HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC RES 3685RESOLUTION NO. 3685
]3
14
]8
20
23
24
26
2?
28
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF
THE CITY OF TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA, DENYING
APPEAL OF USE DETERMINATION 99-002
DETERMINING THAT AGRICULTURAL USES
PROHIBITED WITHIN THE REGIONAL CENTER
OFFICE CENTER LAND USE DESIGNATIONS IN
PACIFIC CENTER EAST SPECIFIC PLAN.
THE
AND
ARE
AND
THE
The Planning Commission of the City of Tustin does hereby resolve as
follows:
The Planning Commission finds and determines as follows:
Ao
That a proper application, Use Determination 99-002, was
filed on June 15, 1999 by AAE Pacific Park Associates, LLC,
requesting authorization to establish agricultural operations
on vacant properties located to the northeast of the
intersection of the SR-55 Freeway and Valencia Avenue and
more specifically identified as Assessor Parcel Numbers
430-251-01, 02, and 03 and 430-251-06, 07, 08, 09, and 10.
Bo
That the subject properties are located within the "Regional
Center" and "Office Center" land use planning areas of the
Pacific Center East Specific Plan.
Co
That agricultural uses are not listed' as permitted or
conditionally permitted uses in the "Regional Center" or
"Office Center" land use planning areas of the Pacific Center
East Specific Plan (PCESP Sections 4.3(E) and 4.4(E)).
Do
That pursuant to Section 4.3(E) and 4.4(E) of the Pacific
Center East Specific Plan, the Director of Community
Development is authorized to determine whether unlisted
uses are permitted, conditionally permitted, or prohibited.
Eo
That pursuant to Section 4.3(E) and 4.4(E) of the Pacific
Center East Specific Plan, the appellant filed an application
for Use Determination 99-002 on June 15, 1999. The
Director of Community Development determined on June 24,
1999, that agricultural uses were prohibited within the Pacific
Center East Specific Plan.
Fo
That pursuant to Section 4.3(E) and 4.4(E) of the Pacific
Center East Specific Plan, Orange County Produce filed an
appeal of the Director's decision on July 1, 1999.
]4
20
23
:24
Resolution No. 3685
Page 2
Go
That a decision to deny the establishment of agricultural
operations at the subject site can be supported by the
following findings:
1)
Establishment of agricultural operations is inconsistent
with General Plan Land Use Element Goals and
Policies which state, "The future image of the Pacific
Center East area will consist of a more intensive and
integrated business park environment. The area's
distinct location adjacent to SR-55 creates a significant
opportunity to capitalize on its freeway orientation to
achieve regional recognition."
2)
Establishment of agricultural operations is inconsistent
with the overall concept for the Pacific Center East
Specific Plan is to provide a planned community
development which encourages a variety of office,
commercial, regional and technology uses within an
integrated environment (PCESP Sections 3.1 and 3.2).
3)
Establishment of agricultural operations is inconsistent
with the overall intent of the Pacific Center East
Specific Plan "Regional Center" and "Office Center"
land use designations which encourage a variety of
office and commercial uses (PCESP Sections 4.3.A
and 4.4.A).
4)
Although the appellant indicated that operations could
occur on a four to six month cycle, on-going operations
could act to preclude development. Further, a series of
four to six month operational cycles would become an
establishment of a permanent use that is inconsistent
with the overall intent of the Pacific Center East
Specific Plan. Further, establishment of a permanent
use would be defined as a "project" under California
Public Resources Code Section 21065 and be subject
to the development standards and prerequisites
contained within the Specific Plan.
5)
The proposed use is not compatible with permitted
office and commercial uses. The presence of
agricultural operations in close proximity to highly
developed areas and major infrastructure (SR-55
Freeway) would have a negative impact and could be
disruptive in terms of dust and odors. Further,
agricultural operations could lead to the introduction of
chemicals to the soil which is difficult to monitor and
mitigate and could require future soil remediation
procedures prior to future development occurring.
l0
14
20
22
24
25
Resolution No. 3685
Page 3
6)
Denial of the Use Determination will not prevent the
property owner from developing the site with any of the
uses permitted by the Specific Plan.
7)
The Use Determination process is intended to provide
a mechanism for permitting uses that are similar to
permitted or conditionally permitted uses in the Specific
Plan. As noted above, agricultural operations are not
consistent with, and dissimilar to, the permitted office
and commercial uses and are not appropriate in the
context of the Pacific Center East Specific Plan.
H,
That projects that are denied are statutorily exempt from the
requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act
(CEQA), pursuant to Section 15270 of the State CEQA
Guidelines.
II.
The Planning Commission hereby denies the appeal of Use
Determination 99-002 and determines that agricultural uses are
prohibited uses in the "Regional Center" and "Office Center" land
use planning areas of the Pacific Center East Specific Plan.
PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Tustin Planning
Commission, held on the 9th day of August, 1999.
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. 3685 was duly passed and adopted at a regular meeting of
the Tustin Planning Commission, held on the 9th day of August, 1999.
Planning Commission Secretary