3 The RV Storage area shall be located on the rear half of the lot. No RV Storage is permitted to be on the front half of the lot. (1) 2. 4 The RV Storage area shall not cover more than 25 percent of the total lot area. (1) 2. 5 No outdoor storage, other than storage of recreational vehicles, is permitted on the site. (1) 2.6 The RV storage area shall be screened on all sides with an effective combination of solid walls, solid gates, and dense landscaping. (1) 2. 7 The RV storage area shall not encroach into required parking spaces or landscape areas. Exhibit B Resolution 4099 CUP 07-023 Page 3 (1) 2. 8 No vehicle shall be parked or stored in a manner which obstructs access to any door, window, or other entrance to, or exit from, any building. (1) 2. 9 The sale, service, or maintenance of recreational vehicles on-site shall not be permitted. (1) 2. 10 No septic dumping station shall be established on-site. (1) 2. 11 No recreational vehicle shall be inhabited while being stored. BUILDING (1) 3. 1 At the time of building permit application, the plans shall comply with the 2007 California Building Code (CBC), 2007 California Mechanical Code (CMC), 2007 California Plumbing Codes (CPC), 2007 California Electrical Code (CEC), California Title 24 Accessibility Regulations, 2005 Title 24 Energy Regulations, City Ordinances, and State and Federal laws and regulations 2005 Edition. (1) 3. 2 Prior to permit issuance, clearance from the Orange County Fire Authority is required. (1) 3. 3 Prior to issuance of a demolition, precise/rough grading, and/or building permit with a valuation of $50,000 or greater, the applicant shall submit for approval by the City of Tustin, Construction & Demolition (C&D) debris collection, disposal, and diversion information on City approved forms. (1) 3. 4 At least 50 percent of the construction debris shall be diverted from landfill to the recycling plants. A security deposit in the amount of five percent of the project construction valuation for a C&D will be collected prior to issuance of permit. Prior to final inspection, the applicant shall submit to the City of Tustin documents (i.e. receipt from vendor) showing actual weight or volume of each material of C&D diverted to the recycling center (City Ordinance 1281). For any questions or concerns, please contact Joe Meyers, Administrative Services Manager for the Public Works Department at (714) 573-3173. PUBLIC WORKS (1) 4.1 The applicant shall not alter the condition of or construct any improvements or structures within the public right-of-way without the approval of the City's Public Works Department. (1) 4.2 The activities shall not operate in such a manner that would impact any traffic lanes, cause back-up (queuing) of vehicles into the public right-of- way, or create any unsafe conditions. The applicant shall be responsible for any damage to public facilities within the public right-of-way. Exhibit B Resolution 4099 CUP 07-023 Page 4 (1) 4.3 Prior to issuance of any permits, the applicant shall submit for approval, by the Community Development and Public Works Departments, an amendment to the approved Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) to include R.V. storage. (1) 4.4 Prior to submittal of the amended Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP), the applicant shall submit a deposit of $700.00 to the Public Works Department for the estimated cost for reviewing the WQMP. POLICE (1) 5.1 Adequate access per the City of Tustin Police Department and the Orange County Fire Authority regulations shall be permitted at all times. (1) 5.2 Monitoring of the security cameras shall be provided by an off-site security firm while the business is closed. ORANGE COUNTY FIRE AUTHORITY (1) 6.1 All revisions and/or changes to the plans are subject to review and approval by the OCFA. FEES (1) 7.1 Prior to issuance of any permits, payment shall be made of all applicable fees, including but not limited to, the following: • Building and Planning Plan Check and Permit Fees • Orange County Fire Authority Fees (1) 7.2 Within forty-eight (48) hours of approval of the subject project, the applicant shall deliver to the Community Development Department, a cashier's check payable to the COUNTY CLERK in the amount of fifty dollars ($50.00) to enable the City to file the appropriate environmental documentation for the project. If within such forty-eight (48) hour period that applicant has not delivered to the Community Development Department the above-noted check, the statute of limitations for any interested party to challenge the environmental determination under the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act could be significantly lengthened.