Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout01 USE DETER 99-002 09-20-99DATE: Inter- NO. 1 9-20-99 C o rn SEPTEMBER 20, 1999 TO: FROM: SUBJECT: WILLIAM A. HUSTON, CITY MANAGER COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT APPEAL OF USE DETERMINATION 99-002 SUMMARY: Use Determination 99-002 is a request to establish agricultural operations as a permitted use on vacant land within the Office attd Regional Center Land Use Designations of the Pacific Center East Specific Platt. On June 24, 1999 the Community Development Director denied Use Detertnination 99-002, and on August 9, 1999 the Plannhlg Commissiot! upheld the Director's denial of Use Determhlation 99-002. Appellant: A.G. Kawamura, Orattge County Produce Owner: AAE Pacific Park Associates, LLC RECOMMENDATION That the City Council adopt Resolution No. 99-76 denying.the appeal of Use Determination 99-002 and determining that agricultural uses are prohibited within the "Regional Center" and "Office Center" land use designations of the Pacific Center East Specific Plan. BACKGROUND On June 15, 1999, the applicant requested that the Community Development Director approve a request to establish agricultural operations for a two to three year duration with a number of planting and harvesting cycles on undeveloped land at the northeast corner of Valencia Avenue and SR-55 (see Attachment A - Location Map). The area totals approximately thirty-four (34) acres. The property is bounded on the west and north by freeway right-of-way and to the south and east by industrial uses. The property is designated "Regional Center" and "Office Center" by the Pacific Center East Specific Plan (PCESP), which provides for a variety of commercial and office uses. The property is also located within the South Central Redevelopment Agency Project Area. Agricultural Operations are not listed as permitted or conditionally permitted uses within the PCESP. Section 4.3.E and 4.4.E of the Specific Plan state that unlisted uses are subject to a Use Determination by the Community Development Director as permitted, conditionally permitted or prohibited. City Council Report Appeal of UD 99~002 September 20, 1999 Page 2 On June 24, 1999, the Director denied, without prejudice, the request (see Attachment B), determining that agricultural uses were prohibited within the PCESP and established findings in support of the decision, including the following: That an agricultural use in the proposed location is inconsistent with the purpose of the Pacific Center East Specific Plan which is designed to encourage development of necessary support services, facilities, and infrastructure to provide for ultimate build0ut of the area. That establishment of an agricultural use in the proposed location is inconsistent with the "Regional Center" and "Office Center" planning areas in that it does not implement the development concept which encourages a variety of office, commercial, and technology uses. That establishment of an agricultural use in the proposed location is an impediment to the implementation of the Pacific Center East Specific Plan Circulation Plan and conflicts with the dedication of required right-of-way for the extension of Newport AvenUe south of Edinger Avenue, the realignment of Del Amo, and the realignment of the northbound SR-55 on and off-ramps serving Edinger Avenue. That a similar request, Use Determination 98-002, was denied without prejudice on January 13, 1999. No new information has been submitted that would affect the decision on Use Determination 99-002. On July 1, 1999, A.G. Kawamura of Orange County Produce filed an appeal of the Director's determination. The appeal was reviewed by the Planning Commission on August 9, 1999, and the Commission upheld the Director's determination and found agricultural operations are not appropriate within the PCESP (Attachment C - Planning Commission Resolution 3685 and Minutes). DISCUSSION Through appeal of Use Determination 99-002, the applicant is requesting that the City Council make a determination that the establishment of agricultural operations is an appropriate use within the PCESP. In the letter of appeal to the Planning Commission dated July 1, 1999, the appellant cited the following considerations to support the request (see Attachment D): 1. The farming operations could occur on a four to six month timeline. City Council Report Appeal of UD 99-002 September 20,1999 Page 3 , The presence of farming operations could assist future developers with problems of ground conditions, weed abatement, ground leveling and drainage. . The appellant is an experienced agricultural operator and currently has a .number of short-term leases with various developers and property owners throughout Orange County. 4. The presence of agricultural operations can be aesthetically pleasing. Staff's response to the points raised by the appellant are discusSed below: , Although the appellant has indicated that operations could occur during a four to six month cycle, a series of four to six month planting and harvesting operational cycles would establish a permanent use which is inconsistent with the purpose and land. use designations of the Pacific Center East Specific Plan. In particular, the "Regional Center" designation allows for uses such as offices, accessory retail uses, hotels, and other support commercial uses and the "Office Center" designation allows for uses such as offices and accessory retail/service commercial uses (see Attachment E). In addition, agricultural operations, are inconsistent with the 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." Further, establishment of a series of planting and harvesting cycles would be a permanent use that would be defined as a "project" under California Public Resources Code Section 21065 and subject to the development standards and prerequisites contained within the Specific Plan. These include infrastructure improvements, including the dedication of land for the reconfiguration of the on and off-ramp system for the SR-55 freeway. . Implementation of the Specific Plan, as intended, would ensure that proper grading and drainage would occur on the project site. In particular, new construction associated the planned buildout of the area would be required to comply with the Uniform Building Code and the City of Tustin Grading Manual. This would mitigate soils and drainage concems. In addition, the owner of the property is responsible for maintaining the property in compliance with' the City of Tustin Property Maintenance Ordinance. . The presence of other similar uses in various locations may not mean that the use is appropriate use within the Pacific Center East Specific Plan area, due to the reasons cited in the findings below and Exhibit A of the letter dated June 24, 1999, denying Use Determination 99-002. City Council Report Appeal of UD 99-002 September 20, 1999 Page 4 , While agricultural operations can be aesthetically pleasing, they are not consistent with the intent of the Specific Plan. Additionally, agricultural operations could lead to the introduction of chemicals to the soil, which is difficult to monitor and could require soil remediation procedures prior to future development. In the letter of appeal to the City Council dated August 16, 1999 (Attachment D), the appellant requested a reconsideration of the Planning Commission's determination and cited his desire to "... overcome some of-the technical barriers that have led to a denial of use." While the applicant may perceive the Use Determination process as a technical barrier, it is necessary to determine if an unlisted use is similar in nature to permitted or conditionally permitted uses within a Zoning District. In this instance, the Community Development Director and the Planning Commission determined that agricultural operations are not similar to the permitted or conditionally permitted commercial and office uses in the PCESP. Further, although staff recommends denial of the applicant's request, the property owner is not precluded from developing the site with any of the uses permitted or conditionally permitted by the Specific Plan. During the past year, staff has been contacted by numerous development companies interested in working with the property owner in developing the site. The Specific Plan provides for a wide' range of uses that may be established. FINDINGS A decision to deny this request for the establishment of agricultural operations within the "Regional Center" and "Office Center" land use designations 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 City Council Report Appeal of UD 99-002 September 20, 1999 Page 5 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 be on a four to six month cycle, on-going operations could act to preclude development. 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 soil remediation procedures prior to future development. 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 ~n 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. BE:UD99002ccreport.doc Elizabeth A. Binsack Community Development Director Attachments: A. D. Location Map Use Determination 99-002 Planning Commission Resolution 3~85/Planning Commission Minutes - August 9, 1999 Letters of Appeal dated July 1, 1999 and August 16, 1999 Pacific Center East Excerpts Resolution No. 99-76 ATTACHMENT A LOCATION MAP LOCATION ~>TL o.J 2 C. T-' i~.o(~,--F i o to · / EDINGER AVENUE I I I ~ i [[___L._2, Iii VALENCIA .IT' 'X ,/"- ............... ATTACHMENT B USE DETERMINATION 99-002 JUNE 24, 1999 June 24, 1999 irving M. Chase AAE Pacific Park Associates, LLC 129 West Wilson Street, Suite 100 r- ,, 92627 Cos;:a Mess, ,...,-. SUBJECT: USE DETERMINATION 99-002 Dear Mr. Chase' Than!: yOLl for your applications, received June 15, 1999, for a Use Determination to determine whether an agricultural u§e is permitted within the "Regional Center & Office Center" land use planning area6f the Pacific Center East Specific Plan and a Temporary Use Permit to establish farming of row crops on a 34 acre parcel located to the northeast of the intersection of the SR-55 Freeway and Valencia Avenue. On .JCnua.ry 13 1999, a similar request was considered by the Director of Community L:,ev,:,opme,,, and was denied. Agricultural uses are not permitted at the subject location based upon the findings contained in Exhibit A, attached. This determination may be appealed to the Planning commission by any p'erson provided that a petition indicating why the action is being appealed and an appeal fee is submitted. The Community Development Department action will become final unless an appeal and fee, as noted above, is received by the Department within seven (7) calendar days from the date of this letter.' Should you have any questions about the Department's action, please call me at (714) 573-3031 or Karen Peterson, Acting SeniOr Planner, at (714) 573-3123. _ . Sincerely, Elizabeth A. Binsack Director of Community Development Attachments: Exhibit A KP:kbm\use determinations\ud99-002 EXHIBIT A USE DETERMINATION 99-002 JUNE 24, 1999 The Community Development Department finds and determines as follows: A, That a proper application, .Use Determination 99-002, was filed on Ju~e 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 p!anning areas of the Pacific Center East Specific Plan. C, That the "Regional Center" is intended for the development of a mixed use commercial and office center, with opportunities for both office and commercial uses whos~e focus is beyond services for the immediate project area and the "©ffice Center" is intended for the development of corporate, professional and general offices with limited supporting commercial uses. Do -;-h~.i agricultural uses are not listed as permitted or conditionally permitted in the "Regional Center" or "Office Center" land use planning areas. 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 or permitted subject to approval of a Conditional use Permit. F. -I'hr:t an agricultural use in the proposed location is inconsistent with the puri:ose of the Pacific Center East Specific Plan which is designed to encourage development of necessary support services, facilities, and infrastructure to provide for ultimate buildout of the area. Go Ths. t establishment of an agricultural use in the proposed location is inconsistent with the "Regional Center" and "Office Center" planning areas in that it does not implement the development concept which encourages a variety of office and commercial uses. That establishment of an agricultural use in the proposed locati°n is an impediment to the implementation of the Pacific Center East Specific Plan Circulation Plan and conflicts with the dedication of required right-of-way for the extension of Newport Avenue south of Edinger Avenue, the realignment of Del Arno, and the realignment of the northbound State Route (SR)-55 on and off-ramps serving Edinger Avenue. Exhibit A Pae, e 2 II. That a similar request, Use Determination 98-002, was denied on January 13, 1999. No new information has been submitted that would affect the decision on Use Determination 99-002. Jo 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. The Community Development Department. hereby determines that an agricultural use in the proposed location is a prohibited use and denies without prejudice Use Determination 99-002,. a request to establish an agricultural use on vacant property located at northeast of the intersection of the SR-55 Freeway and Valencia Avenue within the "Regional Center" and "Office Center" land use planning areas of ti~e Pacific Center East Specific Plan. ATTACHMENT C PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 3685 AND PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES AUGUST 9, 1999 l0 2O 24 ~? RESOLUTION NO. 3685 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA, DENYING THE APPEAL OF USE DETERMINATION 99-002 AND DETERMINING THAT AGRICULTURAL USES ARE PROHIBITED WITHIN' THE REGIONAL CENTER AND OFFICE CENTER LAND USE DESIGNATIONS IN THE PACIFIC CENTER EAST SPECIFIC PLAN. The Planning Commission of the City of Tustin does hereby resolve as follows: The Planning Commission finds and determines as follows: A. 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 vac.a.~nt properties located to the northeast of the intersec~on 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. B, 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 liste~' 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)). D. 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. 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. l! l? 20 2! 24 25 Resolution No. 3685 Page 2 G, 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, _co~nmercial, regional and technology uses within an irftegrated 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. 10. 20 24 25 2.? Resolution No. 3685 Page 3 6) Denial of the Use Determination wilI 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. Ho 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 ) K !, ELIZABETH A. BINSACK, the undersigned, hereby certify that ! 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. ELIZABETH A. BINSACK Planning Commission Secretary MINUTES TUSTIN PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING AUGUST 9, 1999 CALL TO ORDER: 7:00 p.m., City Council Chambers PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: ROLL CALL: Chairperson Pontious Chairperson Pontious, Bell, Davert, Kawashima and Kozak PUBLIC CONCERNS: (Limited to 3 minutes per person for items not on the agenda.) No Public Concerns were addressed. CONSENT CALENDAR: 1. Minutes of the July 12, 1999 Planning Commission Meeting. Commissioner Davert moved, Commissioner Kawashima seconded, to approve the minutes. Motion carried 4-0. REGULAR BUSINESS 2. Seating of commissioner Bell New Commissioner Cheryl Bell was sworn in on the Commission. 3. Planning Commission Reorganization Recommendation - That the Planning Commission follow procedures contained in the staff report to elect a Chairperson and Chairperson Pro-tem. Chairperson Pontious opened nominations for Chairperson of the Planning Commission. Commissioner Davert nominated Commissioner Kozak to serve as Chairperson. There were no further nominations. Motion carried 5-0. Planning CommissiOn Minutes August 9, 1999 Page 3 Recommendation Adopt Resolution No. 3686 approving Conditional Use Permit 99-002(B) and Sign Code Exception 99-001(B) to authorize the construction of a freestanding freeway sign, forty-five (45) feet in height, with a fifty (50) square foot sign cabinet for a future fast food restaurant located at 13922 Red Hill Avenue. Bradley Evanson presented the subject report. The Public Hearing opened at 7:07 p.m. Marshall VVilkinson, applicant, stated his agreement on the 45 foot height requirement for the sign and indicated that the 50 square foot sign cabinet is not large enough for their needs and requested an 80 square foot cabinet would be better. The Public Hearing closed at 7:13 p.m. Commissioner Davert noted that he met with the applicant last week and looked at the photo simulations and felt staff's recommendation is appropriate, Commissioner Pontious stated her agreement that 50 square feet is appropriate. Commissioner Kawashima stated his agreement that to approve anything larger would set a precedent. Commissioner Bell noted that she listened to the minutes from the previous meeting and 'stated her agreement with the other Commissioners. Commissioner Davert stated that the Commission needs to be consistent and fair with developments along freeways. Commissioner Davert moved, Commissioner Pontious seconded, to adopt Resolution No. 3686 approving Conditional Use Permit 99-002(B) and Sign Code Exception 99-001(B) to authorize the construction of a freestanding freeway sign, forty-five (45) feet in height, with a fifty (50) square foot sign cabinet for a future fast food restaurant located at 13922 Red Hill Avenue. Motion carried 5-0. Appeal Of Use Determination 99-002 a request to establish ag.ricultural uses within the Regional Center and the Office Center land use designations of the Pacific Center East Specific Plan (PCESP). The project is located at the northeast Planning Commission Minutes August 9, 1999 Page 4 corner of Valencia Avenue and SR-55 within the Planned Community (PC) subject to the Pacific Center East Specific Plan (PCESP). APPELLANT: A.G. KAWAMURA PROPERTY OWNER: AAE PACIFIC PARK ASSOCIATES, LLC Recommendation That the Planning Commission adopt Resolution No. 3685 denying the appeal of Use Determination 99-002 and determining that agricultural uses are prohibited within the "Regional Center" and "Office Center" land use designations of the Pacific Center East Specific Plan. The Public Hearing opened at 7:16 p.m. Bradley Evanson presented the subject report. Commissioner Davert asked the Director if the Commission could consider amending the specific plan. The Director stated that the issue before the Commission is a Use Determination and the Commission should look at this use and compare it to the other uses that are allowed in the specific plan and make a rational relationship that this use is very similar to another use or implements the goals and policies of the specific plan. Staff does not believe that the proposed use implements or is a similar use to any other use found in the specific plan. Commissioner Davert asked if the Commission were to draw a nexus would requiring the applicant to comply with dedication requirements, codes and grading and infrastructure codes be part of their decision. The Director stated that if the Commission were to make the nexus that it is an acceptable use and the Commission were to look at it as a long-term established use, staff would recommend that a specific plan amendment be proposed. Chairperson Kozak asked what the timeline would be for a specific plan amendment. The Director responded that a specific plan amendment for this area would be extensive because there are significant infrastructure improvements, traffic impact fees, development standards that were established as part of the specific plan. The specific Planning Commission Minutes August 9, 1999 Page 5 plan in this area operates as a policy, regulatory and an environmental document. comprehensive review of the documents would be required. A A.G. Kawamura, appellant, stated he is a LLC member of Orange County Produce and' noted that he must comply with EPA and AQMD regulations. The Public Hearing closed at 7:33 p.m. · Commissioner Davert stated that he has no objections to agricultural uses but noted that prior Councils and Commissions enacted the Specific Plan' and he does not wish to undermine the specific plan but asked if there is a way to allow the use on a portion of the property. The Director stated that the Commission would need to make appropriate findings to allow the use, regardless of the allotted area. CommiSsioner Pontious noted that this is a policy issue that should be addressed by the City Council; however, she felt there was not a nexus. Chairperson Kozak noted his concern regarding a similar use. Commissioner Davert asked what options are available to the appellant. The Director responded that the appellant has appeal rights to the City Council or the property owner could propose a specific plan amendment. The Public Hearing was re-opened at 7:38 p.m. A.G. Kawamura, appellant, stated that he is prepared to take the issue before the City Council and noted that he could change the term agriculture to edible landscaping to circumvent the zoning iSsue. The Director stated that the issue is not agricultural versus landscaping uses. The issue is whether or not the use is similar to other uses and/or furthers the intent of the specific plan. She cited that if, for example, Rogers Gardens wanted to establish there, that use would not be in keeping with and further the intent of the specific plan. Commissioner Davert asked the Director how the specific plan would be affected if the Commission were to allow the use for Mr. Kawamura because they felt partial to him and wanted to see the use. The Director stated that findings would need to be made to support the request. Planning Commission Minutes August 9, 1999 Page 6 A.G. Kawamura, appellant, cited agricultural uses in the City on the Marine Corps base and at Sixth Street. The Director responded that the MCAS Tustin leases were negotiated by the Federal government and the property at El Camino Real and Sixth Street is under a different zoning designation and is not part of a specific plan.' A.G. Kawamura asked if the nursery use formerly at Edinger Avenue was allowed prior to the specific plan. The Director responded that the discontinued use in question was non-conforming. Non- conforming uses may continue as long as they are in Operation on an on-going basis. Once discontinued, the use may not be reestablished. The Director further noted that various users have wished to establish at 1200 Edinger and upgrade the building but the building is considered non-conforming and the only thing that would typically be allowed is repair of the facilities to ensure that it is maintained in a safe manner. The Public Hearing closed at 7:44 p.m. Commissioner Pontious noted that she was on the Planning Commission the Pacific Center East Specific Plan was adopted and a lot of thought was given to the plan. Commissioner Pontious moved, Commissioner Davert seconded, to adopt Resolution No. 3685 denying the appeal of Use Determination 99-002 and determining that agricultural uses are prohibited within the "Regional Center" and "Office Center" land use designations of the Pacific Center East Specific Plan. Motion carried 5-0. STAFF CONCERNS: 6. Report on Actions taken at the July 19 and August 2, 1999 City CounCil Meefinqs _ Elizabeth A. BinSack, Director of Community Development reported on the subject agenda. COMMISSION CONCERNS: Commissioner Davert - Congratulated Cheryl Bell on her appointment to the Planning Commission. ATTACHMENT D LETTERS OF APPEAL JULY 1, 1999 AND AUGUST 16, 1999 July 1, 1999 Ms. Elizabeth A. Binsack Director of Community Develo' City of Tustin 300 Centennial Way Tustin, CA 92780 3ment Re' US~'DETER_MINATION 99-002 · ! Dear Ms. Binsack, This is an appeal to petition the Community Development Department for a reconsideration of their findings and determination of Use Determination 99-002. In your denial of our temporary use application I have studied Exhibit A of your response and am concerned that you may have thought that our agricultural cultivation of the parcel might have long te~¥n implications to the "Regional Center" and "Office Center". I would like to clarify to you and your staff that our farming operations are nothing more than an interim use activity prior to development. We have a 50 year record of working within this very urban county. As the oldest active agricultural tenant of The Irvine Company we have become more than accustomed to the demands of their development schedule. We are not a nursery or orchard operation which take a great deal of infrastructure and time commitment. We have the ability to farm on a 4-6 month timeline and can easily vacate the premises given short notice. Our current short term leases with the Diocese of Orange, Sakioka Properties, Shea Homes, BRE/South Coast, LLC, Southern Calif. Edison, Orange County Water District and The Irvine Company should provide evidence that our operations are compatible with future development plans. It can be further demonstrated that our presence can actually assist the future developer with problems of ground conditions, weed abatement, poor level and drainage, rodent and insect predation/infestation, dumping and trash removal. It also builds a solid soil base for all future landscaping activities. I believe that you may have interpreted our agricultural presence'as a hindrance to development. The present landlord understands our intent to farm and does not feel it is in any way an impediment to their development plans. I am 5951 Trabuco Road Irvine, CA 92620 (949) 651-9106 FAX (949) 651-9165 concerned that your decision is based on an incorrect assumption about the duration and nature of our vegetable operations. Please be assured that our presence on the AAE Pacific Park Associates, LLC property would not impede in'the implememation plans for the Pacific Center East Specific Plan etc. The aesthetic value of agricukure within a community is yet another issue that this kind of determination does not encompass. I am convinced that agriculture in any of its many forms can be compatible with the interests of all cOmmunities. Those of us in agriculture have a lot of work to do to remind the public that we are an asset and resource to any community. I ho, pe the Community Developmem Departmem will reconsider their .decision of USE DETERMINATION 99-002. I look forWard to meeting with you and the planning staff to pursue this appeal. - , SinCerely, A.G. Kawamura Principal August 16, 1999 Ms. Elizabeth A. Binsack Director of Community Development City of Tustin 300 Centennial Way Tustin, CA 92780 Re: Denial of Appeal of USE DET~MTNATION 99-002 Dear Ms. Binsack, · This is an 'appeal to petition the Tustin City Council 'for a reconsideration of the Planning commission's findings and determination of an appeal of Use Determination 99-002. It is the intention of Orange C.ounty Produce to try and locate a nexus whereby we may be .allowed to perform interim agricukural activity prior to future development and expansion' within the Region,31 Center and Office Center land use areas of the Pacific Center East Specific Plan. We would like to explore various possibilities and options that may overcome some of the technical barriers that currently have led to a denial of use. Please contact us at your. earliest convenience to discuss this issue. · · Should you have any questions or need additional information, please do not hesitate to contact this office at 949-651-9106. Sincerely, A.G. Kawamura Orange County Produce, LLC Member cc: City Clerk Mr. Irving Chase, AAE Pacific Park Associates} LLC 5951 Trabuco Road Irvine, 1;A 92620 (949) 651-9106 FAX (949) 651-9165 ATTACHMENT E PACIFIC CENTER EAST EXCERPTS Pacific Center East Specific Plan . Se . e ge . d. Minimum space between buildings - 10 feet Landscape setbac -ks~ a. Newport Avenue - 30 feet b. Edinger Avenue - 20 feet c. Red Hill Avenue - 30 feet Maximum floor area ratio-- Planning Area 2 = 0.35, Planning Area 4 = 0.13 Landscaping - compliance with City of Tustin landscaping and irrigation requirements and Section 3.5 of this specific plan. Parking - compliance with off-street parking standards contained in Section 4.6. LOading - compliance w/~h loadi'ng standards contained in Section 4.7. General regulations - refer to Section 4.8 for other compliance general regulations. 4.3 Regional Center A. Purpose and Intent This land use designation is intended for the development of a mixed use commercial and office center, with opportunities for both office and commercial uses whose focus is beyond services for the immediate project area. Regulations integrate properly a mixture of hotel, office and commercial uses. Principal land uses for the Regional Center are limited to office, hotel and commercial uses with certain limitations noted in this Section and in Section 4.8. B. Location Planning areas designated in the Land Use Plan as Regional Center are Planning Areas 5, 6, 7, 11 and 14. 12. Permitted Uses and Conditionally Permitted Uses The following uses shall be permitted by right where the symbol "P' occurs or by conditional permit where the symbol "C" appears, subject to any identified limitations contained or in Section 4.8.., 43 City of Tustin e Parking - compliance with off-street parking standards contained in Section 4.6. 8. Loading - compliance with loading standards contained in Section 4.7. 9. General re~lations - refer to SeCtion 4.8 for other compliance general regulations. 4.4 Office Center Purpose and Intent This land use 'designation is intended for the development of corporate, professional and general offices with limited supporting commercial uses (see Table 6). Regulations provide an appropriate character which complements surrounding, existing and planned uses. Principal land uses for the office center are primarily corporate and professional offices with certain limitations noted in this Section and in Section 4.8. It is intended that commercial retail and service uses shall be well-integrated components of office uses and serve as complementary support services, ~ B. Location Planning areas designated in the Land Use Plan as Office Center are Planning Areas 8, 10, 13.- C. Permitted Uses and Conditionally Permitted Uses The following uses shall be permitted by right where the symbol "P" occurs or by conditional use permit where the symbol "C" appears, subject to any identified limitations contained herein, or in Section 4.8, Table 6. 1. ,, Offices permitted or conditionally permitted in the Commercial Center designation plus corporate offices P Retail and service uses permitted or conditionally permitted in the Commer- cial Center designation P/C 3. Restaurants, family or specialty, only in Planning Area 8 and 10 P D. Temporary Uses Temporary uses shall be regulated pursuant to the applicable section of the Tustin City Code. . - · \ 46 ATTACHMENT F RESOLUTION NO. 99-76 RESOLUTION NO. 99-76 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TU~TIN, CALIFORNIA, DENYING THE APPEAL OF USE DETERMINATION 99- 002 AND DETERMINING THAT AGRICULTURAL USES ARE PROHIBITED WITHIN THE REGIONAL CENTER AND OFFICE CENTER LAND USE DESIGNATIONS IN THE PACIFIC CENTER EAST SPECIFIC PLAN. The City Council of the City of Tustin does hereby resolve as follows: I. The C A. B. C¸o Do Eo F. ity Council finds and determines as follows: 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. That the subject properties are located within the "Regional Center" and "Office Center" land use planning areas of the Pacific Center East Specific Plan. 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)). 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. That pursuant to Section 4.3(E) and 4.4(E) of the Pacific Center East Specific Plan, an application was filed 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. 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. On August 9, 1999, the Planning Commission upheld the Director's decision that agricultural uses were prohibited within the Pacific Center East Specific Plan. . City Council Resolution No. 99-76 Appeal of UD 99-002 September 20, 1999 Page 2 Go H° That on August 16, 1999, Orange County Produce appealed the Planning Commission's decision on Use Determination 99-002 and a public hearing was duly called and noticed for September 20, 1999 with the appellant's consent. That a decision to deny the establishment of agricultural operations at the subject site is 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 ]0 ]? ]8 20 ¸2] ~ 22 23 2.4 25 26 2? City Council Resolution No. 99-76 Appeal of UD 99-002 September 20, 1999 Page 3 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. 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. 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 City Council 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 City Council, held on the 20th day of SePtember, 1999. TRACY WILLS WORLEY MAYOR PAMELA STOKER CITY CLERK