Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout04 CUP 95-008 DR 95-023 5-06-96'AGENDA DATE: NO. 4 5-6-96 Inter-Com TO: FROM: SUBJECT: M~Y 6, 1996 WILLIAM A. HUSTON, CITY MANAGER . COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT APPEAL OF CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 95-008 & DESIGN REVIEW 95-023 (WALGREENS PHARMACY) -- CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING FROM THE APRIL 15, 1996 MEETING RECOMMENDATION That the City Council: i . Approve the Environmental Determination for the project by adopting Resolution.No..96-36p and · ~phold the Planning Commission's action to approve Conditional Use Permit 95-008'and Design Review 95-0'23 by adopting Resolution No. 96-37, as submitted or revised. FISCAL IMPACT -. · There is no fiscal impac~ associated with this'project. The ,applicant has paid application fees to recover the .cost of~ processing this, application. BACKGROUND AND DISCUSSION This item was continued from the April 15, 1996 City Council meeting to allow ~taff and the applicant time to review the traffic analysis fprepared by LL'&G Engineers (Exhibit D) submitted by the appellants at the meeting. On March 11, 1996, ,the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 3419 approving a request to establish a pharmacy with drive-thru service and denying a request for 'a changeable copy monument sign located at the southeast corner of Newport Avenue and First Street (Exhibit A). On March 18, 1996, the City received an appeal from Rudolf-Oswald Partners of the Planning Commission's action (Exhibit B). The appellants indicate that the proposed use will have a negative impact on surrounding streets because of insufficient parking and congested on- and off-site circulation due to inadequate drive-thru lanes. The City Council Report CUP 95-008 & DR 95-023 May 6, 1996 Page 2 property owner has submitted a response to the appeal request and the appellant's traffic analysis sUbmitted to the City Council on April 15, 1996 (Exhibit C).. Project Description and Site Plan The applicant is proposing to establish a 1,976 square foot pharmacy with drive-thru and walk-in services on a vacant property located at the southeast corner of Newport Avenue and First Street. The project site is approximately 0.41 acres in size and was previously developed with a service station. The site has been vacant for several years and is undergoing soil remediation for the cleanup of the previous underground gasoline storage tanks. Please refer to the March 11, 1996 Planning Commission Report for a complete discussion of the project details related to architecture, site design, security, landscaping, signs, and parking and circulation (Exhibit E). The most significant issue identified in the appeal related to traffic safety and congestion; therefore, these issues will be addressed in detail below. Access, Circulation, Traffic Analysis and Parking Access to the site is currently provided by two driveways from each street. The applicant proposes to close the driveway closest to the corner on each street. One-way circulation is proposed around the building in a counter-clockwise -direction. Due to the one-way circulation system, vehicles entering from First Street must immediately make a right turn. Likewise, customers wishing to exit the site onto Newport Avenue must first travel around the building. There is a by- pass lane located on the north side of the building, providing access from First Street to the parking area and the drop-off window. The applicant has indicated, in most cases, the prescription is phoned into the pharmacy and filled in advance of the patient arriving. Of the patients who drop off prescriptions themselves, most leave the site and return later to pick-up the order. The pick-~p transaction, including consultation with the pharmacist, takes an average of 2-3 minutes. Two drive-thru windows are proposed for the project. The applicant has indicated that the south side window is for prescription drop-offs and the north side window is for order pick-ups. The drive-thru lanes are approximately 11'.5 feet wide, with a storage length for two vehicles each. As part of the City's original review of this project, a traffic analysis was prepared by RKJK Associates, Inc. to evaluate the adequacy of on-site circulation, queue length, parking and potential impacts to surrounding streets. The City's Transportation Engineer reviewed and approved the.study with respect to the content, methodology and analysis used, and.accepted the adequacy of the study's findings and conclusions. The traffic and parking study is included as an appendix'to the Negative Declaration/Initial Study contained in the March 11, 1996 Planning Commission Report (Exhibit E). The project is estimated to generate approximately 450 vehicle trip-ends per day, of whiCh 45 trip-ends will be generated in the P.M. peak-hour. City Council Repor. CUP 95-008 & DR 95-023 May 6, 1996 Page 3 since the business hours are 9:00 A.M. to 9:00 P.M., the use will not be open during the A.M. peak-hour[j The anticipated project related t~affic volumes can be accommodated within the planned arterial highways and local street systems. TheYadditional trips generated will not significantly affect the volume to capacity ratio 'for either Newport Avenue or First Street, and the analysis indicates that the adjacent streets and intersection~witl continue to operate at Level of Service "a". At the Planning Commission meeting, the City's Transportation Engineer provided the following comparative data on traffic generated by the previous service station use and other uses permitted in the C-1 Zoning District. The data indicates that the proposed pharmacy will generate less traffic than the previous use and other permitted uses within the C-1 District. PERMITTED USE TRAFFIC GENERATED service station (as previously developed) fast. food pharmacy retail 780 vehicles/day 94 vehicles/p.m, peak hour 1400 vehicles/day 112 vehiCles/p.m, peak. hour 450 vehicles/day 45-vehicles/p.m. peak hour 100 vehicles/day 11 vehicles/p.m, peak hour The original Traffic Impact Report also addressed the proposed on-site circulation and the adequacy of the queue length of the drive-thru lanes. An existing Walgreens Pharmacy was studied to evaluate the traffic generated by the drive-thru service. The rePort indicates that the demand at each window generally did not exceed two vehicles per five-minute observation period. Only once were~ there three vehicles queued'at the pick-up window. It is anticipated that the queue storage length of two vehicles at each window should be adequate to accommodate drive-thru demand. The Planning Commission included a condition requiring the preparation of'an updated traffic study if the City deems that a traffic problem exists on the subject site or adjoining streets as a result of inadequate on-site circulation. If the study indicates that there is inadequate traffic circulation, the property owner shall be required to provide additional mitigation measures to be reviewed and approved.by the Community Development and Public Works Departments. Parking is provided along the south property line and includes an angled parking design to reinforce the one,way direction of travel. The Zoning Code requires a total of 10 parking spaces for this use, based upon a ratio of 1 space per 200 square feet of floor area (1976 sq. ft. +' 200 = 9.88 spaces) and 10 parking spaces are provided. City Council Report CUP 95-008 & DR 95-023 May 6, 1996 Page 4 Linscott, Law & Greenspan (LL&G) Traffic Analysis i" The City's Transportation Engineer has reviewed the LL&G traffic analysis submitted by the appei~lants on April 15, 1996 (Exhibit D) and concurs with the findings and 'conclusions of the applicants original traffic analysis. The findings of the original RKJK traffic study remain valid for the following reasons: The industry standard for evaluating traffic impacts is a "typical weekday," not a peak service day for pharmacies, as suggested by the appellants and the LL&G study. Both the RKJK and the LL&G study indicated that the maximum number of vehicles waiting at the pick-up window does not exceed 3 vehicles at any given time. The longest duration of 3-vehicle queues was 2 minutes. Although the 3-vehicle queue could potentially extend approximately 5 feet into the rear drive aisle, this is a one-way drive with over 20 feet in width. There is adequate space for vehicles to maneuver during this short time if there is interference. The occasional 3-vehicle queues at the pick-up window does not inhibit traffic circulation on-site nor does it interfere with on-street traffic flows. The Zoning Code requires a total of 10 parking spaces. 'The LL&G study identifies a peak parking demand of 6 vehicles. The applicant has stated that the pharmacy will be operated by two employees. The 10 spaces required by the Zoning Code and provided on site is adequate to accommodate 2 employee spaces and the anticipated 6 customer spaces during peak demand. PUBLIC COMMENT A total of 14 letters of 'opposition to this project were included as part of the Planning Commission Report. An additional 6 letters of opposition were received and are included as Exhibit G. Most of the letters were from medical practitioners located within the adjacent medical complex to the south. The predominant areas of concern were adequacy of the drive-thru lanes, parking and the potential negative impact on surrounding streets. One letter from a Tustin resident identified a concern that this project would have a negative economic impact on the neighboring pharmacy. The City should cautiously consider restricting competition in the marketplace, particularly when the proposed use meets development standards or unless the zoning regulations are modified to include fiscal analyses of land uses. Responses to the public comments were included in the Planning Commission Report (Exhibit E). FINDINGS The proposed pharmacy use is permitted by right in the C-1 Zone; however, a Conditional Use Permit is required for the drive-thru City Council Report CUP 95-008 & DR 95-023 May 6, 1996 Page 5 service. The Zoning Code' requires that the City Council determine whether or not the proposed driVe-thru pharmacy will be detrimental to the health, safety, morals., comfort and general welfare of the persons residing in or working in th~ neighborhood or whether it wii1 be injurious or. detrimental to proPerty or improvements in the vicinity or to the general welfare of the City. In considering its actions, the Planning Commission determined that: . The proposed use can be accommodated on the subject property because there is adequate on-site circulation and queue length, as supported by the Traffic Study prepared for this project. o The use will not have a negative affect on Surrounding properties or impact the availability of off-street parking. The pharmacy has provided adequate parking in compliance With the Tustin City Code' and the drive-thru service will not create a demand for additional parking. Based upon the approved Traffic Study, the additional volume of traffic generated by this use can .be accommodated on Newport Avenue and First Street. o The use. is compatible with the surrounding uses in that there are other commercial uses that have drive-thru services in the immediate vicinity, including another drive-thru pharmacy approximately 100 feet away from the subject site and there will be no exterior amplification or noise generated from the use. Community Development Director. SJP: br: kbm\cup9508, sjp EXHIBITS: Lbcation Map Submitted Plans A - Commission Resolution No. 3419 & Minutes B - Letter of Appeal C - Property Owner Response to Appeal D - April 15, 1996 LL&G Traffic Study E - March 11, 1996 Planning Commission Report F - Walgreens and RKJK Response to LL&G Study G - Public Comments Resolution Nos. 96-36 and 96-37 LOOATION I. AR~N' ,' MAP ? ? / 14.882 DON NO SCALE C 3FINZlA¥ ilzlOclM3N ' ILl 319N3A~'/WOclM3N i · 3~lN3A¥ ±WO~AA3N . _ _..x C 0 Z I-- W W ZE !-- 0 Z I-- W W W Z I-- W W "r- !--.- 0 Z Z l-- W 0 0 7H.~U E Z ILl Z I-- Z 0 / / / / 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 2,8 RESOLUTION NO. 3419 A RESOLUTION O~ THE PLANNING COM}4ISSION OF THE CITY OF TUST~N, APPROVING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 95-008 AND DESIGN REVIEW 95-023 , AUTHORIZING THE ESTABLISHMENT OF A DRIVE-THRU SERVICE IN CONJUNCTION WITH A PHARMA'CY AND DENYING A REQUEST 'FOR ' A CHANGEABLE COPy MONUMENT SIGN AT 13342 NEWPORT AVENUE. The Planning Commission does hereby resolve as follows: I. The Planning Commission finds and determines as follows: A. That a proper application for Conditional Use Permit 95-008 and Design Review 95-023 was filed by Thomas Cox Architects on behalf o£ Walgreens Pharmacy to request authorization 'for the establishment of a drive-thru service in conjunction with' a pharmacy and a changeablelcopy monument sign at 13342 Newport Avenue, more specifically described ..as Assessor's Parcel No. 500-062-01. Be That:the proposed use is allowed within the C- 1 -Retail Commercial District, with the approval of a Conditional Use Permit. c. The subject property is located within the Town Center Redevelopment P~oject Area. Pursuant to City Code Section 9299b, the Zoning Administrator has forwarded action on Design Review 95-023 to the planning Commission for consideration. D. The subject project has been ~found consistent with the Town Center Redevelopment Project Area Plan. That a public hearing was duly called, noticed and held on said application on February' 26 and March. il, 1996 by the Planning Commission. Fe That the establishment, maintenance and operation of the drive-thru service applied for 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 EXHIBIT A 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Resolution No. 3419 Page 2 improveme~[ts' in the neighborhood of the subject property, or to the general welfare of the City>!of Tustin, as evidenced by the following-findings' 1) The proposed use can be accommodated on the subject property, providing for adequate on-site circulation and queue length as supported by the Traffic Study. prepared for this project. 2) The use will 'not negatively affect surrounding, properties or impact the availability 'of off-street parking in that the pharmacy has provided adequate parking in compliance with the Tustin City Code and the drive-thru service will not create a demand for additional parking. In addition, based upon the Traffic Study, tMe additional Volume' of traffic generated by this use can be accommodated on Newport Avenue and First Street as currently improved. 3) The use is compatible with the surrounding uses in that there are'other commercial uses that have drive-thru service in the immediate vicinity, including another drive-thru pharmacy approximately 100 feet away 'from the subject site and there Will be no outdoor speakers. . 4) On-site traffic concerns have generally been mitigated through the separation of the drive-thru aisle from the on-site parking' 5) Off-site traffic concerns caused by the number of vehicles waiting in the drive · aisle.to enter the queuing aisle during peak hours ha~e generally been mitigated through the use of two windows, and a condition of approval requiring the implementation of additional mitigation measures should there be traffic impacts in the future. 9 10 11 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Resolution No. 3.4 19 Page 3 G~ That th~ ~- establishment, maintenance and operatioh of the changeable copy monument sign applied-for will, 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, and 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, as evidenced by the following -findings: 1) The changeable copy sign is not consistent with signs typically installed for retail businesses and will create . sign clutter along the Newport Avenue business corridor. 2) Changeable .Copy gigns are utilized by public or institutional uses such as churches and schools to provide information abOut activities or services.- The use of a changeable .copy sign ~for advertising could encourage advertising specific brand names and pricing, both of which are prohibited by the Sign Code. H. Pursuant to- Section 9272 of ' the Tustin Municipal Code, the Commission finds that the location, size, architectural features and general appearance of Design'Review 95-023, as conditioned,-will not impair the orderly and .harmonious development of the area, the present or future development therein, or the occupancy as a whole. In making such findings, the Commission has considered at least the'following items: 1. Height, bulk-and area of buildings. 2. Setbacks and site Planning. 3. Exterior materials and colors. 4. Type and pitch of roofs. 5~ Size .and spacing of windows, doors and other openings. ol 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 2'5 26 27 Resolution No. 3419 Page4 6. Towe~s, chimneys, roof structures'~ flagpoles radio and television antennae. 7. Landscaping, parking area design and ~ traffic circulation. 8. Location, height and standards of exterior illumination. ~ Location and appearance of equipment located outside of an enclosed structure. 10. Location and method, of refuse storage. 11. Physical relationship of proposed structures t6 'existing structures in the neighborhood. 12. Appearance and design relationship of proposed structures to existing structures and possible future structures in the neighborhood and public thoroughfares. 13~ proposed signage. 14o Development Guidelines and criteria as' adopted by the City Council. Jo A Negative Declaration has been prepared and certified for this project in accordance with the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). That 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. IX. The Planning Commission hereby approves Conditional Use Permit 95-008 and Design Review 95-023 to authorize the establishment of ~rive-thru service · in conjunction with a pharmacy and denies the request for a changeable copy monument sign on the property located at 13342 Newport Avenue. 10' 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 .18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Resolution No. 3419 Page PASSED AND ADOPTED b..'-y the Planning commission of the Cify of Tustin, at a regu'lar meeting on the llth day of March, 1996. 'BARBARA REYES u RecOrding Secretary Chairwoman ' STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF ORANGE ) CITY OF TUSTIN ) I, BARBARA REYES, the undersigned, hereby certify that I am the Recording Secretary ofothe Planning Commission of the City of Tustin, California; that Resolution No. 3419 was duly passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the Tustin Planning Commission, held on the llth day of March, 1996. Recording Secretary GENERAL EXHIBIT A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 95-008 AND DESIGN REVIEW 95-023 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL~ RESOL~TION NO. 3419 (1) 1.1 The proposed project shall substantially conform with the submitted plans for the project date stamped March 11, 1996, on file with the Community Development Department, ~ except as herein modified, or as modified by the Director of Community Development in accordance with this Exhibit. The Director of Community Development may also approve minor modifications to plans during plan. check if such modifications' are to be consistent with .the provisions of the Tustin City Code. (1) 1o2 Unless otherwise specified, the conditions contained ·in this Exhibit Shall be complied with prior to the issuance , of any building permits for the project, subject to review and. approval by the Community Development Department. ' (1) 1.3 The subject project approval shall become null and void unless permits for the proposed project are issued within eighteen (18) months 'of the date of this Exhibit and substantial construction is underway. Time extensions may 'be granted if a written request is received by the Community Development Department within thirty (30) days- prior to expiration. (1) 1.4 Approval of Conditional Use Permit 95-008 and Design Review 95-023 is contingent upon the applicant and property owner signing and returning an "Agreement to Conditions Imposed" form as established by the Director of Community Development. (1) 1.5 The applicant shall hold and defend the City of Tustin harmless for all claims and liabilities arising out of City's approval of the entitlement process for this project. SOURCE CODES (1) STANDARD CONDITION (2) CEQA MITIGATION (3) UNIFORM BUILDING CODE/S (4) DESIGN REVIEW *** EXCEPTIONS (5) RESPONSIBLE AGENCY REQUIREMENTS (6) LANDSCAPING GUIDELINES (7) PC/CC POLICY Exhibit.A Resolution No. 3419 Page 2 PLAN SUBMITTAL (1) 2.1 At building .plan check, submit thr-ee (3) sets of construction and site improvement plans in accordance 'with applicable Building and Fire Codes. Compliance with · approved plans ~hall be inspected by the Community Development Department during construction and prior to final inspection,. (1) 2.2 The building shall comply in all respects with the Building Code, other related codes, city Ordinances, and State and Federal Laws and regulations' (3) 2.3 Mechanical ventilation shall be provided based on the number of dccupants. (3) '2.4 The tenant space, parking' spaces, entrances to the building', path of travel from the parking area to the building, and sanitary facilitie~ shall be accessible to persons with disabilities. (5) 2.5 The applicant shall submit for approval'by the Community Development and Public Works Departments, a Water'Quality Management Plan (WQMP) specifically identifying Best Management Practices (BMPs) that will be used on site to control predictable pollutant run-off. This WQMP shall identify: the structural and non-structural measures specified detailing implementation of BMps whenever they are applicable to the project; the assignment of. long-term maintenance responsibilities (specifying the .developer, parcel owner, maintenance association, lessee, etc.); and, reference to the location(s) of structural BMPs. (4) 2.6 The site will be designed so that all parking area surface run-off is directed to and picked up by the storm drain system. · (4) 2.7 The use of water conserving plumbing fixtures ~hroughout the'buildings should be considered by the applicant. (5) 2.8 An addendum to the corrective action plan for .soil remediation on this site shall be provided to the Orange County Health Care Agency (OCHCA) that describes and justifies all modifications to the current remediation system on-site. This report must indicate: a) the locations of monitoring and extraction wells currently at the site; b) which wells will be abandoned; and c) where replacement wells will be located after site construction is complete. Any relocated equipment shall be approved Exhibit A Resolution No. 3419 Page 3 '.'~ ~ '~ ~ by the . Zoning Administrator and shall not be located within a required ~pa~king stall or drive aisle and shat~'l be screened from view.- Said addendum shall be approved by OCHCA prior to issuance of any permits for the project. (5) 2.9 The applicant shall obtain clearance from the Orange County Health Care Agency, Environmental Health Division upon completion of the .soil remediation activities. SIGNS (4) 3.1 The monument sign shall be modified to eliminate the provisions for changeable copy. In addition, the monument sign shall be of a' decorative design, using materials, colors, trim and details consistent with the architecture of the project.~ The sign shall include a routered opaque background flush'mounted. The specific sign plan shall be reviewed and approved by the Community Development Department. '(4) 3.2 The primary wall sign shall incorporate the supplemental signage "Pharmacy" into the business identification sign. In addition, the wall signs shall be modified to include channel letters or routered opaque background with flush mounting. (4) 3.3 Complete sign plans shall be submitted which address all proposed wall, directional, and address signs. The sign plans shall' include dimensions, materials, colors, and method of illumination. The design, size, location, installation and maintenance of said signs shall be in compliance with the Tustin Sign Code. (5) 3.4 Opaque materials and signage shall not cover more than 25 percent of the aggregate area of all windows and doors of the pharmacy. SITE AND BUILDING CONDITIONS (4) 4.1 Provide exact details for exterior doors and window types on construction plans. Exhibit A Resolution No. 3419 Page 4 (4) 4.2 Ail mechanical and'~electrical fixtures and equipment shall be adequately and decoratively screened. The screen shall be considered as an element of the overall design of the proj.ect and shall either blend with the architectural design of the building or be integrated into the landscape design. A dense type of landscaping. could be utilized for'screening. (1) 4.3 The stucco color shall be modified to be a warme= color tan, with less grey tone. The roof tile shall be modified to eliminate the predominant yellow hues, either -by using a combination of tile colors or an alternate 'tile with more terra cotta color.. All final colors and materials to be used shall be subject to review and approval of the Community Development Department. All exterior treatments shall be coordinated with regard .to color, materials and detailing' and clearly noted on submitted construction plans and elevations. (4) 4.4 Provide plans and details of all proposed lightfng fixtures and a photometric study showing the location and anticipated distribution pattern of light of all proposed fixtures.. All new light fixtures shall be consistent with'the .architecture of the building. Wall mounted fixtures shall be directed at a 90 degree angle directly toward the ground. Ail lighting shall be developed to provide-a minimum of one (1) footcandle of light coverage, in accordance with the City's Security Code. (4) 4.5 Ail exposed metal flashing or trim shall be painted to match the building. (1) 4.6 Note on final plans that a six-foat-high chain linked fence shall be installed around the site prior to building constructi6n stages. Gated entrances shall be permitted along the perimeter of the s~te for construction vehicles. , (1) 4.7 Exterior elevations of the building shall indicate any' (4) fixtures or equipment to be located on the roof of the building and equipment heights. The building parapet shall be an integral part of the building design, and shall screen all roof mounted equipment.. All roof- mounted equipment and Vents shall be a minimum of six inches below the top of the parapet' ,(4) 4.8 All roof access shall be provided from the inside of the building. Exhibit A Resolution No. 3419 Page 5 (4) 4.9 NO exterior downspouts shall be permitted; all rogf drainage shall ut,ilize interior piping, but may have exterior outlets at base of bUilding. (4) 4.10 Six '(6) inch continuous concrete curbing shall be used through the parking lot, drive-thru aisle and adjacent to sidewalks, except where required to satisfy handicap ~ access requirements. (4) 4.11 R6o~ scuppers shall be installed with a special lip device so that overflow drainage will not stain' the walls. (4) 4.12 Indicate .the location of all exterior" mechanical. equipment. Gas and electric meters shall either be enclosed within the building or boxed behind a screen wall designed to be consistent with the main building. (4) 4.13 Note on plans that outdoor storage is prohibited. (4) 4.14 The applicant shall prepare and submit to the Engineering Division a separate 24" by 36" street improvement plan, as prepared by a California Registered Civil Engineer, for all construction within the public right-of-way. In addition, a separate 24" by 36" reproducible construction traffic control plan, as prepared by a California Registered Traffic Engineer orCivil Engineer experienced in this type Of plan preparation, would be required. (4) 4.15 The applicant shall 'close the existing northern most driveway on Newport Avenue and western most driveway on First Street, due to their close proximity to the intersection. Removal of the existing curb ramp and construction of a new curb ramp per current city Standard No. 124 will be required for the new~ driveway on First Street. (4) 4.16 The Newport Avenue driveway shall be restricted to right turn in/out access. (4) 4.17 Sight distances at each access driveway, shall bereviewed for compliance with Orange County EMA Standard Plan 1117, ~.when.landscaping and improvement plans are prepared. (4) 4.18 On-street parking shall continue to be restricted adjacent to the project site on Newport Avenue and First Street. Exhibit A Resolution No. 3419 Page 6 (4) 4'19 If, at any time in ~he future, the City is made aware ~nd concurs that a parking, traffic and a circulation problem exists on the' subject property, then the Community Development and Public Works Departments may require the proPerty owner to submit an updated traffic analysis prepared by the applicant's consultant, at no expense to the City. The updated analysis shall be submitted within the time schedule stipulated by the City. The property owner may delegate this responsibility, .through lease negotiations, to any tenant operating under Conditional Use Permit 95-008. If the City deems there are traffic conflicts,- the property -owner shall be required -to provide additional mitigation measures to be reviewed and approved by the Community'Development and Public Works .Departments. Said mitigation may include, but not be limited to, the following: a. Modification of the driVe-thru lane alignment; be Elimination of one of the drive-thru windows. to provide additional queuing;and, Ce Construction' of planter medians to separate and define vehicular access, lanes. -. · Failure to adequately'respond to such a request and to implement mitigation measures'within the time schedules established shall be groUnds-for initiation of'revocation procedures for Conditional Use Permit 95-008. LANDSCAPING, GROUNDS AND HARDSCAPE ELEMENTS (1) 5.1 The applicant shall submit for plan check complete detailed landstaping and. irrigation plans for all landscaping areas consistent with adopted City of Tustin Landscaping and Irrigation Submittal Requirements and consistent with the landscaping concept plan. Said plans shall be consistent with the existing landscape palette for the center. The applicant shall prOvide a summary table applying indexing identification to plant materials in their actual location.' The plant table shall list botanical and c6mmon names, sizes, spacing, actual location and quantity'of the plant materials proposed. Show planting and berming details, soil preparation, staking, etc'. The irrigation plan shall show location and control of backflow prevention- devices (screened from view from right-of-way and on-site by shrubs), pipe size, sprinkler Exhibit A Resolution No. 3419 Page 7 type, spacing and coverage. Details for all equipmegt shall be pr'ovided.~ The plans shall show all property lines on the' landscaping and irrigation plan, public right-of-way areas, sidewalk widths, parkway areas, existing landscaping and walls and proposed new wall' locations. The Department of Community DeveloPment may request minor substitutions of plant materials or request ~ additional sizing or quantity. Note on plans that adequacy of coverage of landscaping and irrigation materials is subject to field inspection at project completion by the Department of Community Development. (7) 5.2 The ~bmitted landscaping plans at plan check shall reflect the following requirements:- · . 'A. Shrubs shall be a minimum of 5 gallon size and shall be'spaced a minimum of 8 feet on center when intended as screen planting. B. Ground cover shall be planted between 8 to 12 inches on center. NOISE C~ D ~ When 1 gallon plant sizes are used, the spacing may vary according to materials used. Ail plant materials shall be installed in a healthy vigorous condition typical to the species and landscaping must be maintained in a 'neat and healthy condition. This will include but not be limited to trimming, mowing, weeding; removal of litter., fertilizing, regular watering, or replacement of diseased or dead plant~. (1) 6~1 Ail construction operations, including engine warm up and deliveries of materials and equipment, shall be subject to the provisions of the City of Tustin Noise Ordinance as amended, and may take place only during the hours of 7:00 a.m. until 6:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, and 9:00 aom. to 5:00 p.m. on Saturday, unless the Building Official determines that said activity will be in substantial conformance with the Noise Ordinance and the public health and safety will not be impaired, subject to application being'made at the time the permit for the work is awarded or during progress of the work. No Sunday or holiday construction shall be permitted. Exhibit A Resolution No. 3419 Page 8 (1)' 6.2 Outside public address speakers, telephone bells, buzzers and similar devices which are audible on adjoinihg properties are prohibited. FIRE AUT~ORiTY (5) 7.1 Prior.to the issuance of permit, water improvement plans shall be submitted to and approved by the Fire Chief to ensure adequate fire protection and financial security is posted for the installation. The water system design, location of valves, and the distribution of the fire hydrants will be evaluated and approved by the Fire Chief. Show all fire hydrants within 300 feet of the property. (5) 7.2 Prior to the issuance of any building permits for combustible construction, a letter and plan from the developer shall be submitted to Mnd approved by the Fire Chief. This letter and plan shall'state that water for fire fighting purposes and an all weather fire access road shall be in place before any combustible materials are placed on the site. (5) 7.3 'Prior to the issuance of any certificates of use and occupancy~ all 'fire hydrants shall have 'a "Blue Reflective Pavement Marker" indicating its location on the street or drive per the Orange County Fire Department Standards. On private property these markers are to be maintained in good condition by the property owner. (5) 7.4 The following notes shall be Provides on the site plan: a · Fire Department Final Inspection Required. Schedule inspection 2 days in advance. Phone (714) 832-1011. b~ Locations and classifications of extinguishers to be determined by the Fire Inspector. Storing, dispensing or-use of any flammable and combustible liquids, flammable and compressed gases and 'other hazardous materials shall comply with Uniform Fire Code Regulations. Exhibit A Resolution No. 3419 Page 9 d. Building(s) no~ aPproved for high piled combustible storage~. Materials in closely packed piles shall not exceed 15 feet in height, 12 feet on pallets or ih racks 'and 6 feet for plastics and some flammable liquids if high stock piling, comply with UFC, Art., 81 and NFPA Std. 231, 231C' and 231D. ee Plans of modifications to or new fire protection, detector or alarm system(s) shall be apProved by the Fire Department prior to installation. USE RESTRICTIONS (1) 8.1 The owners shall be responsible for the daily maintenance and up-keep of the facility, including but not limited to trash removal, painting, graffiti removal and maintenance of improvements to ensure that the facilities are maintained in a'neat and attractive manner. All graffiti ' ~ shall be removed within 72 hours of a complaint being transmitted by the City to the property owner. Failure to maintain said structures and adjacent facilities will be grounds for City enforcement of its Property Maintenance ordinance, including nuisance abatement procedures. (5) 8' 2 Ail loading vehicles shall be parked in designated areas and loading shall be completed during non-peak hours. (3) 8.3. Ail building locking devices added to the premises shall meet those requirements as Set forth in the Building Security Code. °' *** 8.4 The subject project shall be limited to a pharmacy.. Any other accessory uses or services (i.e. photo finish) shall be prohibited unless an amendment' to this Conditional Use Permit specifically authorizing th~ desired serVice is approved by the Zoning Administrator. FEES (1) 9.1 Prior to issuance of any permits, payment shall be made of all required fees, as may be in effect at the time of· permit issuance, inclUding, but not limited to: ao Ail applicable plan check and permit, fees to the Community Development Department, based on the most current schedule, as may be amended prior to permit issuance. Exhibit A Resolution No. 3419 Page 10 B. New development fees to the Community Development Department in-.~the amount of $.10 per square foot_~or as may be amended prior to permit issuance. C. .The applicant shall ~be reqUired to pay applicable Transportation System Improvement Program, Benefit · Area A Fees, based upon the current fee schedule in effect at the time building Permits are issued. De Payment of any applicable East Orange 'County Water District'fees will be required. E. Major thoroughfare and 'bridge fee~ to the Tustin Public Works Department in the amount of $2.84 per square foot of floor area, or as may be amended prior to permit issuance. (1) 9.2 Within forty-eight~(48) hours of approval of the subject (5) project, the applicant shall deliver to the Community Development Department, a cashier's check payable to the COUNTY CLERK in the amount of $25.00 (twenty-five dollars) 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. MINUTES TUSTiN PLAitING COMZMISSION REGULA~R MEETING F'..J6RCH 11, 1996 i- CA~LL TO ORDER: 7:00 p.m., City Council Chambers PLEDGE OF ~LLEGIANCE/INVOCATION ROLL CALL: ~ionunis sioners Present: Marjobie Kasalek, Chairwoman Lou Bone, Vice Chairman Nanette. Lunn Howard Mitzman David'~'Vandaveer Staff PresenE: Elizabeth Binsack, Community Development Director Lois Bobak, Deputy City Attorney Daniel Fox, Senior Planner Sara Pashatides, Associate Planner Doug Anderson, Traffic Engineer Barbara Reyes, Recordihg Secretary PUBLIC CONCERNS: No one from the audience addressed the Commission. CONSEN~f CALEI~-DAiR: 1. MinuEes of the Februa~--y 26, 1996 Planninq Commission Meetinq. Commissioner 'VandaveDr moved, LUrch seconded, to approve the February 26, 1996 Planning Commission minutes. Motion carried 4-0. Commissioner Kasalek abstained due to her absence at last meetinq. PUBLIC HEARINGS -- 2. Conditional Use Permit 95-008 and Desiqn Review 95-023 (Continued from the meeting of February 26, 1996) APPLICANT: WALGREENS RXPRESS c/o THO~S COX ARCHITECTS OWNER:. NEWPORT & FIRST 'PARTNERS LOCATION: 15342 NEWPORT AVENUE ZONING: REQUEST: RETAIL COMMERCIAL (C-l) TOWN CENTER REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA AUTHORIZATION TO CONSTRUCT A 1,976 SQUARE FOOT PHAR~ WITH DRIVE-THRU SERVICE AND A CHANGEABLE COPY MO~OMENT SIGN. Planning Commission Minutes .March 11, 1996 Page 2 RECOMMENDATION - That the ~lanning Commission: ! . Approve the Environmenta.1 Determination for the project by adopt, ing Resolution No. 3418; and · Approve Conditional Use Permit 95-008 and Design Review 95 023 by adopting Resolution No. 3419, as submitted or revised. Presentation: Sara Pasha!ides, Associate Planner' Commissioner Bone complimented staff on the thorough traffic study. He asked if there was any problem with the left turn onto the site going west; if there was a concern about crime as people would exit the pharmacy; and, if the soil studies were public record. Staff stated that there was.adequate room for a left turn and that Police Department comments did not'indicate any concern with crime related to the proposed use. Staff stated that soil remediation was already taking place and that the County would not release the site until the tests were completed. Commissioner Kasalek asked staff to compare this use versus potential uses that could be developed at this location. Douc Anderson, Traffic Engineer, stated he had done a comparison based on a six pump,gas station. The average daily trips would be approximately 780 vehicles per day; the peak hour impact at 12% would be approximately 94 vehicles in'the p.m. peak hour versus-45 vehicles for the proposed use. A fast food use with a drive-thru · would produce approximately 1400 vehicles per day. The Public HeariJg opened at 7:17 p.m. Barry Burnell, T & B Planning Consultants, representing the Walgreens Company, addressed concerns including, traffic, stating there was an adequate bypass and traffic will not back up onto Newport Avenue. He also stated that there will be sufficient parking. The Walgreens representative concurred with the traffic mitigation proposed by staff. The Company would like 'to have a changeable copy sign, and does not believe there is an issue of crime and dr~gs. The soil remediation is interim and'expected to be completed by mid-summer. commissioner Bone asked if all the Walgreens stores had changeable copy signs. He also asked if two employees would be sufficient to man the store efficiently and if this store was. to contain a "One- Hour Photo"-service. Barry Burne!l stated that the signs were considered a merchandising feature and most of 'their Rxpress stores did have them. Their experience shows two people could run the store efficiently and this store will not have a "One-Hour Photo" service. .. Commissioner·Vandaveer asked for an example of what might appear on the changeable copy sign. Edward Achuck, RXpress Area Manager, stated the sign is used for advertising specials and displaying notes on health care issues such as flu vaccinations and cholesterol screenings. Planning Commission Minutes March 11, 1996 Page 3 Christopher Kernan, at t orne~.~) representing the owners of the Medical Building at 13362 Newport Avenue. Requested an adequate amount of time to review the soil and water remediation and corrective actions plans. He asked if any provision was being made for a barrier to prevent vehicles from crashing into their building. Commissioner Kasalek asked why the soil issue has not been a concern until this time. Ch'ristooher Kernan, stated is has been a concern but they have not had the money to get the testing done. He stated that the Orange County Health Care Agency (OCHCA) indicated that they do not release the site but that the .City of Tustin will. Staff stated that the OCHCA is the lead agency and they outline the .details and standards for'cleanup. Since the site is vacant, the City will not issue a building permit until the applicant submits a revised corrective action plan which reflects the proposed development of 'the site. The applicant would deal directly with the OCHCA. The City-of Tustin does not have any jurisdiction as to- how the soil'is cleaned up but will not issue .a permit to develop the property until the OCHCA indicates that development could proceed without impeding continued progress of remediation. Dr o Roberta Dornan, Dentist, 13372 Newport Avenue, feels her practice will be negatively affected by the potential traffic problems. Robert Isackson, Village Properties, stated he has all the soil information concerning the former Unocal site contamination and that the full remediation will be complete by mid-summer. Dr. Zahrowski, Orthodontist, 13372 'Newport'Ave~ue, feels it is important for his patients to get to his office on time since he sees a number of them within a short period of time. , He stated he was also a pharmacist and does not feel that the drive-thru operation will be efficient enough to keep the traffic from backing up. Dr. Richard sandam, 13372 Newport Avenue, stated that ingress and egress to this site is' a problem already and has witnessed many vehicle accidents at this location. Dr o Joseph-A. Cruz, 13372 Newport Avenue, is new to the'area and is trying to build his practice. Dr. Cruz · stated that this development may keep patients away that otherwise might 'use his 'services. Michael Rudolph, RudOlPh-Oswald Partners, owner of the property adjacent to the subject site made a one hour long presentation to the Commission. Mr. Rudolph stated that his partnership has been a community pharmacy for approximately 15 years and the partnership has invested over a million dollars into this location. He stated. that the partnership owns seven other locations so the issue is not. that of competition but of public safety, . parking and ingress/egress. Their site is only 100 feet from the proposed drive-thru. He state~d that he only had 48 hours to respond and presented charts with photos and information which he feels shows that-traffic will back up because it is impossible to fill a prescription in 2-3 minutes as Walgreens states. He objected to the proposed changeable copy .sign; the fact that most patients will not leave the site but will park and wait; and,. that the location' Planning Commission Minutes March 11, 1996 Page 4 will require at least fi~.e employees who would also take up parking spaces. He feels that ~he mitigation proposed by staff will not correct potential .Problems. Commissioner Bone stated that about six months ago the Rudolph Oswald Partnership asked for and received a Conditional Use Permit for a drive-thru window. At that time representatives of the partnership stated it would take 2-3 minutes for a prescription to be filled and that there was plenty of space for parking ~nd that there would never be more than three'cars waiting. Michael Rudolph stated that he did not recall that point and they do not have a queuing problem. The Public Hearing closed at 8:35 p.m. Douc Anders'on, stated that the intersection of First and Newport is not the busiest intersection in the City as Mr. Rudolph stated. As identified in the traffic study, the roadway and intersection is operating at more than an acceptable level of service. He concurs with the findings and recommendations of the traffic study as prepared by a competent California Certified Traffic Engineer. Commissioner Mitzman asked how this traffic generation compared to other permitted uses which could Occupy the site. DoucAnderson stated that this use would generate less kraffic than other permitted uses such as a gas station or fast food. Commissioner Kasalek ~d if this conclusion could also apply to the parking issue. Douc Anderson affirmed that the use would generate less traffic and parking than other permitted uses. Dan Fox, Senior Planner, sta~ed that the initial study was presented to the adjacent property owner 21 days prior to the public hearing in response to comments received at the last public hearing. The Traffic Engineer. reviewed the rebuttal and the information included in the Commission packet. In accordance with appropriate procedures the staff report was available to the public at the same time as for the Planning Commission. Conditions of the Conditional Use Permit allow the Planning Commission to further monitor if problems do exist and also allow revocation if satisfaction is not achieved. Staff is comfortable with the mitigation measures proposed. Commissioner Lunn stated that she does not like the idea of the changeable copy sign. Commissioner Mitzman stated'that the site will not remain vacant but will be developed. He believes this proposed use is better for the surrounding area than another use permitted for the site. He agrees with the traffic stUdy and thinks the changeable sign is a' bad idea. He does not have a' pr6blem with the blue accent trim. He does not like the idea of a chain link fence which is proposed to be.,installed around the remediation equipment and would prefer a more aesthetically pleasing screening. Commissioner Vandaveer is against the changeable sign, has no problem.with the blue strip and also does not like the idea of'a chain link fence. Planning Commission Minutes March 11, 1996 Page 5 Commissioner Bone supports ~°' the changeable sign, believes the design of the proposed use is-good and does not think there will be a traffic problem. He .approves of the .blue accent stripe. Commissioner Kasalek agrees with the consensus of the use and traffie issues. She does not think that the soil remediation is an issue, does not like the Changeable copy sign, and, is not in favor of the blue acceht stripe. Commissioner Mitzman moved, Vandaveer seconded, to approve the Envirornnental Determination for the project by adopting Resolution N~. 3418 as submitted. Motion carried 5-0. Commissioner Mitzman moved, Vandaveer seconded, to approve Conditional Use Pernuit 95-008 and Design Review 95-023 by adopting Resolution No. 3419 revised as follows: Condition No. 2.8 shall have the following sentence added, "Any relocated equipment shall be approved by the Zoning AHm{nistrator and shall not be located within a ,required parking stall or drive aisle and shall be screened from view°" Condition 4.3 shall elim/nate the sentence, "The royal blue building accent colo~ shall be eliminated and replaced with an earth tone color." Condition 8.4 shall be added to read, "The subject project shall be limited to a pharmacy. Any other accessory uses or services (i.e., photo finishing) shall be prohibited unless an amendment to this Conditional Use 'Permit specifically.authorizing the desired service is'approved by the Zoning Administrator." Motion carried 5-0. Elizabeth Binsack, Community Development Director, advised .the opponents of the project of the seven day appeal period. · ~ '~3-~-~- Amendment To Desiqn Review 94-033 & Variance 96-002 (Standard Pacific) APPLICANT/ OWNER: STAA~AP~D PACIFIC ATT: PEGGY ROBERTS LOCATION: TRACT 14188, WEST SiDE OF TO~SHIP DRIVE AT RAWLINGS WAY ZONING: PLANNED COMMUNITY RESIDENTIAL; EAST TUSTIN SPECIFIC PLAN (LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL) REQUEST: 1. TO MODIFY THE PREVIOUSLy APPROVED MODEL COMPLEX FOR THE PROJECT; AND 2. TO REDUCE THE ON-SITE MODEL COMPLEX PARKING REQUIREMENTS FROM 19 SPACES TO ZERO SPACES AND PROVIDE PARKING OFF-SITE ON. TOWNSHIP DRIVE Recommendation - That the Planning Commission approve Amendment to Design Review 94-033 and Variance 96-002 by adopting Resolution No. 3421,' as submitted or revised. Presentation: Dan Fox, Senior Planner Commissioner Mitzman asked if the City has ever approved a'model complex without a dedicated parking lot and if the Homeowners. Association were notified of this project. Staff stated that the Homeowners Association, all of the current residents and the Master Association had been notified. The Public Hearing opened at 9:00 p.m. Rudolph-Oswald Partners 13400 l~ewport Avenue~ Tustin, CA 92680 i~arch 18, 1996 RECEIVED MAR 18 B96 COMMU D[VELOPMEN'i' BY , ~-~'V-'- ~ City of Tustin City Council 300 Centennial Way Tustin, Ca 9J680 RE'. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR WALGREENS RXPRESS Dear Gentlepeople' Please be advised that the above-named propert~ owner wishes to appeal the March 11, 1996 decision by the City of Tustin Planning Commission allowing a conditional use permit and construction of the abdve-named project. Our concern is with .traffic safety and congestion at the corner site of Newport, Ave. and First Street and also.its direct effect on ingress and egress on adjacent propert£es.. We are having the traffic analysis re-evaluated and expect it will take approximately 4 to 6 weeks to have this ·completed. · Sincerely, Michael Rudolph Rudolph-Oswald Partners EXHIBIT B April 24, 1996 Sara Pashalides Community Development Department City of Tustin 300 Centennial Way Tustin, CA 92680 Walgreens RxPress Conditional Use Permit 95-008' SEC Newport / First Tustin, CA Dear Sara: Via UPS Overnight Service .RECEIVED APR 2 5 1996 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BY I am writing this letter on behalf of the Property ownership in lieu of the fact that I will be unable to attend the City Council meeting on May 6, 1996 when the appeal of our project will be heard. This meeting is most important to our company but unfortunately my entire staff will be at a convention out of State which we attend annually. We were frustrated that our item was pulled at the last minute from the April 15th .City Council meeting due to the appeallants submitting a traffic study the evening of the meeting. Rudolph- Oswald Partners, owners of the Tustin Community Pharmacy have had sufficient time to have performed a traffic study in the past and in our opinion it was very unfair that they were accommodated with additional time. Rudolph-Oswald Partners has had a copy of the January 16, 1995 Walgreens traffic study for the past year. In fact, Rudolph-Oswald used the Walgreens traffic study to accompany their CUP application for their Tustin Community Pharmacy pick up window which they were successful in obtaining. And now they are opposing these same Walgreens traffic findings, This just does not make sense and the Council needs to be apprised of these antics. Although I understand there is an established protocol, it wasn't fair that we had people from Walgreens who had flown from Chicago and myself from San Francisco to attend a meeting that should not have been postponed. In my absence at the Council meeting I wanted to point out the facts and the sequence of events of our application. In March 1995, at Walgreen's expense, we amended the zoning ordinance to allow for drive thru services for pharmacies in C-1 zoning districts subject to a CUP. The Walgreen's CUP was not heard until February 26, 1996, almost a full year later, because of much hard work and time we put in to meet and address the planning department's concern for proper circulation, architecture and landscaping. Walgreens has made numerous site plan. concessions from their standard store in order to meet staff's desires. Meanwhile, on August 14, 1995 the Tustin Community Pharmacy made application ' to install a drive-thru window at their location after learning about Walgreens intention to do so and after studying Walgreens stores all over the west coast to copy the concept which Walgreen's originated. Neither ourselves as Property owners, nor Walgreens chose to oppose their application. As mentioned above they used the original Walgreens traffic study which was on file to support their own application! That study was used to justify their design and expected queing at their siteo Rl/Tustin WG CUP/4-24 EXHIBIT C Sara Pashalides April 24, 1996 Page Two Mr. Rudolph states that his complaint is not a competitive one but one of concern for his property value. I have considerable doubt about his tree motivations and intentions, as I think the Planning Commission concurred and I hope the Council will agree as well. Mr. Rudolph has totally distorted the facts. He claims that Walgreen's facts and studies are lies in his testimony before the Commission. However, after reading the minutes of the planning commission .meeting for his own CUP he used these same figures for his own benefit. I question whether the doctors who spoke in opposition at the Commission meeting and who have written letters have done so because they think Walgreens will negatively impact their business or are doing so in friendship and loyalty to the Tustin Community Pharmacy. These doctors are all located within the adjacent medical complex. If they are against the use (as their testimony and letters state), why wouldn't they have opposed Mr. Rudolph's drive-thru window? The minutes of the Tustin Community Pharmacy's Planning Commission meeting state there was no opposition to their application and now Mr. Rudolph is attempting to paint the picture that the entire neighborhood is against the Walgreens use. The fact is their pharmacy only has one drive-thru window, not two like Walgreens and theirs only has stacking for 34 cars for both drop off and pick up transactions. They also have 10 years of built up customers. One would think they should do more business than Walgreens from the start. Wal~eens' planning consultant, Barry Bumell has attempted to meet with Rudolph-Oswald some time ago to attempt to address their concerns but they did not remm his many phone calls. During the past 18 months, we have had numerous inquiries from many interested tenants, gas stations, one hour oil changers, fast food restaurants, drive-thru espresso stands, drive-thru bagels, etc., etc. All of these types of tenants generate greater traffic trips than the proposed use. Keep in mind that the former Union 76 station on the Property under current traffic guidelines generates 780 daily triPs, with 94 peak hour trips. The proposed Walgreens use will generate 450 daily trips and only 45 peak hour trips. Furthermore, with the additional traffic'generation from Walgreens the intersection will remain operating at a level "A" service. Walgreens traffic engineer, Robert Kahn, John Kain & Associates, Inc. has reviewed Rudolph- Oswald Partners' traffic report, but failed to see any significant discrepancies that they have found in the Wal~eens traffic report. On a personal note, I am amazed at Rudolph-Oswald Partners' boldness to copy Walgreens operation by adding their own drive-up window, use Walgreens traffic studies and then attempt to railroad the Walgreens project. RI/Tusfin WG CUP/4-24 Sara Pashalides April 24, 1996 Page Three Walgreens has signed a 25 year lease for this location, will make a $1 million commitment to the site and have studied this site in detail. They do not open stores which will not be convenient and operate properly for their customers. I am confident that the residents of Tustin Will truly enjoy having this Walgreens serve their community. I very much hope that the City Council denies this appeal and upholds the CUP which the Planning Commission unanimously approved. Please forward this letter to the members of the City Council as it is important that they understand the facts concerning this case. Sincerely, Robert Isackson RI/bgm Jim Bandura David Sheegog Barry Burnell Jerry Rubin Dick Coen RI/Tustin WG CUP/4-24 APRIL 15. 1996 TO: TUSTIN CITY COUNCIL RE: RUDOLPH-OSWALD PARTNERS APPEAL OF CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 95- 008 & DESIGN REVIEW 95-023 (WALGREENS PHARMACY) EXIIIBIT D RUDOLPH-OSWALD PARTNERS WISH TO APPEAL RESOLUTION NO. 3419 APPROVING A REQUEST TO ESTABLISH A PHARMACY WITHDRIVE_THRU SERVICE ON THE CORNER OF NEWPORT AVENUE AND FIRST STREET IN THE CITY OF TUSTIN. THIS APPEAL IS BASED'UPON AN INADEQUATE INITIAL TRAFFIC' '~; STUDY PREPARED FOR THE CITY O1~ TUSTIN AS pART OF THE PROJECT REVIEW AND INADEQUATE TIME ESTIMATEg PROVIDE BY APPLICANT. ~ RUDOLPH-OSWALD PARTNERS AS WELL AS TIlE TENANTS OF THE TUSTIN MEDICAL ARTS CENTER AND NUMEROUS OTHER CONCERNED KES~ENTS (APPROXIMATELY 20 LETTERS ON FILE) BRING ATTENTION TO THE INADEQUATE ON-SITE TRAFFIC CIRCULATION AT THE PROPOSED PHARMACY. THIS WILL POTENTIALLY CAUSE TRAFFIC CONGESTION AT TI-ElS BUSY INTERSECTION AND ADVERSELY AFFECT INGRESS AND EGRESS TO ADJACENT BUSINESSES. TO THIS END WE ARE PRESENTING TO THE CITY C'OUNCIL A SECOND TRAFFIC STUDY PREPARED BY LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN (LL2G) CONDUCTED AT THE SAME SITE AS THE INITIAL STUDY. THIS STUDY WAS CONDUCTED ON A THURSDAY(SAME AS INITIAL STUDY) AND A MONDAY (INCREASED PHARMACY ACTMTY). NOTEWORTHY POINTS OF EACH STUDY FOLLOW: INITIAL STUDY AND REPORTED INFORMATION EXTREMELY RARE TO HAVE MORE THAN 2 CARS QUEUED AT EITH2ER WINDOW AT ANY TIME. PICK-UP RX TRANSACTIONS TAKE AN AVERAGE OF 2-3 MINUTES. ON-SITE PARKING PLACES (10) MEETS CITY REQUIREMENTS AND IS ADEQUATE FOR DEMAND. DURING PEAK PM HOURS 45 TRIP ENDS ARE ANTICIPATED. NEW SECOND TRAFFIC STUDY .) TWENTY, 2 X~EI~CLE QUEUES AND EIGHT, 3 VEHICLE QUEUES OBSERVED WITH FIVE OF THE 3 VEHICLE QUEUES OCCURRING DURING MONDAY PEAK PM HOUR. AVERAGE WAITING TIME AT.THE PICK-UP WINDOW ON MONDAY WAS MORE THAN 6 MINUTES (NOT 2-3 MINUTES). , AVERAGE WAITING TIME FOR HALF THE OBSERVED VEHICLE (PARKED WALK-IN CUSTOMERS) WAS 12.1 MINUTES. A 3 VEHICLE QUE AT THE PICK-UP WINDOW HAS THE POTENTIAL TO BLOCK ON-SITE CIRCULATION. FIVE, 3 VEHICLE QUEUES OCCURRED DURING PEAK PM HOUR ON MONDAY. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION TO CONSIDER ADDITIONAL RANDOM OBSERVATI0~q OF WALGREENS PHARMACY AS ) PRESENTED TO PLANNING COMg/ISSiON SHOW NUMEROUS TIMES 9 OR MORE CARS WERE PARKED AT LOCATION. THE TUSTIN LOCATION ONLY HAs 9 NON HANDICAPPED PARKING SPACES AVAILABLE WHICH WOULD LEAD TO FURTHER TRAFFIC CONGESTION. 45 TRIP ENDS ESTIMATED AT PEAK HOUR( ONE CAR EACH MINUTE 15 SECONDS) NEW STUDY SHOWS MONDAY AVERAGE OF OVER 9 MINUTES PER CUSTOMERS LEADS TO CIRCULATION AND TRAFFIC PROBLEM AT PROJECTED TUSTIN LOCATION ENGINEERS ENGINEERS & PLANNERS · TRAFFIC, TRANSPORTATi©~, PARKING 1580 Corporate Drive, Suite 122 · Costa Mesa, California~92626 Phone: 714641-1587 · Fax: 714 641-0139 , April 11, 1996 Mr. Michael Rudolph FRIENDLY HILLS PHARMACY 15141 East Whittier Boulevard, Suite # 115 Whittier, California 90603 RECEIVED APR 2 3 1995 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BY SUBJECT: WALGREEN'S RXPRESS - TUSTIN Dear Mr. Rudolph: As you requested, we have conducted observations of queue length at the existing Walgreen's RXpress, located on the northeast corner of Lincoln and Magnolia in the City of Anaheim. Our observations were .made on a Thursday (the same day of the week on which similar observations were made in connection with the revised traffic study for the proposed Walgreen's RXpress at First and Newport in Tustin), and on a MOnday (a day of high pharmacy activity). Vehicle Queuing. The attached Table 1 shows the number of two vehicle and three vehicle queue's observed over a seven-hour period on Thursday, March 28, 1996, and on Monday, April 1, 1996. also shown are the maximum number of customer vehicles parked on-site at any one time. As you can see, no three vehicle queues were noted during our Thursday observations. Moreover, only five, two vehicle queues were observed. This is consistent with the traffic study in which s/x, two vehicle queues and one three vehicle queue were observed over the same time period. . However, the Monday observations show 20, two vehicle queues and eight, three vehicle queues over essentially the same time period. Significantly, nine of the two vehicle queues and five of the three vehicle queues occurred in the one hour (5:00 PM to 6:00 PM), which coincides with peak commute travel. It is also of note that a peak total of six customer vehicles was observed parked on site on both days. Philip M. Linscott, P.E. IRet.) Jack M. Greenspan, P.E. William A. Law, P.E. fret.) Paul W. Wilkinson, P.E. Leon D. Ward, P.E. John P. Keating, P.E. Pasadena - 818 796-2322 · San Diego- 619 299-3090 · Las Vegas- 702 451-1920 · An LG2WB Comp, any ENGINEERS Mr. Michael Rudolph FRIENDLY HILLS PHARMACY April 11, 1'996 Page 2 Average Waiting Time ? '~ Table 2 shows the average waiting time for the observed 5:00 PM to 6:00 PM peak hour on Monday, April 1, 1996. From Table 2, it can be seen that there was little activity at the drop- off window with an average time of 3.3 minutes. Pick up activity was substantially more with an average waiting' time of 6.2 minutes (almost twice the drop-off) Also, half the observed vehicles parked on-site with the customer walking in. The average time for the parked walk-in component was 12.1 minutes (almost twice the pick-up)., Findings . , . A three vehicle queue was observed eight times on a Monday, a typical busy pharmacy day. . During the Monday peak hour (5:00 PM to 6:00 PM) five of 14 vehicles (36 percent) observed at the pick-up window were part of a three vehicle-queue. Average waiting time at the pick-up Window On Monday was more than six minutes (6.2 minutes). Analysis of the Tustin site plan reveals that a three vehicle queue at the pick-up window has the potential to block on-site circulation. More than half (17 vehicles) observed during the Monday peak hour, parked on-site with the customer walking into the pharmacy. Since they are angle parked, these vehicles have to go past the end of the building and can either exit onto first Street, or continue to go areund the building to make a right-turn onto Newport Avenue. The third vehicle at the pick-up window will block the driving aisle at the end of the building at least five times during the busy peak hour. With an average waiting time of six minutes, this means that the aisle could be blocked for up to a total of 30 minutes.during the pe~ik hour. With only ten on-site parking spaces, there is a strong potential that the Tustin site may be short parking 'even though it meets City code. Our observations indicate a peak of 6 customer vehicles parked (both Thursday and Monday). Add three to four employee vehicles, and take into consideration that one of the spaces provided is restricted to handicapped parking, leads to the finding that, as a practical matter,.the Tustin site is at least one parking space short. ENGINEERS Mr. Michael Rudolph FRIENDLY HILLS PHARMACY April 11, 1996 Page 3 Conclusions There are site planning issues relative to the strong potential for blockage of on-site circulation, and sufficiency of on-site parking, which merit further consideration by the City. For your use, we are also enclosing a graphic illustration of each hour's observation. observed vehicle is shown and the length of line indicates the length of stay. Each We have welcomed the opportunity to be of service. If you have any questions regarding the above, please do not hesitate to call. ' Very truly yours, LINSCOTr, LAW & GREENSPAN, ENGINEERS J~an, P.E. Principal Attachments ENGINEERS '.TABLE 1 WALGREENS Rxpress Northeast Corner Lincoln/Magnolia, Anaheim OBSERVED QUEUE, LENGTIt TItURSDAY, MARCH 28, 1996 Queue Time Period 2 Vehicles 3 Vehicles 12:00 N - 1:00 PM 0 0 1:00 PM - 2:00 PM 0 0 2:00 PM- 3:00 PM 3 0 3:00 PM-4:00 PM 0 0 2t:00 PM- 5:00 PM 0 0 5:00 PM - 6:00 PM 0 0 6:00 PM- 7:15 PM 2 0 ~Total 5 0 Maximum Number Customer Vehicles Parked 6 ] MONDAY, APRIL I, 1996 Queue Length Time Period 2 Vehicles 3 Vehicles · 12:00 N - 1:00 PM 2 0 1:00 PM - 2:00 PM 1 1 2:00 PM- 3:00 PM 3 1 3:00 PM- 4:00 PM 0 0 4:00 PM- 5:00 PM 2 0 5:00 PM- 6:00 PM 9 5 6:00 PM - 7:00 PM 3 1 Total 20 8 Maximum Number Customer Vehicles Parked 6 ] ENGINEERS T, ABLE 2 WALGREENS Rxpress Northeast Corner Lincoln/Magnolia, Anaheim AVERAGE WArrING TIME 5:00 PM-6:00 PM PM Peak Hour MONDAY, APRIL 1, 1996 Location Drop OffWindow Pick Up Window Park and Walk-in Subtotal Park and Pick Up Window Total Number Vehicles Observed 3 13 17 · 33 Average Time (min) 3.3 6.2 12.1 9.0 29.0 ' I I ela!qeA x I o 0 al3!qaA c) _J ~ ...J o al:>!qaA 8 0~1, 91,1, ~1.1. 001. 9/.. 91, 0 x )~ × ~'~~ ~ ~ o ~ o~o~ o el:~!qeA o o o -JZ ~ o ~0 := el:)!qeA X X X Jl 0 el~!qeA 0 rd:) 0 0 0 0 0 ol ! I el:~!qeA ~0 = E ~0 bOO DDDD D O' 88~ ~Q~ ~~ ~ Q i¥ I al:)!qaA 0 oO · 0 I Ola!qoA I x ¥ X el:~!qeA ENGINEERS ENGINEERS & PLANNERS · TRAFFIC, TRANSPORTATION'~PARKiNG 1580 Corporate Drive, Suite 122 · Costa Mesa, California 9-2626 Phone: 714641-1587 · Fax: 714 641-0139 April 16, 1996 Mr. Michael Rudolph FRIENDLY HILLS PHARMACY 15141 East Whittier Boulevard Suite #115 Whittier, California 90603 SUBJECT: WALGREEN'S RXPRESS- TUSTIN · Dear Mr. Rudolph: Pursuant to your request, we are transmitting the. enclosed sketch which' shows a three vehicle queue at the Pick-up window of the proposed Walgreen's RXpress at First and Newport in the City.of Tustin. The vehicle envelopes are drawn to scale, with the drivers position aligned with the center of the pick-up window, and the third vehicle in line shown as either entering from Newport Avenue or circulating through the site. If there are any questions regarding, the sketch, please do not hesitate to call. Very truly yours, LINSCOTr, LAW & GREENSPAN, ENGINEERS Attachment C:~JMG~! EMOSLE'IMS07.LET Philip M. Linscott, P.E. (Ret.) Jack M. Greenspan, P.E. William ^. Law, P.E. (Ret.} Paul W. Wilkinson, P.E. Leon D. Ward, P.E. John P. Keating, P.E. Pasadena - 818 796-2322 · San Diego- 619 299-3090 · Las Vegas - 702 451-1920 · An LG2WB Company ~"x"x"x'xN'x'x'x'x'X~'x'xNNN_'x'x"x"x"x"xNNNNNNNN~ -- % 4NNqA-~ tl.i · . -o Report to the Planning Qommission i'. DATE: MARCH 11, 19~6 SUBJECT: CONDITIONAL USE pERMIT 95-008 AND DESIGN REVIEW 95-023 APPLICANT: . WALGREENS RXPRESS c/oTHOMAS COX ARCHITECTS 3242 ..HALLADAY/ SUITE 204 SANTA ANA, CA 92705 OWNER: NEWPORT & FIRST PARTNERS 562 MISSION STREET, SUITE 201 SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94105 LOCATION · 13342 NEWPORT AVENUE ZONING: ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: RETAIL COMMERCIAL (C-i) TOWN CENTER REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA A NEGATIVE DECLARATION HAS 'BEEN PREPARED IN CONFORMANCE WITH THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA). REQUEST: AUTHORIZATION TO CONSTRUCT A 1,976 SQUARE FOOT PHARMACY WITH DRIVE-THRU SERVICE AND A CHANGEABLE COPY MONUMENT SIGN. RECOM2{ENDATION That the Planning Commission- o Approve the Environmental Determination for the project by adopting Resolution No. 3418; and Approve Conditional Use Permit 95-008 and Design Review 95-023 bY adopting Resolution No. 3419, as submitted or revised. BACKGROUND This item was continued from the February 26, 1996 Planning Commission meeting to provide time for review of public input. The applicant is proposing to establish a 1,976 square foot pharmacy with drive-thru and walk-in services on a vacant property located at the southeast corner of Newport Avenue and First Street. The project site is approximately 0.41 acres in size and was at one EXHIBIT E Planning Commission' Report CUP 95-008 & DR 95-023 March 11, 1996 Page 2 time developed with a service station. The site has been vacant for several years and is currently undergoing soil remediation for the cleanup of the previous underground gasoline storage-tanks. On March 27, 1995, the Planning Commission considered and approved Use Determination 95-002 finding, that pharmacies with drive-thru services are allowed within the Retail Commercial (C-i) Zoning District, with the approval~ of a Conditional Use Permit.. The applicant is now proposing specific site development plans and requesting approval of a Conditional Use Permit in conformance with the Planning Commission's use determination. In ,addition, the applicant is proposing a changeable copy monument sign which also requires approval of a Conditional Use Permit in'accordance with Sign Code Section 9494(b) (1). The subject property is located within the 'Town center Redevelopment Project Area which requires Design Review approval by the Zoning Administrator. Since the proposed project also includes a specific discretionary .request which requires action by the Planning~ Commission, the Zoning Administrator has referred the Design ~'Review to the Planning Commission for concurrent consideration in accordance with City Code Section 9299b.' Surrounding uses to the south include a medical office complex with a pharmacy which recently obtained approval by the Planning commission (cuP 95-010) to install drive-thru services. A fast food restaurant is located to the east. Retail commercial uses~are located to the north across First Street and to the west across Newport Avenue... A public hearing notice on this project was published ih the Tustin Weekly for the February 26, 1996 Planning Commission meeting. Property owners within 300 feet of the site were notified of the hearing by mail. No additional notices were sent for this meeting, since the item was continued to this meeting. Notices were posted on the site, at City Hall and at the Police Department. The applicant was informed of the availability of a staff report for this item. Planning Commission Repdrt CUP 95-008 & DR 95-023 March 11, 1996 Page 3 DISCUSSION Project Description The praposed building would be located on a vacant site at the southeast corner of Newport'Avenue and First Street and would be setback approximately 47 feet from Newport Avenue and 22 feet from First Street. The building would be setback approximately 44 feet from the south and east property lines. The required' building setback from side and rear property lines within the C-1 Zoning District is zero feet. A 20 foot wide perimeter landscaped area adjacent to Newport Avenue and a 20 foot wide perimeter landscaped area adjacent to First Street is proposed. Additional perimeter landscaping is proposed adjacent to the south and east property lines. Access to the site is currently provided by two driveways from each street. The applicant proposes to close the driveway closest to the corner on each street. One-way circulation is'proposed around the building in a counter-clockwise, direction. Due to the one-way circulation system, vehicles entering from First Street must immediately make a right turn. Likewise, customers wishing to exit the site onto Newport,Avenue mus~ first travel around the building. There is a by-pass lane located on the north side of the building, providing access from First Street'to the .parking area and the drop-off window. The applicant has indicated,-in most cases, the prescription is phoned into the pharmacy and filled in advance of the patient arriving. Of the patients who drop off prescriptions themselves, most leave the site and return later to pick-up the order. The pick-up transaction, including consultation with the pharmacist, takes an average of 2-3 minutes. Two drive-thru windows are proposed for the project. The applicant has indicated that the south side window is for prescription drop-offs and. the north side window is for order pick-ups. The drive-thru lanes are approximately 11.5 feet wide, with a .storage length for two vehicles each. Parkinq and Circulation As part of the City review of this project a traffic analysis was prepared by RKJK Associates, Inc., to evaluate the adequacy of on- site. circulation, queue length, parking and potential impacts to surrounding streets. The City Transportation Engineer has reviewed and approved the study with respect to the content, methodology and analysis used, and has accepted the adequacy of its findings and Planning Commission Report CUP 95-008 & DR 95-023 March 11, 1996 Page 4 conclusions. The traffic 'and parking study is identified as Attachment B, and is included as an appendix to the Negative Declaration and Initial Study, which are marked Attachment A. In summary, the project'is estimated.to generate aPProximately 450 vehicle trip-ends per day, of. which 45 trip-ends will be generated in the~P.M, peak-hour. Since the business hours are 9:00 A.M. to 9:00 P.M.; the use will not be open during the A.M. peak-hour. The anticipated project related traffic volumes can be accommodated within the planned arterial highways and local'street systems. The additional trips generated will not significantly.affect the volume to capacity ratio for either Newport Avenue or First Street, and the analysis indicates that the adjacent streets and intersection will continue to operate at the same Level of Service "A". The approved Traffic ImPact Report also addressed the proposed'on_ site circulation and the adequacy of the queue length of the drive- thru lanes. An existing Walgreens Pharmacy was studied to evaluate the traffic generated by the drive-thru service. The report indicates that the demand at each window generally did not exceed two vehicles .peu five-minute observation period. Only once were there three vehicles queued at the pick-up window. It is anticipated that the queue storage length of two vehicles at each window should be adequate to accommodate drive-thru demand A condition has been included requiring the preparation of an updated traffic study if the City deems that a traffic problem exists on the subject site or adjoining streets as a' result of inadequate on-site circulatiOn. If the study indicates that there is inadequate traffic circulation, the property owner shall be required to provide additional mitigation measures to be reviewed and approved by' the ~Community Development and Public Works Departments. The Traffic Impact Report identifies-that access to the site-should be restricted to right turns in/out at the Newport Avenue southerly driveway. The Newport Avenue northerly driveway and the most westerly driveway on First Street should be eliminated due to their close proximity to the intersection.. The easterly First Street driveway should provide full access. The plans currently submitted by the applicant reflect the conditions recommended by the Traffic Impact Report. Planning Commission Report CUP 95-008 & DR 95-023 March 11, 1996 Page 5 Parking is provided 'along the south property line and includes an angled parking design to reinforce the one-way direction of travel. The Zoning Code requires a total of 10 parking spaces for this use, based upon a ratio of 1 space per 200 square feet of floor area (1976 sq. ft. + 200 = 9.88 spaces) and 10 parking spaces are provided. . Architecture Proposed development plans, indicate la modified Spanish style architectural theme with stucco walls, multi color S-tile roof, precast concrete columns at the drive-thru canopy, stucco column details, stucco window surrounds and brick wainscot around the building. While the architectural style and roof line is not a traditional "Spanish Style", the materials and colors can be reflective of this architectural theme. The building is a single- story and proposed to be approximately 23 feet in height. The drive-thru lanes would be covered by a solid canopy with a pitched roof element. The proposed building colors include a tan stucco and tan brick. The roof tile is multi-colored and includes yellow, beige and terra cotta. The building accent trim around the roof eave, windows and doors is proposed· to be royal blue in color. The proposed materials and architectural form would generally be compatible with the surrounding buildings to the north and south Which use earth tone split face block and slump stone block. A material sample board will be available at the March 11, 1996 Planning Commission meeting. While a variation in color is desirable and often adds to the "Early California" theme of the Town Center Redevelopment Area, the use of yellow and beige in the roof tile and the use of royal blue trim would not be considered consistent. A condition has been included fOr the use of an alternative color for the building trim and roof tile. The building trim should be earth tone. The roof tile should be either another tile with no yellow and a "flashed" appearance or a combination of two or three tiles, each of a separate shade of terra cotta to create a blend effect. Public Security At the previous meeting, the Planning Commission questioned the security of a drive-thru pharmacy and whether or not such use will encourage an increased crime activity. The TuStin Police Department has reviewed this application and determined that a drive-thru pharmacy is not susceptible to the higher crime rates commonly associated with drive-thru fast food uses. The drive'thru pharmacy does not have a high volume of cash payments (like a fast-food use) Planning Commission Report CUP 95-008 & DR 95-023 March 11, 1996 Page 6 since many orders are paid by 'insurance or through the use of a prescription card. In addition, drug abusers do not typically know the pharmaceutical name for the drugs and Could easily be handed a fake substitute. The most -common type of prescription crimes involve persons who forge the prescription or have obtained a doctor's prescription for an addictive drug. Conditions have been included to ensure that site lighting, window and doors meet the requirements of the City's Security Ordinance. ~ Landscaping A conceptual landscaping plan has been included with th~ development plans. A 20 foot wide landscaped planter would be provided adjacent to Newport Avenue. A 10 foot wide landscaped planter would be provided adjacent 'to First Street. These landscaped areas would include a minimum three (3) foot high berm to sCreen the drive-thru lane. The perimeter.streetS~ape treatment includes the use of 24-inch box Brisbane Box trees. The parking lot trees include the use of 15-gallon Brisbane Box trees. Additional landscaped planters are proposed adjacent to the east and west elevations. Rhaphiolepis Indica and T~xanum shrubs and Star Jasmine groundcover would'be used throughout the site. All plantings and irrigation would be required to comply with the City'.s Landscaping and Irrigation Guidelines. Signs The applicant is proposing a total of three wall signs 'and one monument sign for business identification and two directional signs. The primary business identification sign is proposed to be 72 square feet in size and located on the west elevation facing Newport Avenue. Two 25 sqUare foot 'secondary business identification signs are proposed for the south and north elevations. These signs are consistent with the Sign Code requirements 'for the proposed project. However, a 16 square foot supplemental sign stating "Pharmacy" is pr6posed on the west elevation. This sign must be incorporated into the business identification sign. The business identification sign and any supplemental signs cannot exceed an aggregate of 75 square feet for the west elevation. The aggregate area proposed for the west elevation of the building is 88 'square feet which exceeds the maximum permitted by Code. The signs are proposed to.be internally illuminated white cans To'be more consistent with the design theme of the area, staf~ recommends that the signs be modified to be channel letters or a routered.opaque background flush mounted type of sign. rather than a sign can attached to the building elevation. A condition has been added to require the signs be Planning commission Report CUP 95-008 & DR 95-023 March 11, 1996 redesigned 'and submitted to the Community Development DePartment for review and approval. The monument sign is proposed to be a located at the intersection, perpendicular to Newport Avenue and measures a total of 30 square feet in size and '6 feet .in height. The Code permits a monument sign w~th a. maximum~height of 6 feet and a maximum size of 32 square ~eet. .The proposed monument sign not only inclUdes business identification but also incorporates two lines of changeable copy signage. The Tustin Sign Code requires approval of a Conditional Use Permit for changeable copy signs. ~ . The applicant believes a changeable copy sign is a vital., part.of their business and feels the sign is justified because there is another business (Executors Escrow) at the 'southwest corner of Newport Avenue and Irvine Boulevard that also has ~ reader' board sign. While changeable copy signs can provide information to-the public, the use of Such signs has been limited to public and quasi- institutional uses such as churches. The use of Such signs for commercial businesses to advertise products, specials and prices can add to sign clutter, are difficult to read from the street and reduce the effectiveness of other signs in the vicinity. The sign at Newport Avenue and Irvine Boulevard is a legal non-conforming sign that was installed many years ago prior to adoption of the current Code. As a result of the anticipated'street widening project at this intersection, that sign will likely be removed. Staff is-not able to support the request for changeable copy and has included a condition o~ approval to eliminate the two lines, of changeable copy with the redesign of the monument sign to be approved by the Community Development Department. PUBLIC ~CONCERN~ o Staff received several letters from surrounding property owners and tenants identifying concerns with the potential impacts from this project (Attachment C)~ The applicant had an opportunity to review these' comments and respond to the concerns in a letter dated February 21, 1996 (Attachment D). The general items of concern.are outlined and discussed below. Issue: The on-site circulation is inadequate to accommodate the drive-thru service. Response: The City's Transportation, Engineer has reviewed the public input and applicant's response and'has'determined that the Traffic Study prepared for this project accurately evaluated the on-site circulation. The Planning Commission Report CUP 95-008 & DR 95-023 March 11, 1996 Page 8 proposed use of' a dual-window system, one for prescription drop-off and one for prescription pick-up and the by-pass lanes provide for ease of traffic flow. The proposed condition requiring further analysis and implementation of mitigation measures provides for .additional project review and the requirement for on-site modifications if there is a problem with on-site circulation. Issue: The stacking lane is not adequate to accommodate the volume of traffic utilizing the drive-thru'service. Response: The traffic study provided specific comparative- information based upon a drive-thru pharmacy which is ~n acceptable method of analysis when there is inadequate transportation industry information. Since drive-thru pharmacies are a relatively new use, the City's Transportation Engineer concurs with the methodology used to evaluate the-queue length and has determined the drive-thru-lanes to be adequate to serve the use. Again, a condition has been added to the project requiring additional analysis if queue length is a problem and modification to the stacking distance may be required. .. Issue: 'The proposed project will generate a significant volume of traffic which will reduce the level of service on adjacent streets. Response: The approved Traffic Study indicated that the proposed use will generate 450 vehicle trip-ends-per day which represents approximately 0.8% of the traffic capacity on Newport Avenue and 0.4% of the traffic capacity on First Street. Dueto the minimal traffic contributions by this project, the City's Transportation Engineer has determined that the existing 'roadway system can adequately' accommodate the project related traffic. Issue: ~ There is ihadequate parking for the proposed pharmacy. Response: 'The Tustin City Code .requires a total of one space for every 200 square feet of floor area for retail uses. Since' there .is no separate standard for a pharmacy use, the rate of 1/200 has been applied to this pharmacy. ~ total of ten spaces~are required by Code and ten spaces are provided. The City cannot require more parking than required by the Code for a permitted use. The drive-thru service may reduce the parking demand by providing an alternative access to the business. Planning Commission Report CUP 95-008 & DR 95-023 March 11, 1996 Page 9 Issue: The architectural design of'a Walgreens RXpress is not compatible with the "Early California" theme of the Newport Avenue business.corridor. Response: The typical Walgreens RXpress store constructed in several other locations within Orange County. is not the same design proposed for the Tustin location. In response'to initial 'staff comments, the applicaht modified the architecture to include stucco walls, stone colored brick wainscot, variegated S-tile roof, stucco' columns and window surrounds and a lowered roof line. As previously mentioned, the proposed roof color is not consistent with the "Early California,, theme and should be modified to eliminate the predominate yell6w hues. A condition has'been included for alternate roof'colors to be approved by the Community Development Department. Issue: The changeable copy monument sign is not appropriate for this type of business. ResDonse: Staff is not supporting the request for a changeable copy monument sign. A condition of approval has been added to this project requiring the elimination of changeable copy and for the redesigned monument sign to be approved by the Community Development Department. FINDING~ - The proposed pharmacy use is permitted by right'in the C-1 Zone; however, a Conditional Use Permit is required for the drive-thru service and the changeable copy sign. In its consideration of this Conditional Use Permit, the Planning Commission must determine whether or not the proposed drive-thru pharmacy and changeable copy monument sign will be detrimental to the health, safety, morals, comfort and general 'welfare of the persons residing in or working in the neighborhood or whether it will be injuriousor detrimental to property or improvements in the~ vicinity or to the general welfare of the City, as evidenced by the following findings: Planning Commission Report CUP 95-008 & DR 95-023 March 11, 1996 Page 10 DRIVE-THRU SERVICE 1) The proposed use can-be accommodated on the subject property, p~oviding for.adequate on-site circulation and queue length as supported by the Traffic Study prepared for this project. 2) 3) The use will not have a negative affect on .surrounding properties or impact the availability of off-street parking. The pharmacy'has provided adequate parking in compliance with the Tustin City Code and the drive-thru service-will not create a deman~ for additional parking. Based upon the approved Traffic Study, the additional volume of traffic generated by this use can be accommodated on Newport Avenue and First Street. The use is compatible with the sUrrounding uses in that there are other commercial uses that have drive-thru services in the immediate vicinity, indluding ~nother drive-thru pharmacy approximately 100 feet'away from-the Subject site and there wilI be no exterior amplification or noise generated from the use. CHANGEABLE COPY MONUMENT SIGN 1) The changeable copy sign is not consistent with the type of signs typically approved for retail businesses and may create sign, clutter along the Newport Avenue business corridor. 2) The City has traditionally approved changeable copy signs for public or institutional uses such as churches and schools to provide information about activities or services. Approval of this sign would set a precedent for other retail businesses desiring such signs. The use of a changeable copy sign for advertising could encourage advertising specific brand names and pricing, both of which are prohibited by the Sign Code. Planning Commission Report CUP 95-008 & DR 95-023 March 11, 1996 Page 11 CONCLUSION That the Planning Commission approve Conditional Use Permit 95-008 and Design Review 95-023 authorizing the establishment of a drive- thru service in conjunction with a pharmacy, and deny the proposed changeable copy monument sign, subject to. the findings and conditi6ns of Resolution No. 3419, as submitted or revised. Sara J./ P~sh~[ides Associate Planner Daniel AICP )X~ Senior Planner SJP: br: cup95- 08° sp Attachments: Location Map Submitted'Plans A - Negative Dec and Initial Study B - Traffic Study dated 12-22-95 C - Public Comments D - Applicant Response Resolution Nos. 3418 and 3419 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT' .i:..~ ~ 300 Centennial B~ay, Tustin, CA ~2680 ..j (714) 573'-3105 NEGATIVE DECLARATION Project Title: (/~a~ clr~O~ z Project Location' ~ ea,37t- Project Description: Project Proponent: Lead Agency Contact Person: Telephone: The Community Development Department has conducted an Initial.Study for the above project in accordance with the City ofTustin's procedures regarding implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act, and on the basis of that study hereby finds: ----1 That there is no substantial evidence that the project may have a significant effect on the environment. That potential significant effects were identified, but revisions have been included in the project plans and agreed to by the applicant that would avoid or mitigate the effects to a point where clearly no. significant effects would occur. Said Mitigation Measures are included in Attachment A of the Initial Study which is attached hereto and incorporated herein. Therefore, the preparation of an Environmental Impact Report is not required. The Initial Study which provides the basis for this determination is attached and is on 'file at the Community Development Department, City of Tustin. The public is invited to comment on the appropriateness of this Negative Declaration during the review period, whiCh begins with the public notice of Negative Declaratlon and extends for. twenty (20) calendar days. Upon review by the Community Development DireCtor, this review period may be extended if deemed necessary. ; - ~~eX S~ngleto~ - - Co--unity Development Director NEGDEC. PM5 3704.A ATTACHMENT A COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 300 DEPARTMENT Centennial Way, Tustin, CA 92...680 (714) 573-3105 INITIAL STUDY BACKGROUND Project Title: Wal greens Pharmacy Lead Agency: City of Tustin 300 Centennial Way Tustin, California 92680 Lead Agency Contact Person: Sara d. Pashalides Phone: (714) 573-3122 Project Location: Southeast corner Newport ^venue and First Street Project Sponsor's Name and Address: Thomas P. Cox, Architect 3242 Halladay, #204' Santa Ana, Ca. 92705 General Plan Designatio'n: Zoning Designation: Att: David Sheeqoq (714) 557-4666 Comm~initv CommErcial C-1 Retail Commercial Project Description: Conditional Use Permit 95-008 is a request to construct a 1976 square foot ~harmac.y with drive-thru services and , site improvements. Surrounding Uses: North Office/commercial East Restaurant South Office .. West Commercial Other public agencies whose approval is 'required: [] Orange County Fire Authority ~1 Orange County Health Care Agency [] South Coast Air Quality Management District [] Othei- 1 City of Irvine [] City of Santa Ana Orange Count5' EMA ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED The ehvironmental faCtors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, invo. Mng at least one impact that is a "PotentiallY:.gig~nificant Impact" as indicated by the checklist in '" Section D 'below. ~ [2] Land Use and Planning 1~ Hazards [~ Population and Housing I~ Noise [-1 Geological Problems ID Public Services O Water O Utilities and Service Systems 12 Air Qu'aJity I~ Aesthetics 12 Transportation & Circulation O Cultural Resources 12 'Biological Resources O R~creatibn UI Energy and Mineral Resources [2] Mandatory Findings of Signifi,cance C. DETERMINATION: On the basis of this initial evaluation: I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the em4rOnment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION x~-ill be prepared. .. I find that although the proposed project could have a siguificant effect on the emdronment, there ,,vill not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described on an attached sheets have been added to the project. A NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an IM2PACT 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 anal3~ed 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 Siomfificant Unl~s Mitigated." An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it muxt anal3~e 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 si~cant effect in tiffs case because all potentially si~cant effects 1) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier El:P, pursuant to applicable standards, and 2) have bee~n avoided or mitigat~ed pursuant to that earlier EI/L including rexdsions 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, them WILL NOT be a . si~mnJ.ficant effect in this case ly~,.,2use all potentially si~cant effects 1) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant, to applicable standards, and 2) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including rex4sions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project. Printed Name Date Title . o D. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS: o Earlier analyses used: Available for review at: Ci0, of Tustin Communi~. Develoflment Department 1. LAdND USE & PLANNING- Would the proposal: a) Conflict x~qth general plan designation or zoning7 b) Conflict 'Mth applicable environmental plans or pOlicies adopted by agencies x~4th jurisdiction'over the project7 c) Be incompatible with existing land uses in the x4dnityT' d) Affect agricultural resources or operations? e) Disrupt or dk4de the physical arrangement of an' established community (including a low-income or min0rify 6ommunity)? 2. POPULA. T'ION & HOUSING- Would the proposal: a) Cumulatively exceed official regional or local population projections? b) Induce substantial grox~ in an area either direcfiy or indirectly (e.g., through projects in an undeveloped area or ex-tension of major infrastructure)? c) Displace existing housing, especially affordable housing? GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS - Would the proposal result in or expose people to potential impacts invoh,ing: a) Fault rupture? b) Seismic ground, shaking? c) Seismic ground failure, including liquefaction? d). Seiche, tsunami, or volcanic hazard? e) Landslides or mudflows? f) Erosion, changes in topo~aphy or unstable soil conditions from excavation, grading, or fill? g) Subsidence of land? h) Expansive soils? i) Unique geologic or physical features? 4. WATER - Would the proposal result in: a) Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the rate and amount of surface runoff2. b) Exposure of people or property to water related hazards such as flooding? c) Discharge into surface waters or other alteration of surface water quality (e.g., temperature, dissolved oxygen or tu.rbidity)? d) Changes in the amount of surface water in an3, ~-ater .body? e) Changes in currents, or the course or direction of a~ter movements? Potentially Significant Itnpoct Potentially Significant Unless .~.[itigation Incorporated Less than Significant Impact No Impact 0 0 0 El- 0 0 0 0 E] 0 0 0 0 0 ' 0 E] 0 0 0 0 0 '0 0 0 0 0 0 E] E] 0 0 0 0 '[23 f) Change in the quantity of ground waters, either through direct additions or withdrawals, or through interception of an aquifer by cuts or excax-ation~ or through substantial loss of gr,oundwater recharge capability? g) Altered direction or rate of flow of groundwater? h) Impacts to ground,,rater quality? i) Substantial reduction in the amount ofgroundamer otherMse available for public, water supplies? AIR Q UA.~ITY - Would the proposal: Potentially Significant Impact Potentially Unless ]t4'iligation ]ncorporated Less Ihan SignijScant Impact Ato Impact 0 0 0 0 '0 0 a) Violate any air q~mlity standard or contribute tO an ex/sting or projected ~ir quality violation? b) Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants? c) Alter air movement, moisture, or temperature, or cause any change 'in climate7 d) Create objectionable odors? TRANSPORTATION & CIRCULATION - Would the proposal result in: 0 .O O, a) Increased vehicle trips or traffic congestion? b) Hazards to safety from design features (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? c) Inadequate emergency access or access to nearby uses? d) Insufficient parking capacit3,,, onsite or offsite? e) Hazards or barriers for pedestrians or bicyclists? f) Conflicts with adopted policies supporting-alternative transportation (e.g. bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? g) Rail, watei-borne or air traffic impacts? 0 0 O' 0 E3 0 0 0 0 0 0 7~ . BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES - gould the proposal result in impacts to: a) Endangered, threatened or rare species or their l~bitats (including but not limited to plants, fish, insects, animals, and birds? b) Locally designated species (e.g., heritage trees)? c) I.x>cally designated natural communities (e.g., oak forest, coastal habitat, etc.)? d) Wetland habitat (e.g., marsh, riparian, and vernal pool)? e) Wildlife dispersal or migratibn corridors7 ENERGY & MINERAL RESOURCES- Wouldthe proposal: 0 © O © E3 0 0 0 0 0 0 a) Conflict with adopted energy conservation plans? b) Use nonrenewable resources in a wasteful and inefficient, manner? c) Result in the loss of availability ofa 'lcnos~ mineral resource that would be of future value to the region7 0 0 It. AT_.ARDS - IVould the proposal involve: a) A risk of accidental explosion or release of hazardous substances (including, but not limited to, oil, pesticides, chemicals, or radiation)7 b) Possible interference with emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? c) The creation of any health hazard or potential health hazard? d) Exposure qf people to existing sources of potential health hazards? e) Increased fire hazard in areas with flanunable brush, grass, or trees? 10. NOISE - Would the proposal result in: 11. 12. a) Increases in existing noise levels? b) Exposure of people to severe noise levels? PUBLIC SERVICES - Would the proposal have an 'effect upon. or result in a need for new or altered government ser~,ices in any of the following areas: a) Fire protection? b) Police protection? c) Schools? d) Maintenance of public facilities, including roads? e) Other government sen,ices? UTILITIES & SERVICE SYSTEMS - Would the proposal result in a need for ncw ~. sterns or supplies, or substantial alterations to the following utilities: a) Power or natural gas? b) Communications s3'stems7 c) Local or regional water treatment or distribution facilities? d) Sewer or septic tanks? e) Storm water drainage? f) Solid waste disposal? g) Local or regional water supplies? 13. AESTHETICS - Would the proposal: . a) Affect a scenic vista or scenic kighway? b) Have a demonstrable negative aesthetic effect? c) Create light or glare? Potentially ~ignificanl ]/npac[ Polcnlia]]~, ,~ignij~c~n! Unless ]t4'i ti£ ation Incorporated ,~i~nif~can[ Impoc! Impact [51 [51 [5] © [5] [51 0 E3 -0 0 E] - . 14. CULTURAL RESOURCES - ffbuld the propo":sah a) Disturb paleontological resources? b) Disturb archaeological resources7 c) Have the potential tO cause a physical change which xvould affect unique ethnic cultural values? d) Restrict existing religious or sacred uses wittfin the potential impact area? 15. RECREATION - Would the proposal: a) Increase the demand for neighborhood or regional parks or other recreational facilities? b) Affect existing recreational opportunities? 16. MANDATORY.FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE a) b) c) d) Does the project have the potential to de=made the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or '~41dlife 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 examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? Does the project have the potential to achieve short-term, to the disadvantage of long-term, environmental goals? Does the project have impacts that are indMdually 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). Does the project have em4ronmenml effects which x~411 cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? Potentially Significant Impact Dolcnlit~lly Significant Unless ,~itigation Incorporated Less lhon 'Significant Impact No Impact [23 0 0 O' 0 0 0 0 ~ me EVALUATION OF ENVIRON~IENTAL IMPACTS 'Please refer to Attachment A for an evaluation of the environmental impacts identified in Section D above. INITSTUD. PM5 3702A . ATTACHMENT A EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 95-008 & DESIGN REVIEW 95-023 WALG~EENS PHARMACY BACKGROUND The proposed project is a request for: 1) a conditional use permit to authorize a drive-through pharmacy, pursuant to Tustin City Code Section 9235c(m) and Use Determination 95-002; 2) a conditional use permit, pursuant to Section 940463, allowing a changeable copy monument sign to provide identification for the proposed business; and 3) ~ design review to authorize construction of a 1,976 gross square foot pharmacy and site improvements. The project site, an approximately 0.41 acre parcel, is located on · the southeast corner Of Newport Avenue and First Street. The site was at one time developed with a service station. The site has more recently been vacated and is currently undergoing remedial action for the underground storage tanks that.provided gasoline for the service station. The remediation has been monitored bY the Orange County Health Care Agency, Environmental Health Division - Hazardous Materials Mitigation Section. Surrounding uses to the site include a bank across First Street to the north, a fast food restaurant to the east, commercial uses across Newport Avenue to the west and a medical office project to the south. o LAND USE & PLANNING Items a' throuqh e - "No Impact"- The.subject property is designated by the General Plan Land Use Map as Community Commercial. The subject property is zoned Retail Commercial (C1) and is included within the Town Center Redevelopment Project Area. On March-27, 1995, the Planning Commission considered and approved Use Determination 95-002 finding that pharmacies with drive-thru services are allowed within the Retail Commercial (C-i) Zoning District, with the approval of a Conditional Use Permit. The proposed project would not result in alterations of present land uses in the vicinity. Although 'the site is currently vacant, a gasoline service station was previously operated at the subject site. The request to establish a drive-thru pharmacy on the site-would continue to allow retail and commercial uses. The proposed pharmacy and drive-thru would be oriented to 'serve the surrounding residential and commercial neighborhood. Sources: Submitted Plans City of Tustin General Plan and Zoning.Code Field observations Mitiqation/Monitorinq Required' None required. Attachment A - Evaluation of Environmental Impacts CUP 95-008 & DR 95-g23 Page 2 . POPULATION & HOUSING Items a thr°uqh c - "No Impact": The proposed project is on a site previously developed.with a gasoline service station and is surrounded by commercial.and office development. The proposed development would not result in-any direct increase in'population in that no additional dwelling units would be created. This small scale project would be designed to meet the needs of the existing residents and businesses, of the community. The project would have no impact on the location, growth, distribution or density of the population in the surrounding area. Sources: Submitted Plans City of Tustin General Plan and Zoning Code Field observations Mitiqation/Monitorinq Required: None Required. . GEOLOGICAL PROBLEMS Items a, d and e - "No Impact"- The site is relatively flat in its topographical features. The proposed modifications to the site would involve minor grading activity to prepare the site for the proposed new construction. The site will not be impacted by any landslides, seiche, tsunami, volcanic action, erosion, or subsidence since none of these geologic features are present on-site or.in the vicinity. The subject site was previously developed With a gasoline service station, which has been vacated and demolished. Items b, c, f throuah i - "Potentially Siqnificant unless Mitiaation Incorporated"- According to the City of Tustin General Plan there are no AqUist-Priolo zones on or near the site. However, the site is subject to seismic shaking as a result of the site's proximity to regional fault lines such as the Newport-Inglewood fault, as is all of Southern California. Tustin is subject to expansive soils and liquefaction due to the high ground water table in the area. However, common construction practices such as removal and recompaction of the site soil and remedial grading will mitigate any potential impacts from any existing expansive soils encountered. Since the site was previously used as a gasoline service station, the Soil has been contaminated by the underground gasoline storage tanks. The site is currently undergoing soil Attachment A - Evaluation of Environmental Impacts CUP 95-008 & DR 95-023 Page 3 remediation to clean the soil and eliminate the potential water quality'impacts.. The remediation has been monitored by the Orange County Health Care Agency, Environmental Health Division - Hazardous Materials Mitigation Section. A comprehensive discussion of issues regarding soil contamination/remediation on the site are' found-under Item 4. Sources: Field Observations Submitted Plans Tustin City Code Mitiqatio~/Monitorinq Recruited': The following mitigation measures would be required to be satisfied prior to issuance of any building permits for the project: Ao The applicant would be required to submit a soils report to the Building Division prepared within twelve (12) months prior'to Building Permit 'Plan Check. m . The applicant would be required to submit grading plans identifying the scope of work at Building Permit Plan Check. In addition, all structures will be designed in accordance with the seismic 'design provisions of the Uniform Building Codes to promote safety in the event of an earthquake. Ail work shall be done in. conformance with the Uniform Building Code, Grading Code and Grading Manual as required by the.Building Official. C o All mitigation measures identified in Item 4 below related to the soil remediation activities on the site would be required to be satisfied prior to issuance of any buildin~ permits for the project.. WATER Items c throuqh i .- "No~ Impact"- The subject site was previously graded and developed as.a gasoline service station and is not located near any standing or moving bodies of water. As a result, the amount of surface water and direction of water movement will not change. Items a and b - "PotentiallY' Siqnificant Unless Mitiqation Incorporated": As proposed, 'the surface areas of the project will drain into the existing storm drain system. It is not Attachment A - Evaluation of Environmental Impacts CUP 95-008 & DR 95-023 Page 4 i' anticipated that this project will substantially contribute to the drainage flow. However, a Water Quality Management Plan administered by the City of Tustin and the Regional Water Quality Control Board would be required to mitigate and minimize runoff into the storm drain system. Any' water d~posited into the sanitary sewer system for treatment shall be'in compliance with the ~range County Sanitation District requirements. · The site is currently undergoing remedial action for the 'underground .storage tanks that provided gasoline for the service Station. There exists a soil/ground water remediation system on the subject site, which is monitored by the Orange County Health Care Agency, Environmental Health DiVision. It is anticipated that soil remediation activities on the property would be completed prior to construction of this project. Once remediation is complete, the Agency has determined that no further action relative to the underground tanks is necessary. Source: Field..Observations 'Tustin Community Development Department Tustin Public Works Department Orange County Sanitation District Regional Water Quality Control Board. Orange 'County Health Care Agency Mitication/Monitorinq: The following mitigation measures would be required to be satisfied prior to issuance of an~ building permits for the project: Ao The applicant shall submit for approval by the Community Development and Public Works Departments, a Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) specifically identifying Best Management Practices (BMPs) that will be used on site to control predictable pollutant run-off. This WQMP shall identify: the structural and non-structural measures specified detailing.implementation of BMPs whenever they are applicable to the project; the assignment of long-term maintenance responsibilities (specifying the developer, parcel owner, maintenance association, lessee, etc.); and, reference to the location(s) of structural BMPs. Attachment A - Evaluation of Environmental Impacts CUP 95-008 & DR 95-023 Page 5 m o C. m. o F. The site will be designed 'so that all parking area 'surface run-off is directed to and picked up by the storm drain system. · Ail grading and drainage plans shall be'subject to review and approval by the City of Tustin's Building Division and the Public Works Department to confirm Compliance with Drainage Area Management Plan and Construction Standards for Private Streets, Storm Drains and On-Site Private Improvements prior to construction. Ail landscaping, irrigation shall be designed to consistent with the City ' s Landscaping and Irrigation Guidelines which includes the use of .landscaping timing devices to ensure watering efficiency. The use of water conserving plumbing fixtures throughout the buildings should be considered by the applicant. The applicant shall obtain clearance from the Orange county Health Care Agency, EnVironmental Health Division upon completion of the soil remediation activities. o AIR QUALITY · Items a, c and d - "No ImDacts,,. The proposed project is a pharmacy with a drive-thru facility. The project would not result in substantial air emission or deterioration of ambient air quality, nor would it alter air movement, moisture, temperature or cause any changes in climate, or create. objectional odors. Item b - "Potentially Siqnificant unless Mitiqation Incorporated,,: The construction of the new structure may reSult in short term pollutants such as dust particles which will be emitted into the air. Conditions of approval will be required for the project to minimize construction activity dust generated as part of this project. Sources: Submitted Plans Field Observations Thstin Community Development Department Attachment A - Evaluation of Environmental Impacts CUP 95-008 & DR 95-023 Page 6 Mitiqation/Monitorinq Required: The site will be required to comply with grading plan approvals with regard to dust control, which requires the applicant to apply water to the site .as specified in the Grading Code and Grading Manual. This will be monitored by the Building Division when construction commences. o TRANSPORTATION & CIRCULATION Items c throuqh q - "No Impact": .The 'proposed project includes construction of a 1,976 .square foot .pharmacy with drive-thru service and 10 on-site parking spaces. The Zoning Code requires a total of 10 parking spaces, which are provided on-site. Based on review of plans and additional technical studies, the project will not impact traffic safety, emergency access, demand for new parking, pedestrian circulation, or alternative modes of transportation. Items a and b - "Potentially Significant unless Mitigation Incorporated": The development plans submitt'ed to the City by the applicant for the proposed project reflect the ultimate .right-of-way configuration of Newport Avenue and First Street. The site plan review and traffic analysis performed for this project were also based upon the ultimate configuration of the site. As the site is currently vacant, any new develOpment would generate incremental traffic impacts, which when considered cumulatively, will impact the City's circulation. system in this area. The City's roadway system, as identified in the Orange County MPAH (Master Plan of Arterial Highways) and the City's General Plan Circulation Element, is designed to accommodate traffic associated with the ultimate build-out of the City of which this site is a part. Newport Avenue is classified as a Primary(Augmented) arterial in the'City's General plan and in the Orange County MPA}{. At its 'current configuration of four lanes, Newport Avenue, in the vicinity of this project, currently carries 22,400 vehicles per day of which 12,000 are in the northbound direction adjacent to 'this project site. First Street is classified as a Primary arterial west of Newport Avenue in the City's General Plan Circulation Element. First Street is not classified east of Newport Avenue, adjacent to the site. First Street, east of Newport Avenue currently carries 5,300 vehicles per day. The average' daily trips for First Street west of Newport Avenue is 19,800 vehicles. Both Newpor't Attachment A - Evaluation of Environmental Impacts CUP 95-008 & DR 95-023 Page 7 Avenue and First Street haVe a capacity of 37,500 vehicles per day and operate at a Level of Service "A" Although the site is currently vacant, with the eXception of soil remediation equipment~ there is an asphalt access drive located along the easterly 25 feet of the property. This drive is used for servicing the soil remediati°n operation and provides access to the rear portion of the adjacent fast food restaurant to the east. Implementation of this plan will permanently close off this access to. the adjacent parcel with landscaping and raised curbs'[ The fast food restaurant has two driveways onto First Street, which provide adequate ingress and egress to the parking area and restaurant facility. The elimination of the additional access to the rear of the site as part of this development-.proposal will not have a negative impact to the on-site circulation of the fast food business. The applicant has indicated that there are no access easements across the subject property that would require the driveway remain open to the adjacent parcel. The site is located on the southeast corner of Newport Avenue and First Street. Access to the'site is currently provided by two driveways onto each street. The applicant's plans indicate that the one driveway on each street which is~closest to the corner will be permanently closed. The two remaining driveways are proposed for ingress and egress. Since the on-site circulation is designed to require vehicles to travel in a counter-clockwise direction around the building, vehicles entering from First Street must immediately make a right turn. Likewise, customers wiShing to exit the site onto Newport Avenue must first travel around the building. There is a by- pass lane located on the north side of the building, providing access from First Street to the parking area and the drop-off window. The project includes two drive-thru windows~ the one on the south side of the building is for prescription drop- 'offs, and the window on the north side is for picking-up an order. The drive-thru lanes are approximately 11.5 feet wide, with a storage length for two vehicles. The parking area along the south property line includes angled parking spaces to reinforce the direction of travel. The applicant has prepared a Traffic Impact Report for the project which was reviewed and approved by the City of Tustin Engineering Division which is included as Attachment B to this Initial Study. In summary,' the project is estimated to generate approximately 450 vehicle trip-ends per day, of which 45 trip-ends will be generated in the'P.M, peak-hour. The use Attachment 7t - Evaluation of Environmental Impacts CUP 95-008 & DR 95-023 Page 8 will not be open during the A.M. peak-hour. The anticipated project related traffic volumes can be accommodated within the planned arterial highways and local street systems. It will · not Significantly affect the ~olume to capacity ratio for either Newport Avenue or First. Street. Analysis indicates that the adjacent streets and intersection will continue to operate at the same Level of Service "A" with project traffic. The Traffic Impact Report also reviewed the proposed on-site circulation and the adequacy of the queue length of the drive- thru lanes. To obtain data for this study the current traffic volume and circulation was evaluated at a similar Walgreens located in the City of Anaheim. The report indicates that the demand at each window generally did not exceed two vehicles per five-minute observation period. Only once were there three vehicles queued at the 'pick-up window, and that is unusual. It is~ anticipated that the queue storage length of two vehicles at each window should be adequate to accommodate drive-thru demand. If, at any time in the future, the City is made aware and' concurs that a traffic.problem exists on the subject site or adjoining streets as a result of inadequate · on-site circulation, then the Community Development and Public Works Departments may require the property owner to submit an updated traffic analysis, at no expense to the City. If.said study indicates that there is inadequate traffic circulation, the property owner shal~ be required to provide additional mitigation measures to be reviewed and approved by the Community Development and Public Works Departments. Said mitigation may include the measures included under the mitigation section below. The Traffic Impact Report identifies that access to the site should be restricted to right turns in/out at the Newport Avenue southerly driveway. The Newport Avenue northerly driveway and the most westerly driveway on First Street should be eliminated due to their close proximity to the intersection. The easterly First Street driveway should provide full access. The plans currently submitted by the applicant 'reflect the conditions recommended by the Traffic Impact Report. The subject property is located within the Transportation Systems Improvement Program (TSIP) Benefit Area A which was established to fund and provide for various circulation improvements to benefit properties within the benefitted area Attachment A - Evaluation of Environmental Impacts CUP 95-008 & DR 95-023 Page 9 as a result of'new development. Based upon ~he TSIP Program, the applicant w. ould be required to pay .applicable fees to mitigate cumulative impacts. Baged on the information contained in the Traffic Impact Report, it is determined that the proposed project will not have significant traffic impacts upon the circulation system and will not have a significant impact to the area in the form of cumulative negative circulation impacts. Sources- Field Verification Submitted Plans Tustin Community Development Department Tustin Public WOrks Department Traffic ImPact Report,. dated 12-22-95, prepared by RKJK Mitiqation/Monitorinq Required: .The following mitigation measures wpuld be required to be satisfied prior to issuance of any building permits for the project: Ao The applicant shall prepare and submit to the Engineering Division a separate 24" by 36" street improvement plan, as prepared by a California Registered Civil Engineer, for all construction within the public right-of-way. In addition, a separate ~24" by 36" reproducible construction traffic control plan, as prepared by a California Registered Traffic Engineer or Civil Engineer experienced in this type of plan preparation would be required. m o The applicant shall be required to pay applicable Transportation System Improvement Program,'.Benefit Area A Fees, based upon the current fee schedule in effect at the time building permits are issued. Close the existing northern most driveway on Newport Avenue ~nd western most driveway on First Street, due to their close proximity to the intersection. m o The Newport Avenue driveway shall be restricted.to right turn in/out access. E o Sight distances at each access driveway shall be reviewed for compliance with Orange County EMA Attachment A - Evaluation of Environmental Impacts CUP 95-008 & DR 95-023 Page 10 .Standard' Plan 1i17, when improvement pans are prepared. landscaping and F . On-street parking shall continue to be restricted adjacent to the project site on Newport Avenue and First Street. Go If, at any time in the future, the City is made aware and concurs that a parking, traffic and a circulation problem exists on the subject property, .then ..the Community Development and Public Works Departments may require the~' property owner to submit an updated traffic analysis prepared by the applicant's consultant, at no expense to the City. The updated analysis shalll be submitted within the time schedule stipulated by the City.' The property owner may delegate this responsibility, through lease negotiations, to any tenant operating under Conditional Use Permit 95-008. If the City deems' there are traffic conflicts, the property owner shall be required.to provide additional mitigation measures to be reviewed" and approved by the Community Development and Public Works Departments'. Said mitigation may include, but not be limited to, the following: a o bo c . Modification of the drive-thru lane alignment; Elimination of one of the drive-thru windows. to provide additional queuing;and, Construction of planter medians t0 separate and define vehicular access I~nes. Failure to adequately respond to such a request and to imPlement mitigation measures within the time schedules, established shall be grounds for. initiation of revocation procedures for Conditional Use Permit 95-008. 7-: BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES Items a-e - "No Impact": The subject site is located within an urban area and is developed with a former service station.. The site is free from any unique, rare or endangered species of plant or animal life. The proposed project would introduce· landscape and specimen trees on to the site in conformance Attachment A - Evaluation of Environmental impacts CUP 95-008 & DR 95-023 Page 11 with the requirements of the City of Tustin"s Landscape and Irrigation~Guidelines. Ail landscaping will be designed, installed, and maintained in accordance with the City's Landscape and Irrigation Guidelines. Source: Field Observations Proposed Development Plans Mitiqation/Monitorinq- None Required. o ENERGY & MINERAL RESOURCES Items a and c - "No Impact": . The proposed project will not conflic~ with any adopted conservation plans nor will it result in the loss of availability, of known mineral resource. Item b - "Potentially Siqnificant unless Mitiqation Incorporated"- The proposed project 'would result in the construction .use of materials that are non-renewable. However, the usage will be minimal given the scale of the project. The proposed project would not result, in any "significant" change in the current use of energy given the scale of new development but will require the renewal of services since the site is vacant. The applicant should consult with the various utility companies which would provide service to the develoPment to incorporate energy conserving systems and design features into the project. Sources- Field Verification Submitted Plans Tustin Community Development Department Mitiqation/Monitorinc Required: compliance with all provisions of Title 24 shall be required'with regard to energy conservation prior to building permit issuance. o HAZARDS Items a, b and e - "No Impact": The prOposed use as a drive- thru pharmacy would not create conditions that negatively affect human health. The proposed project would not result in significant hazards (i.e'. explosion, hazardous materials spill, interference with emergency response plans, etc.) A~uachment A - Evaluation of Environmental Impacts CUP 95-008 & DR 95-023 Page 12 Items c and d - "Potentially Significant unless Mitigation Incorporated": The proposed drive-thru pharmacy will not create any health hazards or expose people to existing sources of potential hazards. The site is currently undergoing soil remediation to ~remove contaminants left from underground gasoline storage tanks. The applicant will-be required to obtain clearance from the Orange County Health Care Agency, Environmental Health Division prior to issuance of building or grading permits. All mechanical and electrical equipment associated with the facility would comply with Uniform Building and Fire Codes. Sources: Submitted Plans Uniform Building and Fire Codes Mitigation/Monitoring Required: Ail construction shall be in accordance with applicable Uniform Building and Fire Codes. Such compliance shall be verified during the plan check process prior to the issuance of any building permits. All hazardous materials shall be handled and disposed of in'accordance with all Orange County Health Care Agency.- Environmental Health Division, and Orange County Fire Authority requirements. See mitigation under Item 4 regarding soil reme~iation. 10. NOIS Item b - "No Impact": The proposed project is a freestanding pharmacy building with drive-thru service and would not expose persons to severe noise levels. The amount of traffic generated by the project is minimal and will not add significantly to the existing ambient noise. The operation of a pharmacy will not generate noise. Item a - "Potentially~ Significant unless Mitigation[ Incorporated"- The proposed project would add new noise sources into the area as the property is currently vacant. As currently designed, there are no speakers proposed in conjunction with the drive-thru windows. The development of the project will result in short term constrUction noise impacts and a long-term increase in the ambient noise levels in and-around the project site. Given the existing noise levels in the area generated by vehicles on the surrounding street system (Newport Avenue and First Street) the proposed project is not expected to impact the ambient noise levels in the area. All noise sources will be required to conform to Attachment A - Evaluation of Environmental Impacts CUP 95-0©8 & DR 95-023 Page 13 the City's Noise Ordinance, which applies to commercial zones at a standard level of 60 dBA, 24 hours per day. Sources: Field Verification Submitted Plans Tustin City Code · Mitiqation/MonitOrinq Required: Ail development related noise generated shall be in accordance .with the City of Tustin Noise Ordinance which, in part, limits noise generation to a maximum of 60 dBa and restricts construction hours, which would be enforced by the Community Development Department and Police Department. In addition, a condition of approval.has been included requiring any intercom speakers for the drive-thru service to comply with the Noise Ordinance. 11. PUBLIC SERVICES Items a and b - "Potentially Siqnificant unless Mitiqation Incorporated": Since the project site is vacant, any development would require the services of the Fire and PoliCe Departments. .The City of .Tustin Police Department has identified the need for visibility into the site for security measures and the need to reduce the opportunities for graffiti and vandalism. The applicant has provided a landscaped berm along the two street frontages to-a height of three feet, with an additional twelve inches of shrubs above. With this height' berm and due to the location of the building setback from the berm, there will be adequate visibility into the building from off-site. Site and building lighting are proposed to illuminate' the parking, and access drives, the drive-thru windows and front walkway. Items c throuqh e - "No Impact"- It is not expected that the project would create significant demands for additional service on schools, parks, maintenance of public facilities or other governmental service. Sources: Field Verification Submitted Plans Tustin City Code Attachment A - Evaluation of Environmental Impacts CUP-95-'008 & DR 95-023 Page 14 Mitiqation/Monitorinq Required: The project landscape and grading shall be designed tO provide security surveillance into the .project, Adequate lighting and window and door hardware shall be provided in conformance with the City's Security Ordinance to deter vandalism and theft, The development plans shall be verified for compliance at Building Permit plan check, 12. UTILITIES. & SERVICE SYSTEMS Items a throuqh q - "No ImDact": The project Site is located within an existing commercial area with all utilities available to the site. Sanitary sewer, storm drain and water capacities required for the project are existing and have been designed to accommodate commercial .projects on this parcel, such as the previous service station facility, are therefore adequate to serve the proposed project. The proposed project would not require the need for additional utilities to serve the site. ' Sources: Field Verification .Submitted Plans Mitiqation/Monitorinq Required: None required, 13. AESTHETICS Item a "No Impact": The proposed project'is n6t located on a scenic highway nor will it affect a scenic vista. The project is surrounded with similar commercial developments and will be compatible in design and scale. Items b and c - "Potentially Siqoificant unless Mitiqation Incorporated": As proposed, the pharmacy and drive-through facility would consist of an approxima%ely 1,900 square foot building, two drive-through aisles, 10 on-site parking .spaces, a trash enclosure, enclosed dish antenna, one monument sign and landscaped Planting ~reas. Due to the highly visible location of this site within the Newport Commercial Corridor and the Town Center Redevelopment Area, the architectural design and appearance of the project is important. Proposed development plans indicate a modified Spanish style architectural theme with stucco 'walls, multi color S-tile roof, precast concrete columns at the drive-thru, stucco Attachment A - Evaluation of Environmental Impacts CUP 95-008 & DR 95-023 Page 15 column details and window surrounds and Stone£colored brick wainscot 'around the building. While the architectural style and roof line are not traditional "Spanish Style", the materials and colors can be reflective of this architectural theme. Conditions of approval will be included to require final color and materials to be reviewed and approved during building plan check. Landscaping is proposed consistent with the City's Landscape and Irrigation Guidelines; including landscape screening of parking areas and the 'drive-thru lane adjacent to Newport Avenue and First Street. Landscaping would also be provide through out the parking lot, adjacent to the buildings and adjacent to the south'and east property lines. The applicant is proposing a monument sign which not only includes business identification but also incorporates two lines of changeable copy signage. The Tustin Sign Code requires approval of a Conditional Use Permit for changeable copy signs. While changeable copy signs can provide information.t° the public, the use of such signs has been limited to public and quasi-institutional uses such as. churches. The use of such signs for commercial businesses to advertise products, specials and prices can add to sign clutter and reduce the effectiveness of other signs in the vicinity. The project site is currently 'vacant. The proposed project will be required to provide adequate lighting which w~uld add new lighting into. the area to serve its operations during business hours. Ail new exterior lighting Would comply with the City of Tustin Security Ordinance. Sources: Field Verification Submitted Plans · - Tustin City Code. Mitigation/Monitorinq Required': Mitigation measures related to the architecture, materials, colors, landscaping and site modifications would be included in the conditions of approval to ensure that the facility does not negatively affect the existing surrounding neighborhood. Compliance with all conditions shall be verified during the plan'check process prior to the issuance of any building permits. Attachment A - Evaluation of Environmental Impacts CUP 95-008 & DR 95-023 Page 16 The applicant shall provide details of all proposed lighting fixtures and a .photometric study showing the location and anticipated distribution pattern of light of all proposed fixtures. All new light'fixtures shall be consistent with the architecture of the building. Wall mounted fixtures shall be directed at a'90 degree angle directly toward the ground.. All lighting shall be developed .to provide a minimum of one (1) 'footcandle of light coverage, in accordance with the City's Security Code · 14. CULTURAL RESOURCES Item a throuqh d - "No Impact"- The proposed project is a pharmacy with drive-thru service. The subject property is not located within the City's Cultural Resources Overlay District, nor are there any identified cultural, historic or archaeological resources identified on or' around the Site. The project will have no impacts on cultural resources. Source: City of Tustin Historical Resources Survey Tustin Community Development Department Field Verification Submitted Plans Mitiqati°n/Monitorinq Reauired: None Required. 15. RECREATION Items a and b - "No Impact"- since this. project is a Commercial development to provide support for residential neighborhoods, there are no impacts on recreation. The project is not located in proximity to recreational facilities and will have no impact on quality of recreation opportunities in the community. Sources: Field Verification Submitted Plans Tustin City Code Mitiqation/Monitorinq Required: None Required. Attachment A - Evaluation of Environmental Impacts CUP 95-008 & DR 95-023 Page 17 16. MANDATORY FINDINGS QF SIGNIFICANCE Items a-d - "No Impact": The' project will not cause negative impacts to wildlife habitat, nor achieve any short-term environmental goals to the disadvantage of long-term goals, nor have impacts which are potentially.individually limited but are cumulatively considerable, nor will the project cause substantial adverse effects on human beings. Source: As stated above Mitiqation/Monitoring Required: As stated above. SJP:CUP95008. ENV W'ALGREENS RXPRESS S~TE SPECIFIC TRAFFIC STUDY [REVISED] ',~? Tustin, California -: . ATTACHMENT B ~i,..~?, f~[;", z~ ~ ~,::,,.i ,.%- . "';":'- ~':'"':'~-'-" :~:i December 22, 1995 I~O1:I[~'!' IG'd'IN · JOHN I(AIN ' ASSOCIA'I'[~$ INC. WALGREEN COMPANY Mr. David Erck, AIA Manager' of Architecture Facilities Planning and Design c/o Richard S. Coen, AIA 200 Wilmot Road Deerfield, IL 60015'. Subject: Waigre~ns RXpress Site Specific Traffic Study '(Revised) Dear Mr. Erck: The firm of ROBERT KAHN, JOHN KAIN AND ASSOCIATES, INC. (RKJK) is pleased to submit To the WALGREEN COMPANY this revised site specific traffic study for the Walgreens RXpress. At the request of'the City of Tustin, a site specific traffic evaluation has been prepared to address the local traffic circulation and parking impacts with respect to the proposed project. · Based upon this review, the Project can be accommodated within the planned circulation system, if the recommended improvements are implemented. RKJK is pleased to provide the Walgreens RXpress site specific traffic study to the WALGREEN COMPANY. if you have any questions regarding this review or need any further information, please do not hesitate to give a Call at {714) 474-0809. Sincerely, ROBERT KAHN, JOHN KAIN~, INC. obert Kahn, P.E.. fl~t ~J0. 0555 Principal 1~ t D(P. 12131197 RK:cB:kg 'd15425. '~~~ JN:735-95-001 Ball Senior Associate Attachments · TRANSPORTATION PLANNING .'CiS - TRAFFIC/ACOUSTICAL ENGINEERING 41()1 [:};r(-h Stretch, .c, uite 100 ,. Newpor! Beach. C:\ '9266(~ o Phone: 1~14) 474-0[~09 o Fax- (7141 474-0~.102 WALG R"~ENS RXPRESS SITE SPECIFIC TRAFFIC STUDY TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA (REVISED) Prepared for: WALGREEN COMPANY Mr. David Erck, AIA Manager of Architecture Facilities Planning' and Design c/o Richard S. Coen, AIA 200 Wilmot Road Deerfield, IL 60015 Prepared by: ROBERT KAHN, JOHN FAIN & ASSOCIATES, INC. 4101 Birch. Street, Suite 100 Newport Beach; CA 92660 Robert Kahn, P.E. Carl Ballard December 22, 1995 JN:735-95-001 RK:CB:kgd/5425 TABLE F~TENT$ INTRODUCTION FINDINGS TRAFFIC RECOMMENDATIONS .................... EXISTING CONDITIONS · Study Area Street System · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · Ex.isdng Average Daily Traffic' ......... ' .............. 8 · · · · · · · · · · · Existing Intersection Capacity Utilization ......... 8 · ·· Existing Arterial Highway Plan ................... 11 · · · · · · · · ' ' .............. 17 · PROJECT DEVELOPMENT .............. 19 Parking Requirements · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · Trip Generation ............... 19 · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · Project's Trip Generation ................... 19 Trip Distribution ...... - .......... 19 ...... ' 23 TRAFFIC IMPACTS ..................................... 26 Trip Assignment .............................. Existing Plus Project Average Daily Traffic ......... 26 ..................... 26 Existing Plus Project Intersection Capacity Utilization Queuing Analysis 26 Traffic Assessment ' ' ' ~ ............... 33 Conclusions . .. ............... 33 ........................ 34 APPENDI(~E$ LEVEL OF SERVICE DESCRIPTION TRAFFIC COUNT WORKSHEETS , EXISTING ICU CALCULATIONS .: ,. WALGREENS RXPRESS {ANAHEIM) TRIP-GENERATION SURVEY ....... EXISTING PLUS PROJECT iCU CALCULATIONS WALGREENS RXPRESS (ANAHEIM) QUEUING SURVEY .............. STANDARD PLAN 1 1 17 ................................... C D G LIST OF EXHIBITS EXHIBIT A C G H K M N. LOCATION MAP SITE PLAN EXISTING NUMBER OF THROUGH LANES AND INTERSECTION CONTROLS ......................... PAGE EXISTING AVERAGE DALLY TRAFFIC (ADT) ............... 10 EXISTING AM PEAK HOUR INTERSECTION VOLUMES ........ 15 EXISTING AM PEAK HOUR INTERSECTION VOLUMES ........ 16 PROJECT AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC (ADT) ' 27 · · PROJECT PM PEAK HOUR INTERSECTION VOLUMES ........ 28 EXISTING PLUS PROJECT AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC (ADT) .... 29 EXISTING PLUS PROJECT AM PEAK HOUR INTERSECTION VOLUMES 31 EXISTING PLUS PROJECT PM PEAK HOUR INTERSECTION VOLUMES 32 PROJECT INBOUND TRIP DISTRIBUTION ................. 25 PROJECT OUTBOUND TRIP DISTRIBUTION ................ 24 CITY OF TUSTIN ARTERIAL HIGHWAY PLAN' . ............. 18 4 LIST OF TABLES TABLE EXISTING INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION .......... CITY OF TUSTIN PARKING RATES ' PARKING REQUIREMENTS .... , ...................... PROJECT TRIP GENERATION · EXISTING PLUS PROJECT INTERSECTION' CAPACITY UTILIZATION t2 20 21 22 30 INTRODU__CTION WALGREENS RXPRESS SITE SPECIFIC TRAFFIC STUDY TUST'iN, CALIFORNIA :~REVISED) The purpo, se of this revised site specific traffic study is to evaluate'the development of the Walgreens RXpress from a traffic circulation standpoint. The project consists of the development of a drive-thru pharmacy service which also features a small interior retail area with walk-up service counter. The project is located east of Newpor~ Avenue and south of 1st Street in the City of Tustin, as shown on Exhibit- A. This site specific traffic study includes an evaluation of existing traffic conditions, project access, on-site parking, project generated traffic impacts upon the adjacent street system and existing plus' project traffic conditions. The site plan for the proposed store is shown on Exhibit B. The 1,900 square foot store incorporates two drive-thru windows on each side of the building; one for · prescription drop-off and one for pick-up. Each drive-thru window is protected by a large roof canopy supported by two columns on the outside edge of the canopy. The columns are located in and protected by a narrow raised-curb island which forms a drive-thru lane between the building and the columns. The drive-thru lanes are approximately 8.5 feet wide. A delivery door is positioned at the rear of the building for receiving merchandise. Although the store provides the convenience of drive-thru service, customers may also · enter the store for prescription service at a walk-up counter. The interior of the store includes a small retail area for the display of non-prescription products adjacent to the EXHIBIT A LOCATION MAP 1ST ST. SITE 7.35-95--001:01A WALGREEn'5 R. XPRE.5$, Tustin. Col~fornia EXHIBIT B SITE PLAN .P '%. 735-95-001:02~ counter. The interior of the store is accessed througha large sliding door located at the front of the building near a wheel-c~air ramp. Ten (10) standard' parking stalls are .' ~ ~ .-' '~ provided, one of which is designated foi' handicapped use with an adjacent wheelchair area. The handicapped parking stall is'located .closest to the wheelchair ramp entry to the store. The proposed site plan for t~e project is adequate from a traffic circulation standpoint, if the recommended traffic improvements are implemented as noted in this report. Access point sight distance review, access street widths and traffic controls as recommended in this report should be implemented in conjunction with the final design of the project. With these recommendations., ~i~e site plan will function adequately from a traffic circulation standpoint. 4 FINDINGS The following fin'dings have been re~ched for the proposed development within the Tustin area. ': · 2~ The 'site is currently not developed and is not generating any significant traffic. The local street system adjacent, to the project has been completed to City of Tustin General Plan Circulation Element classifications. 3~ The intersection of Newport Avenue/lst Street is currently operating at Level of Service "A" during the peak hOurs. A discussion of the Level of Service concept is included in Appendix "A". Based 'upon this review, the proposed project can be accommodated within the planned arterial highway and local street system within the City of Tustin. This stu;dy includes traffic recommendations to be incorporated into the final site plan. The project site is projected to generate a total of approximately 450 trip-ends per day of which 45 trip-ends per hour will be generated during the PM peak hour°. The facility is closed during the AM peak hour° o The intersection of Newport Avenue/lst Street is projected to continue to operate at Level of Service "A" during the peak hours for existing plUs project Traffic conditions. 5 . 8~ A total of ten (10) parking spaces have been provided for the project site. The parking spaces provided meets the City of Tustin requirement of ten (10) ~ parking spaces and should be sufficient for the development. As indicated in Appendix "F", during all time periods the demand at each drive, thru window generally did not exceed two vehicles per five-minute observation period.. This demand was exceeded only once (6:30 PM) when three vehicles were queued at the pick-up window. While more than two vehicles may · approach the service windows during a short time interval,, the observed demand indicates that more than two vehicles at a window at any given time is unusual, A queue storage length of two vehicles at each window should be adequate to accommodate drive-thru demand, This storage length is available at each drive-thru aisle under the proposed site plan and building orientation without interfering with on-site circulation. TRAFFIC RECOMMENDATIONS Based upon our review of the cir~ulati0n and parking needs of the project,, the following recommendations should :be incorporated into the final project design: The project site should continue to provide an existing access point on Newport · . Avenue.and on 1st Street. The existing northern most driveway on Newport Avenue and western most driveway on 1st Street should be eliminated .due to their proximity to the intersection of Newport Avenuellst Street. '- The 1st Street driveway should provide full access and the Newport Avenue driveway should continue to be restricted to r. ight turns in/Out only access. Sight distance at each access driveway should be reviewed with respect to Orange County Environmental Management Agency (EMA) Standard Plan 1 1 1 7 (see Appendix "G"), when landscaping and improvement plans are prepared. On-street parking should be restricted adjacent to the project site on Newport Avenue and 1st Street. EXISTING CONDITIONS Study Area Street System .-: The arterial highway system adjacent to the project is completed according to the City of Tustin General Plan Circulation Element classifications. The existing number of th[ough lanes and intersection controls in the vicinity of the project are shown on Exhibit C.' Newporl; Avenue' This north/south roadway currently has four travel lanes adjacent to the site. It is classified as a Primary (Augmented) four lane divided arterial highway on the City of Tustin Arterial Highway Plan. 1st Stre¢1;: This east/west roadway currently' has four travel lanes adjacent to the site. it is classified as a Primary four lane divided arterial highway west of Newport Avenue and is not classified ,east of Newport Avenue on'the City of Tustin Arterial Highway Plan. Existing Average Daily Traffi(; Existing ave.rage daily traffic (ADT) on arterial highways in the study area are shown on Exhibit D ADT's are based upon the latest traffic data obtained from the 1994 Orange County Traffic Flow Mao and the City of Tustin (see Appendix "B"). EXHIBIT C EXISTING NUMBER OF THROUGH LANES AND INTERSECTION CONTROLS i- 4U 1 ST STo 4D 4D 4D SITE 4D LEGEND- ~ = TRAFRC SIGNAL 4 = NUMBER OF LANES D = DMDED U = UNDMDED 735-95-001:03A f,'ALGREEN'S RXPRESS, Tustin, Col~¢om;a EXISTING AVERAGE DALLY EXHIBIT D TRAFFIC [ADTI 1ST ST. 1'9.8 SITE LEGEND- 5.3 = VEHICLES PER DA'((1000.'S) 7~,5-95--001:04^ WA.I_CR££N~ RXPR[$$. Tustin. C~til'omi~. The Technique used to assess the opera~ion of an intersection is known as Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU). To calculate an ICU, the volume of traffic using the intersection is comp,ared with the capacity of the intersection· ICU is usually expressed as a percent. The percent represents that portion of the hour required to provide sufficient capacity to accommodate ail intersection traffic if all apl~roaches operate at gapacity. The ICU's for the existing study area intersection are shown in Table 1. Calculation Method: · Intersection Capacity Utilization (! -CU) for study area intersections; 2. Saturation Flow Rate: Saturation flow value of 1,700 vehicles per lane per hour for intersections; no adjustments are used for protection movements with dedicated lanes (including both right and left turns). 3. Lost Time- A lost time factor of 5% (.05) is applied to the ICU calculations. Level of Service Ranges: The following thresholds are used in assigning a letter value to the resulting LOS: 11 TABLE 1 EXISTING INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION INTERSECTION APPROACH LANES' PEAK PEAK NORTH- soUTH-' EAST- WEST- HOUR HOUR BOUND BOUND BOUND BOUND ICU~ LOS3 INTERSECTION 'L T R L T R L T R L T ' R AM PM AM PM ., Newport Ava. (NS) et: · 1st St. (EW) I 2 1 1 2 I '1.5 1.5 1 I 2 0 0.54 0.60 A A When a right turn is designated, the lane can either be striped or un~tripecl. To function as a right turn lane there must be sufficient width for right turning vehicles to travel outside the through lanes. L = Left T : Through R : Right Intersection C~pacity Utilization (ICU) Level of Service (LOS.) 12 A B C D 'E F CRITICAL VOLUME TO CAPACITY RATIO .:-:? '.0.00 - 0.60 0.61 - 0.70 0.71 - 0.80 0.81 - 0.90 0.91 - 1.00 . > 1:.00 5. Peak-Periods: Weekday peak-hour analysis periods are defined as follows° 7:00 to 9:00 AM 4:00. to 6:00 PM Ali peak hour studies are contained within these periods. 6o Peak-Hour° The highest one-hour period in both the AM and PM peak periods, as determined by four consecutive 15-minute count periods are used in the ICU calculationsQ Both AM and PM peak i~ours are studied. 13 7. Peak-Hour Data Consistency: .. VariaTions in peak-hour volum':~s Can affect LOS calculations because they vary from day-to-day. To minimize these variations, no counts are taken-on Mondays, Fridays, holidays or weekends. Se Right Turn Movements. · . If the distance from the edge of the outside through lane is at least 19 feet and parking is prohibited during the peak period, right turning vehicles may be assumed to utilize this "unofficial" right turn lane. Otherwise, all' right turn traffic is assigned to the through lane. if a right turn lane exists, right turn activity is checked for conflicts with other critical movements, it is assumed that right turn movements are accommodated non-conflicting left turn phases (e.g., northbound right turns during westbound left turn phase), as' well as non- conflicting through flows (e.g., northbound, right turns, southbound left turns, and' eastbound through flows) represent a sum of V/C ratios which are greater than the normal through/left turn critical movements. Right turn volumes have .been reduced by 15% to account for right turns on re~l. If a free right turn lane exists (right turns do not have to stop for the signal), a flow rate of 1,700 vehicles per. hour per lane is assumed. The V/C ratio of the right turn lane is reported but not included in the sum of the critical V/C ratios. Existing ICU calculations are based upon manual AM'and PM peak hour tUrning · movement counts made for ROBERT KAHN, JOHN KAIN & ASSoCIATEs, INC. in December, 1995 (see Exhibits E and F). An explanation of Level of Service is included in Appendix "A". Traffic count worksheets are provided in Appendix "B". 14 EXHIBIT E EXISTING AM PEAK HOUR INTER'SECTION VOLUMES ST. SITE 7.~5-95--00 ) :O.SA WALCREENS RXP-"~"~-~. Tusdn. EXHIBIT F EXISTING PM PEAK HOUR INTERSECTION VOLUMES 157' ST. SITE 735-gsm001 :O6A WALGREENS RXPRESS. TustJn. Col~lomio The study area intersection is currently operating at Level of Service "A" during the peak hours. The existing ICU calculatip? worksheet is provided in Appendix'"C". .. Existing Arterial Highway Plan Existing and future roadways are included in the City of Tustin Arterial Highway Plan and is illust.rated on'Exhibit G, This exhibit shows the'nature and extend of arterial highways that are needed to adequately serve the ultimate development depicted by the land use element of the General Plan. 17 ARTERIAL EXHIBIT G CITY OF TUSTIN HIGHWAY PLAN .. .: SOURCE: CITY OF TUSTIN 735-95--001:07A WALCRI[EN$ RXPRf.$S. Tustin. ColJfomlo 18. PROJE___CT D EVELO p__M_M ENT Parking Requiremen~:.s_ The parking requirements for this project have been based upon the City of Tustin , parking code in relation to the specific land use, i.e. retail stores for this project. The parking rates utilized in this study are shown in Table 2. Based upon the planned use, number o~.square feet and parking rate, the proje_ct's parking, requirement has been determined and is presented in Table 3. A total of ten (10) parking spaces have been provided for the project site. The parking spaces provided meets the City of Tustin requirement of ten (10} parking spaces and should be sufficient for'the development. _Trio Generat~p_Q Trip generation represents the amount of traffic which' is produced or attracted to a · development. Trip generation for this project has been based upo& the specific use which is planned for the development. Trip generation rates have been developed for the Walgreens RXpress by data collected for RKJK. Counts made at a similar Walgreens RXpress facility located at.the intersection of Lincoln Avenue and Magnolia Avenue in the City of Anaheim are provided in Appendix "D". The facility was observed during store operating hours (9:00 AM to 9:00 PM) on a typical weekday. Counts were split from 9:00 AM to 3:00 PM (Tuesday) and 3:00 PM to 9:00 PM (Thursday). .Project's .Trip Generation The project's trip generation has been determined and is included in Table 4. The Walgreens RXpress is projected to generate a total of approximately 450 trip-ends per 19 TABLE 2 CITY OF TUSTIN PARKING RATES LAND USE ReTail Stores UNITS~ SF PARKING SPACES REQUIRED PER .'UNIT 1/200 SF ~ SF = square feet 20 TABLE 3 PARKING REQUIREMENTS ~;' PARKING SPACES LAND USE QUANTI:['Y UNITS~ REQUIRED Retail Stores 1,900 SF 10 _ ~ SF = square feet 21 TABLE 4 PROJECT TRIP GENERATION '...~ PEAK HOUR' AM PM · ~o ~s~_ °~^~'~ ,~ I o~ ,~ I o~ DAILY2 Walgreen~ RXpress3 . Site , NOM~ NOM 20 25 450 All peak hour rates rounded to the nearest 5. Daily rates rounded to the nearest 10. Source: Peak hour and daily trips derived from counts made for RKJK (see Appendix 'D'). NOM = Nominal, facility closed during AM peak hour. 22 day and The PM peak hour trip generation will be 45 vehicles per hour (two-way). The facility is closed during the AM pea, k hour. .. .'Trip ~rib ul:io~n ' Trip distribution represents the directional orientation of traffic to and from the .site. · Trip distribution is influenced by a number of factors, including the geographical location of the site, the type of land use, access to the regional freeway and transportation system, and other planned uses in the area. Trip distribution for this study has been based upon near-term conditions, based upon those highway facilities which are in place. The trip distribution patterns for the project are graphically depicted on Exhibits H-and I. 23 PROJECT OUTBOUND TRIP EXHIBIT H DISTRIBUTION 1 ST ST. '20 55 55 35 10 LEGEND- 10 = PERCENT FROM P_ROJECT 7.35-95-001:0~, WALGRr--F~ RXPRE~$. Tustln. Califomle PROJECT INBOUND TRIP EXHIBIT 1 DISTRIBUTION 1ST ST. 2O LEGEND- PERCENT TO PROdECT 7~5- 95-001 :OgA WALGRE~J~S RXPR£S$. Tustin. Collfomlo TRAFFIC i~ PACTS _Trip Assignmen} Based upon the trip generation, trip distributions and planned access to the project, traffic assignment has been determined. Project related average daily traffic '(ADT) volumes are shown on Exhibit J. Project PM peak hour intersection turning movement · volumes'are shown on Exhibit K. The facility is closed during the AM peak hour. Existina Plus Proiecl; Average Daily Traffic, Once the project related traffic is assigned to the street network 'and added to existing volumes in the studY area, the traffic impact can be assessed. Exhibit L shows average daily traffic (ADT) volumes for existing plus projeCt traffic conditions. Existing Plus Project Inl:ersection Capacity Utilizat. ion Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU') for existing plus project traffic conditions have been calculated and are shown in Table 5. Table 5 shows ICU calculations at the study area intersection with existing geometrics. As shown in Table 5, the study area intersection is projected to continue to operate at Level of Service "A" during the peak hours. The existing plus project ICU calculation worksheet is included in Appendix "E". AM and PM peak hour turning movement volumes for existing plus project traffic conditions are shown on Exhibits M and N, respeCtively. 26. PROJECT · AVERAGE DAILY EXHIBIT j TRAFFIC [ADTI 1ST S% 9O 158 SITE 4-5 158 LEGEND- 90 .=. VEHICLES PER DAY 755-95-001:10A WALGRF_E~ RXPRF5$, Tustin. California EXHIBIT K PROJECT PM PEAK HOUR INTERSECTION VOLUMES 1 ST ST. SITE 735-9.5-001:1 lA WALGRF~..N~ RXPRr_.5:S. Tustin. California EXISTING AVERAGE DAILY EXHIBIT L PLUS PR'OJEOT TRAFFIC 1 ST ST. 19.9 SITE 5..3 LEGEND- 5.3 : VEHICLES WALCRC~,~-~S RXPRF__~S. Tust.in. Col~fomio PER DAY (1000'S) TABLE 5 EXISTING PLUS PROJECT INTERSECTION CAPACil-Y UTILIZATION INTERSECTION APPROACH LANES' ~ PEAK PEAK NORTH- sOUTH-' EAST- WEST- HOUR HOUR BOUND BOUND BOUND BOUND ICU= LOS3 INTERSECTION L T R L T R L T R L T R AM i pM AM I pM Newport Ave. (NS) at: · 1 st St. (EW) 1 2 1 1 2 1 1.5 1.5 1 1 2 0 0.54 0.60 A' A When a right turn is de~gnate<J, ti~ lane can either be stripe<J or un~triped. To funcdon as a right turn lane there muet be sufficient wid[h for turning vehicle= to travel o~taide the [brough lanes. L = Left T = Through R = Right In[ersecdon Capacity Utilization (ICU) Level of Serv{ce [LOS) 3O EXISTING .i.~ PLUS EXHIBIT M PROJECT AM PEAK HOUR INTERSECTION VOLUMES 1 ST ST. SITE 735--95--001:1.~. WALCR£EN~ RXPRF__5$. TusfJn. Col;fornia EXISTING PLUS EXHIBIT N PROJECT PM PEAK HOUR INTERSECTION VOLUMES 1 ST ST. SITE 7.~5-g5-001:14A WALCR££1,,~ F~PR£$S. Tustin. Californ;¢ Queuinq Analysis To assess the queuing demand at the d~ive-thru windows 'and on-site access, a similar Waigreens RXpress facility was examined at_the interseCtion of Lincoln Avenue and Magnolia ~,venue in ,the City of Anaheim. To establish typical demand profiles, the facility was observed on a weekday.during store operating hours (9:00 AM to 9:00 PM). Counts were split from 9:00.AM to 3:00 PM (Tuesday) and 3:00 PM to 9:00 PM (Thursday)° The total number of · vehicles passing through each drive-thru window during each five-minute observation , period is provided in Appendix "F". As indicated in Appendix "F", during all time periods the demand at each drive-thru window generally did not exceed two vehicles per five-minute observation period. This demand was exceeded only once (6:30 PM) when three vehicles were queued at the pick-up window. While more than two vehicles may approach the service windows during a short time interval,, the observed demand indicates that more than two vehicles at a windOw at any given time is unusual. A queue storage length of two vehicles at each window should be adequate to accommodate drive-thru demand. This storage length is available at each drive-thru aisle under the proposed site plan and building orientation without interfering with on-site circulation. Traffic Assessmenl; No special turning lanes or other highway upgrades are required to accommodate the proposed project. Each of the access driveways can adequately accommodate the projected traffic with one lane in and one lane out. 33 The 1st Street driveway should provide full access and the Newport Avenue driveway should continue to be restricted to right turns in/out, only access. Sight distance at each access drive~ay should be reviewed with respect to Orange County Environmental Management Agency (EMA) Standard Plan 1117 (see Appendix "G"), when landsc~'ping,and improvement plans are prepared. On-street. parking should be restricted adjacent to the project site on Newport Avenue and 1st STreet. The number of parking spaces (10) provided meets the City of Tustin parking code requirements (10) and will accommodate the parking demands in the project~ ConclusiQn$ The proposed site plan for the Walgreens RXpress is adequate from a traffic circulation standpoint, if the recommended traffic improvements are implemented as noted in this report. Access point sight distance review, access street widths and traffic controls as recommended in this report should be implemented in conjunction with the final design of the pr'oject. WiTh these recommendations the site plan will function adequately from a traffic circulation standpoint. 34 APPENDIX A , -- LEVEL OF SERVICE DESCRIPTION Service Level LEVEL OF SERVICE- DEFINITIONS* General Definition Free flow. l~dlvldual toers axe virtually un-fleeted by the pres- cncc of others In the traffic stream. Frc~o~ to scl~t ~- ~l~hin thc traffic s~eam is ~- t~cm~l~ hi~ The ~c~r~ l~vcl o[ comfor~ ~d ~uvc~icncc pro- vi~ed to t~ motorht, p~e~er, o~ .~de~trien ~ exceUen~ Stable flow, but the presence of other users in the traffic stream begir~ to be noticeable. Freedom to select c~esircd speeds L~ rela- tively unaffected, but there Is a slight decline in the free~om to maneuver within the traffic stream from L,O8 A. The level of eom foci ~nd convenience provided h somewhat le~ trmn at LO.q A, became the presence of other~ in the areA'fie stream befit n.~ to ~ffect individual behavior. Stable flow, but m~rlcs the beginning of the range of flow in which the operation of individual ~ers becomc~ signlflc~tly ~feeted by [nt~aetl~ with othe~ In the ~ffte stream. sel~tlon of s~ la ~fected by m~euver~g with~ the stream , rcqu~e~ su~tanti~ vl~lanee on t~ ~ of the T~ gener~ lev~ of ~mf~t convenience d~linea notlee~ly at t~a level. Freeways . ,.j:;.$ Cfi teria for measurement: ? Der~slty (eaxs per lane-mile} Free flow operations. Average travel speeds neax 60 mph gen- erally prevail on 7O-mph freeway elements. Vehlcle~ mae &lmost completely unimpeded in. their .ability to maneuver within the traffic stream. The average spacing between vehicles Is about 440 fa, or 22 e~r-lengthz, with a maximum density of 12 eat-a/ mi/in. The effects of minor inci- dents or breakdowr~ mae easily absorbed at thLm level Although they may cause a deterioration in LOIt in the vicinity of the inci- dent, standing queues wlU not form, and traffic quickly returas to LOS A' on pa.uing the dis- ruption. Reasonably free-flow conditions, and speeds of over 57 mph mae maintained on ?0-mph freeway elements. The average spacing between vehicles h about 260 or 13 cma-leng-tha, with a maximum density of 20 cars/m i/in. The shill ty to maneuver within the traffic stream is only slightly restric- ted. The effects of minor inel- dent~ and beeakdowns are still easily ab~'l~ed, though local deterloratlou in service would be more ~evere th~n for LOS A. Stable oper&tionz, but flows approach the range' in which small Increases In flow wUl ca,ts6 substantial deterioration in aery[ce. Average travel speecL~ mae stllJ over 54 mph. Freedom to . maneuver within the traffic stream tm notleeedaly restricted at LO8 C, and lane changes require additional care and vigilance by the driver. Average spacings are In the range of 175 fa, or 9 c$.r- length~, with a maximum density of a0/ear~/mlfln. Minor lnelclenta may still be absorbed, but the local deterioration In service will be subatantI-L Queues may be expected to form behind any signiflc&nt blockage. Additional vi~lanee by driver required for safe operation. Arteries !Criteria for measurement: Average travel speed (mph) PrimarUy f~ee flow-operations at average travel speeds ttsu ally within 90 percent of the free flow speed. Vehicles are completely unimpeded in their ability to maneuver within the traffic stream. Stopped delay at sig- nalized intersections is minimal. Unimpeded operations at average travel speeds usually within 70 percent of the free flow speed. The ability to maneuver within the traffic stream i~ ~ligntly restricted and stoppec~ deLay~ are not bothersome. Stable operations. .LbLllty to maneuver and change Lar~s In mld~k loeatlo~ may r~tricted th~ in ~ ~ and lo~er queu~ ~or slg~ c~rdl~tion may ~ntr[bute to lower aver~ travel s~e~ of a~ut 50 pe~ent of ·verage free flow High-de~lty, but stable, flow. S~eed and freedom to ma-neuvcr ~ce severely restricted, and the ¢Lrlver or ~c~trl~n cx~rlc~ a gener~ly ~or level of comfort and convenience. 8mall Incre~e~ In ar·file flow wl~ gener~ly ea~e o~ration~ problem~ at this level. Operating conditions a.t or near the capacity level AU speecia are reduced to a low but relatively uniform value. Freedom to ma.n- curer within the traffic stream is extremely difficult, ~nd It la generally aeeomplhhed by forcing a vehicle ar pede~trl~n'to ~give way~ to accommodate such man- euver~a Comfort ~ld convenience levels ~re extremely poor, end driver oc pede~trl~ frtmtr~tion is generally high.' Operatloc~ at this level ~re usually un.stable, bec·uae small incre~.ses in flow or minor perturbations within the traffic stream will c~uae breakdowr~ Level-of-service 'Fo Forced or bra·ko,own flow. This condition exists wherever the amount of traffic aporoaching, a point exceed~ l;he amount which can Lraverae :he point. Queues form behind such locations. Arrival flow cxeeeas da·charge flow~ Borders on unstable flow. In thls tm·ge, small Increases In flow cause aub~tantlaJ deterioration In service. Average travel spec<La of 46 mph or 'more can still be -,.m~.aln.talned on '/O-mph freeway .glement~. Freedom to maneuver within the traffic stream l'everely limited. -Even minor IOcident~ can be expected to creaie substantial queuing, bec·uae the traffic stream little s/xace to absoft} disruptions. Average spacings are about 125 ft, or 6 with · m~xlmum density of eardml/lru The boundary between LOS D and LOS E c~e$crlbea operation at capacity. Operations in th'is level are extremely unstable, b~.cau.se there are virtually no usable gaps la the tral'flc stream.. Vehicles are spaced at approxlm&tely 80 it, or 4 cax--lengrtl'~0 at- relatively uniform headways. This, however, represents the minimum spacing at which stable flow can be accommodated. Any di~ruptlon to the traffic stream, such La a vehicle entering from · ramp~ or a vehicle changing' Lanes, causes following' vcrdcle~ to give way to admit the yah]cie. At capacity, the traffic stream has no -bUlly to dlMipate even the most minor disruptions. Any incident can be expected to produce a serious breakdown with extensive queuing. The range of flows encompassed by LOSE Is relatively sm&U compared to other levels, but reflects · suOstantial . deterioration in service. Maneuverability within the traffic stream Ls extremely limited- Average travel speecis at capacity are approximately mph. Level F describes forced or breakdown flow. Such conditions generally axial within queuea formin~ behind bre~Jcdown points. Brc~wfl ~cu~ when thc r~tlo of aotu~ ~rlval flow rate to set~ ca,city ~ t~ foree~te~ flow r~te to estlmat~ ca,el ty exceeds 1.00. ~eraHo~ at such a ~Int wiU gener~ly be at or ne~ ca,city, ~d ~wnatream ~erslio~ may ~ better ~. veMelea pm t~ ~t~eneek (muminff t~t there ~e ~ l~ltlon~ ~w~esm pro.ems}. The ~$ F o~ratlons obs~v~ within a queue are t~ r~ult of ~ breakdown ~ ~tUe- neck It a ~0w~tream ~int. 13orders on a r~nge oa which smaLl Intreat. cs tn flow may aub~ta, nt l~l [n~e~e~ delay and, hence, ~crc~c~ la ~terlal s~. TbS..may ~ due to adue~a aI~M ln~o~late slg~ tlmMg, high volume, or ~me combination t~se. Average travgl a~ut 40 percent of free flow Significant approach delays and average travel speeds of one-th/rd th~ free flow speed or low{:r. Such operations ere caused I)y some combination or adve~,se progre~lon~ high signal density, cxtcru[ve queuing at. critic ~ Intersections, ~nd lnaoproprial:e signal timing. Arterial flow at extremely lov~ a. pee<~ below one-thircl to one- quarter of the free flow speed. · interjection congestion I.$ likely at critical signalized locations, witlt high apl:)-'x)ach C~L~ya reiultLng., A. dver~e l:xrogTe~ion is frequenLl), a contributor to this conclltlon. *So~cc: "Highway Capacity Manual, Special Report 20g" 'Pr~nsr~rt.¢icm Re~enr~.h Baar~l. Washlno, tnn D.C.. 1585 APPENDIX B TRAFFIC COUNT WORKSHEETS N-S STREET' E-W STREET- · NEWPORT FIRST soUTHLAND CAR COUNTERS VEHICLE AND MANUAL COUNTS DAT~E ' 12/13/95 DAY' WEDNESDAY CITY- TUSTIW PROJECT# 0195001A LANES' NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND EASTBOUND NL~ .NT NR SL ST SR EL ET 1' 2 1 1 2 1 1.5 1.5 WESTBOUND ER WL WT WR 1 1 2 0 TOTAL 6:00 AM 15 AM 30 AM 45 AM 7:00 AM 15 AM 30 AM 45 AM 8:00 AM 15 AM 3O AM 45 AM 9:00 AM 15 AM 30 AM 45 ~{ 10:00 AM 15 ~ 30 AM ~45 AM 52 86 2 5 185 20 12 12 18 54 92 3 8 195 29 16 14 20 50 126 9 3 211 35 38 16 21 73 101 5 8 219 34 40 18 25 52 94 4 6 244 47 39 23 29 45 112 5 6 164 30 30 33 21 53 75 3 7 165 38 38 22 23 49 69 2 5. 156 27 35 19 20 8 22 2 10 26 3 15 45 12 7 37 7 13 38 6 4 38 2 14 45 8 12 42 7 424 470 581 574 · 595 490 491 443 TOTAL NL NT VOLUMES = 428 755 Peak Hr Begins at PEAK VOLUMES = 220 433 NR 33 23 SL ST SR EL ET ER 48 1539 260 248 157 177 730 AM 23 838 146 147 90 96 WL WT WR TOTAL 83 293 47' 4068 39 158 27 2240 ADDITIONS'SIGNALIZED ~-S STREET: :-W STREET: NEWPORT FIRST SOUTHLAND CAR COUNTERS VEHICLE AND ~NUAL COUNTS ? DATE':" 12/13/95 DAY: WEDNESDAY CITY: TUSTIN i~ PROJECT# 0195001P LANES :, NORTHBOUND NL NT NR . 1 2 1 SOUTHBOUND EASTBOUND SL ST SR EL ET 1 2 1 1.5 1.5 WESTBOUND ER WL WT WR 1 1 2 0 TOTAL 2:00 PM 15 PM 30 PM 45 PM 3:00 PM 15 PM 30 PM 45 PM 4:00 PM 15 PM 30 PM 45 PM 5:00 PM 15 PM 30 PM 45 PM 6:00 PM 15 PM 30 PM .45 PM 56 190 43 145 54 167 61 195 55 211 60 222 64 236 62 215 9 23 185 21 80 48 12 11 139 23 73 70 11 12 166 25 72 49 13 13 161 22 76 46 6 21 165 30 70 54 10 17 160 27 85 52 19 14 176 24 93 57 15 12 165 22 90 53 54 27 28 14 735 43 18 33 19 629 50 18 27 9 660 46 12 50 25 720 45 15 35 30 737 42 17 45 25 762' 44 20 52 15 814 41 21 45 20 761 ,OTAL NL NT 'OL~4ES = 455 1581 Peak Hr Begins at 'EAK 'OLUNES = 241 884 .DDITIONS:SIGNALIZED NR SL ST SR EL 95 123 1317 194 639 500 PM 50 64 666 103 338 ET ER 429 365 WL WT hTR 148 315 157 216 172 73 177 90 TOTAL 5818 · 3074 tO~ATI0N 'CCD£ 1C¢!3.R72 I. SCA!'O~, - ~£~'PCR[-STN SRI'AN/IaVlN[ ;Z O0 - !2:1~ 15 9 24:~ 12 15 - IZ:30 15 8 23: 12 30 - !2:45 5 8 14' !2-45 - I'09 5 4~ ~ 33' 14 ~5 !:OG - 1.15 g 1:15 - 1.30 1:30 - 1:45 5 1:45 - 2:00 Z O0 2:15' 2:15 - Z:3D ' 8 Z.30 - 2:45 Z:4b - 3:00 3 ZZ 3:00 - 3:15 5 3:IS - 3:30 8 2'30 - 3:45 3 45 - 4:00 5 19 4:00 - 4 1S 4 4 15 - 4:30 4 30 - 4:45 ~:45 - 5:00 6 24 5'00 - ~:[5 9 5.15 - 5:30 5'30 - 5:~5 25 5 45 - 6:00 30 80 Iu£SOAY 12/6/§: TO u[Oti£SO~y IZ/7/§4 / 'T6[~L? ~IME Na 58 ~OTAL IZ:O0 - IZ:15 Z05 208 ~3 IZ:15 - 12:30' ZZO 228 448 12:30 - 12:45 213 173 386 12:45 - 1:00 23/ 815 ZlO' 819 447 1694 / 16 1:00 - 1:15 193 lgl 384 5 IZ 1:15 - 1:30 225 185 '411 Z ? 1:30 - 1:45 196 153 349 I 15 3 38 1:45 - Z:00 197 81Z 190 719 381 153i 3 15 Z.00 - Z:15 ZSO 172 4El 5 13 Z:15 - Z:30 Z18 IE9 385 2 6 Z:30 - Z:45 Z34 1/4 408 4 14 7 41 2:45 - 3:00 2Bl 931 190 710 471 1591 0 5 3:00 - 3:I5 2¢8 203 451 4 12 3:15 - 3:30 263 Z01 464 Z 3 3:30 - 3:45 246 173 419 6 12 Il 31 3:45 - 4:00 268 1025 162 739 430 1164 5:00 - 5:15 45 6:15 - 6:30 68 6:30 - 6:45 ?Z 8:45 - 7:00 94 ):00 - 7'15 lOS 7:15 - 7:30 151 7:30 - 7:45 150 7-45 - 8:00 178 219 / 11 4:00 - ¢:15 248 168 415 5 IZ 4:15 - 4:30 276 166 442 6 13 4:30 - 4:45 2Z0 148 418 14 3Z 20 56 4:45 - 5:00 314 1108 159. 6~I <93 1789 It Z0 5:00 - 5:15 260 158 15 30 5:15 - 5:30 316 lB0 30 56 5:30 - 5:45 289 I~0 52 I08 82 188 5:45 - B:O0 316 IZll 163 40 85 B:O0 - 5:15 219 114 75 143 6:15 - 6:~0 251 184 78 150 B:30 - 6:45 244 14~ 134 327 ZZ8 606 6:45 - 1:00 234 1008 154 594 1211 i29 234 Z:O0 - 7:15 129 !ZO 169 320 1:15 - Z:3O 163 !01 170 330 7:30 - 7:45 - 128 103 Z09 677 387 7:45 - 8:00 154 624 124 ~:00 - 8:15 16~ 182 348 8:00 - 8:15 140 81 8:15 - 8:30 150 Z07 357 8:15 - 8:30 105 $:30 - ~'45 143 154 297 8:30 - 6:45 1ZZ 84 8.45 - §-00 128 587 159 11Z Z97 1299 8:45 - 9:00 112 479 9:00 - 9:15 123 159 28Z 9:00 - 9:15 78 58 9:15 - 9:30 123 155 278 9:15 - 9:30 99 64 9:30 - 9:45 106 '143 249 9:30 - 9:45 71 99 9:45 - !0:00 148 500 186 82] 314 1123 9:45 -10:00 67 315 55 621 454 315 297 438 488 4Z9 479 1832 453 435 386- 388 1662 299 270 Z78 1078 ZZ7 ~/7 L84 794 146 163 170 133 612 13:00 - 10:15 124 1~3 267 I0:00 - lO:lS 69- 43 llZ i0:15 - 10:30 144 163 301 10:15 - 10:30 51 35 86 1G:30 - 10:45 185 . 110 335 10:30 - !0:45 41 32 73 10.45 - ii:00 163 596 151 633 320 1229 .10:45 - Il:00 30 191 Zl !31 51 3ZZ fl:OD - 11:15 !71 170 341 11:00 - 11:15 37 14 51 11 15 - 11:30 195 1/5 370 '!1:15 - 11:30 Y9 20 49 I1:30 - 11:45 199 liB 371 . 11:30 - 11:¢5 ?3 ZZ 45 !1:45 - 12:C0,.,, !96 761 197 720' 393 1481 11:45 -IZ:~O. 19 108 20 76 39 184 TOTALS 3.532 3,906 7,438 8,737 6.190 1¢.933 · ADI'S -' 12.?69 10.102 22.371 !?:O0 - 12:15 12:15 - 12:32 12'20 - !2:45 !2-45 - !.00 · ' ................................................................................ LOCA[ICN CODE 10413.025 LC[~;]Oh - IS[-SI~ ~V~ORT/~ROS~[¢I ~VERAGED V$LU~[S FOR - ~O~D~¥ l]///ga 10 T~ESOA~ 11/8/9C Tl~[ Eg ~B I¢IAL fI~£ EB WB tOTAL ~ 11}: 1Z:O0 - 12:15 239 7 8 31 3 20 6 4 S I ZO 3 17 o 3 ! 7 1 5 22 0 3 7 S 11 6 12 7 9 39 8 26 23 I0 21 22 28 2/ 99 lg 76 70 37 58 69 75 ZSg 99 241 82 104 98 150 I!/ 230 131 428 278 772 !43 232 125 222 134 195 136 538 185 834 141 161 130 141 138 153 169 578 150 605 ~:00 - 1:15 I:15 - 1:30 !:30 - 1;45 !.~5 - 2;00 2:00 - ~'15 2.15 - ~;30 2.30 - 2:45 2.~5 - 3:00 3:00 ' 3:15 3:15 - 3:30 3:30 - 3:45 3:45 - 4:00 ~:00 - ~:lS 4:15 - 4:30 4:30 - 4:45 4:45 - 5:00 5:00 - 5:15 5:15 - 5:30 5:30 - 5:45 5;45 - 6:00 6:00 - 5:1'5 6:15 - 6:30 · 5:30 - 6:45 6:45 - /.00 7:00 - 7:15 7:15 - 7:30 ;:30 - 7:45 7:45 - 8:00 8:00 - 8:15 8:]5 - 8:30 8:30 - 8:45 8:45 - 9:00 ~:O0 - 9:15 9:15 - 9:30 9:30 - 9:~5 S:45 - lO:OD 15- IZ:i$ - 17-30 217 14 12:30 - 12;45 195 11 51 IZ:a5 - 1.00 725 10 1:00 - 1:15 209 lZ l:lS - 1:30 201 5 1'30 - 1:45 183 10 37 1:45 - Z:OO lSO 7 2:00 - 2:15 171 8 Z:I5 - 2:30 151 Z Z:30 - 2:45 18~ 5 23 2:45 - 3:00 173 4 8 8 5 1Z ]? 19 1! 25 65 3:00 - 3:15 177 3:.~5 - 3;30 187 3:30 - 3:45 3:45 - 4:00 4:00 - 4i15 172 4:15 - q:30 202 4:30 - 4:45 204 4:45 - 5:00 246 33 43 53 115 S:O0 - 5:15 275 S:lS - 5:30 233 5:30 - 5:45 ~23 5:45 - 6:00 208 82 107 137 174 500 6:00 - 6:15 188 6:15 - 6:30 161 ~:30 - 6:45 137 6:~5 - 7.00 153 186 258 347 409 375 347 3~1 lZO0 1372 .7:00 - 7:I5 105 1:15 - 7:30 71 7:30 - 7:45 84 1:45 -' 8:00 67 8:00 - 8:15 64 8:15 - 8:30 69 8:30 - 8:45 63 8:45 - 9:00 45 302 Z/1 291 319 1183 g:o0 - 9:15 55 9:15 - 9:30 51 9:30 - 9:45 41 9:45 - 10:00 32 iO:O0 - 10:15 136 I?0 306 10:00 - 10:15 31 10:15 - 10:30 1~5 14/ Z92 I0:15 - 10:30 26 10:30 - 10:45 148 l/l 325 10:30 - 10:45 22 10:~5 - Ii:00 160 589 178 672 338. IZ81 10:45 - t1:00 22 876 743 68¢ 717 824 939 645 327 179 1oi ~12 ¢51 218 433 209 404 221 858 446 236 445 218 419 202 . 385 ?17 873 367 Z03 374 211 362 170 359 181 165 354 186 363 195 382 202 373' 203 186 385 201 373 189 391 183 387 186 759 432 468 441 414 397 193 ~08 191 189 781 505 158 137 108 lO~ 348 304 Z¢5 255 91 '88 74 65 318 196 I58 158 55 51 53 44 204 lZO 118 89 43 32 43 18 31 14 144 89' 98 83 84 58 53 53 36 33 22 1734 1616 1503 1583 1720 1150 445 323 I86 11:00 - 11:!5 154 I57 31I 11:00 - 11:15 17 11:!5 - 11'30 173 195' 368 '11:15 - 11:30 19 7 11:30 - 1!:45 186 220 ~16 11;30 - 11:45 12 10 11:45 - 12:00 201 724 174 7(6 375 1470 * 11:45 - 12:00 18 68 7 40 25 108 TOTALS 3.342 4.020 7,362 6.342 6.118 !2,480 :DT 'S . 9,684 10.138 19,822 T:~£ [8 ~8 TO~AL TIK[ £8 UB ~ ~OTAL 12 O0 - 12:15 3 3 6 12-00 - 12:15 46 40 ' 86 !7.15 - !2:30 1 O I 1Z:15 - l~:3D SO 36 86 !2.30 - 12:45 I ' 0 ] 12:30 - 12:45 64 30 12 45 . 1-00 2 I 2 5 4 17 lZ'4S - 1:00 46 ~26 35 141 ~1 34/' l.gO - 1:15 I 1 2 t:00 - 1:15 58 45 104 I !5 - 1:30 0 2 2 l:lS - 1:30 54 25 19 1 30 - 1:4~ 0 0 0 1:30 - 1:45 ~8 47 95 1.45 - 2.00 ' ! Z O 3 I $ 1:45 - 2:00 48 Z08 48 tE6 96 374 Z:O0 - 2 1S 0 0 0 2:00 - ~:15 49 .51 log 2'15 - 2:30 2 I 3 2:15 - 2:30 52 33 §5 2-30 - 2:45 0 0 0 2:30 - 2:45 Sb 44 99 2:45 - 3 OD O, 2 0 ! 0 ] Z:4S - 3:00 63 ~19 53 191 126 410 3:0~ - 3:15 0 I ! 3:00 - 3:15 44 43 8l 3 IS - 3.30 0 2 2 3:15 - 3:30 52 q5 S7 3 30 - 3:45 I 0 1 3:30 - 3:45 45 58 IOl 3-c5 · 4.00 O I 0 3 0 4 3:45 - 4:00 6~ 209 59 203 127 412 4:00 - 4 15 1 2 3 4:00 - 4:15 74 49 123 4'15 - 4:30 0 I I 4:15 - 4:30 53 .45 98 4 3J - 4:45 ! 0 1 4:30 - 4:45 70 61 131 4'45 - 5:00 ! 3 1 4 2 7 4:45 - $:0D 8/ 284 55 210 142 494 S:OC - 5:15 0 3 3 5:00 - 5:15 99 63 162 5 15 - 5:30 I 0 I 5:15 - 5:30 94 62 156 S 30 - 5:45 2 1 3 5:30 - 5:45 84 51 · 141 5 45 - 5:00 S 8 / i1 12 19 5:45 - 6:00 82 359 65 2~7 14~ 606 6:00 - 6:15 8 13 21 6:00 - 6:15' 67 48 IlS 6:15 - 6 30 7 13 20 6:15 - 6:30 59 St Ii0 6:30 - 6:45 23 19 42 5:30 - 6:45 59 30 89 5.45 - 7:00 18 56 24 69 42 !25 6:45 - 7:00 52 257 31 !50 83 397 7'00 - ?:15 17 19 35 ?:00 - 7:15 43 30 73 ~ 15 - 7:30 24 40 64 7:15 - 7:30 32 25 57 ? 30 - 1:45 27 52. 79 7:30 - 7:45 28 11 37 7.45 - ~:00 37 L05 62 173 99 ~78 7:45 - 8:00 34 !35 33 $9 57 234 ~-00 - 8:15 32 59 g! ~:00 - 8:15 35 18 54 8-15 - 8-30 3S 48 83 8:15 - 8:30 19 ZO 39 8.30 - 8:45 37 . SS 9Z 8:30 - 8:45 23 !6 39 8:45 - 9:00 2Z 1~0 31 193 53 319 8:45 - 9:00 !9 97 16 70 35 167 9:00 - 9:15 35 38 71 9:00 - 9:15 26 15 41 9:15 - 9:30 35 33 '6B 9.15 - 9:30 22 17 39 9:30 - 9-45 34 ~Z 76 9.30 - 9:45 lB 11 29 9:45 - lO.OD Z3 121 34 145 57 272 9:45 - to:go ~2 68. 6 49 28 137 lO.OD - 10:I5 31 35 55 10:00 - 10:15 14 7 21 !0:15 - 10:30 28 35 63 10:15 - 10:30 8 2 10 '10:30 - 10:45 30 37 6/ 10:30 - 10:45 13 11 24 !0:45 - Il:D0 41 130 42 149 83 279 10:45 - ll:O0 8 43 2 22 65 11.¢0 - 11:i5 38 39 77 11:00'- 11.15 S 3 8 ~1:15 - 11:30 44 30 74 11:15 - 11:30 7 4 !1 !1:30 - 11:45 32 40 7~ II:30 - 11:45 7 3 10 11:~5 - 12.00 57 ~71 55 164 llZ 335 11:45 - 12.00 4 Z3 I 11 5 34 iGIALS 738 920 !,658 2.I03 l.S6~ 3.677 ~DT,S 2.846 2.489 5.335 APPENDIX EXISTING ICU CALCULATIONS Intersection- Newport Ave. (NS) / 1st, St. (EW) Project- Walgreens RXpress Site Specific Traffic Study Traffic Condition- Post 2020 Conditions With Thistledown Lane Configuration- Initial Exi.~ting - AM Intersection Capacity Analysis Move Lanes Capacity Volume NL 1o0 1700 220 NT 2.0 3400 433 NR 1.0 1700 23 SL 1.0 1700 23 ST 2.0 3400 838 SR 1.0 1700 146 EL 1.5 2550 147 ET 1.5 2550 90 ER 1.0 1700 96 WL 1.0 1700 39 WT 2°0 3400 158 WR 0o0 1700. 27 V/C Ratio Clearance Interval Percentage = Sum of Critical Movements.= PM Intersection Capacity Analysis Move Lanes Capacity Volume NL 1o0 1700 241 NT 2.0 3400 884 NR 1.0 '1700 50 0.13- 0.13 0 0.1- 0.01 0.25* 0.08- 0.06* 0.04 0.05- 0.02 0.05* 0.02 0.05 0.54 V/C Ratio 0.14- 0.26 0.03- SL 1.0 1700 64 0.04 ST 2.0 3400 666 0.20* SR 1o0 1700 103 0.05-, EL .£ o 5 2550 338 0.13. ET 1.5 ' 2550 ' 216 0.08 ER 1 o 0 1700 172 0.09- WL 1.0 1700 73 0~04 WT 2°0 3400 177~ 0.08* WR 0o0 1700 90 0.05 Clearance Interval Percentage = Sum of Critical Movements = * denotes critical movement 0.05 0.60 A denotes A V/C ratio reduced 15 percent for right turn on red APPENDIX D WALGREENS RXPRESS (ANAHEIM) TRIP GENERATION SURVEY WALGREENS RXPRESS (ANAHEIM) TRIP GENERATION SURVEY :NUMBER OF VEHICLES 9:00 AM 0 9:05 AM . 0 9:10 AM 0 9:15 AM 1 - 1 9:20 AM 1 1 2 9:25 AM 1 9:30 AM 1 9:35 AM 1 1 9:40 AM 1 1 1 3 9:45 AM 1 1 ,, 9:50 AM 3 1 4 9:55 AM 1 1 2 10:00 AM 1 1 2 10:05 AM 1 I 1 3 10:10 AM 1 3 2 6 ,, 10:15 AM 1 2 1 4 'i 0:20 AM 1 1 2 WALGREENS RXPRESS (ANAHEIM) TRIP GENERATION SURVEY (COt,IT'D) ...-.NUMBER OF VEHICLES MAGNOLIA DRIVEWAY , LINCOLN DRIVEWAY ~, , , 10:25 AM 1 1 2 10:30 AM 0 10:35 AM 1, 10:40 AM 1 1 10:45 AM 1 1 2 10:50 AM 2 2 10:55 AM 3 I 1 5 11:00 AM 1 11:05 AM 2 1 1 4 11:10 AM "3 3 1' .,7 11-15 AM 1 2 1 4 11:20 AM 1 1 11 '25 AM 1 1 2 11:30 AM 2 1 3 11 '35 AM 1 1 11:40 AM 1 1 11:45 AM 2 1 3 WALGREENS RXPRESS (ANAHEIM) TRIP GENERATION SURVEY {CONT'D) NUMBER OF VEHICLES ,. MAGNOLIA DRIVEWAY LINCOLN DRIVEWAY · I 11:50 AM 2 2 1 5 ,,., 11:55 AM 1 3 I 5 12:00 NOON .1 1 · 12:05 PM 2 1 3 12:10 PM 1 3 1 i 6 12:15 PM I 1 2 4 12:20 PM 2 1 2 5 12:25 PM 1 2 3 12:30 PM 2 1 1 4 12:35 PM 1 2 3 12:40 PM 1 1 12:45 PM 2 2 4 1 2:50 PM 1 1 12:55 PM 1 1 2 1:00 PM 2 1 1 4 1:05 PM 1 3 1 5 1'10 PM 2 1 I 2 1 6 ! . WALGREENS RXPRESS (ANAHEIM) TRIP GENERATION SURVEY (CONT'D) NUMBER OF VEHICLES MAGNOLIA DRIVEWAY LINCOLN DRIVEWAY TIME , IN OUT IN OUT TOTAL 1'15 PM 2 I 3 1:20 PM 3 2 1 I 7 1:25 PM 1 1 2 1:30 PM 1 1 2 4 1:35 PM 1 1 2 - 1:40 PM 0 , , 1:45 PM I 1 2 1:50 PM I 3 I' 4 , , 1:55 PM 2 1 3 , ,, 2:00 PM I 1 2:05 PM 0 2:10 PM 1 1 2 2:15 PM 3 1 1 5 2:20 PM I 2 1 1 5 2:25 PM 1 1 I 3 2:30 PM 1 3 2 2 8 2:35 PM 2 2 5 1 10 WALGREENS RXPRESS {ANAHEIM) TRIP GENERATION SURVEY ICONT'D) 2:40 PM TIME 2:45 PM' 2:50 PM 2:55 PM 3:00 PM 3:05 PM 3:10 PM 3:15 'PM 3:20 PM 3:25 PM 3:30 PM 3:35 PM 3:40 PM 3:45 PM 3:50 PM 3:55 PM 4:00 PM 2 1 1 1 3 NUMBER OF VEHICLES MAGNOLIA DRIVEWAY LINCOLN DRIVEWAY IN OUT IN OUT 1 1 1 2 TOTAL 10 5 6 0 2 1 5 5 4 2 1 1 WALGREENS RXPRESS (ANAHEIM) TRIP GENERATION SURVEY (CONT"D) NUMBER OF VEHICLES .,. 4:05 PM I 1 2 4:10 PM . 1 1 4:15 PM 1 1 2 4:20 PM - 2 1 3 4:25 PM 2 3 5 4:30 PM 4 2 6 4:35 PM 2 1 3 4:40 PM 1 1 4:45 PM 1 1 4:50 PM 1 1 1 1 4 4:55 PM 2 2 5:00 PM 1 4 ; 1 6 5:05 PM 1 2 1 4 5:10 PM 2 3 1 6 , 5:15 PM 1 1 5:20 PM 2 1 1 4 5:25 PM 2 2 2 6 WALGREENS RXPRESS (ANAHEIM) TRIP GENERATION SURVEY (CONT'D) -.: NUMBER OF VEHICLES ~ .'. 5:30 PM 3 1 I 5 ..,. 5:35 PM' 1 1 5:40 PM 1 1 .. 5:45 PM 3 -~ 2 5 5:50 PM 1 3 I 5 5:55 PM 2 2 4 6:00 PM 1 1 2 4 6:05 PM 2 1 3 6:10 PM 1 I 2 6:15 PM 2 I 3 6:20 PM 1 1 1 3 , 6:25 PM 3 3 6 6:30 PM 3 2 5 · 6:35 PM 3 3 6:40 PM 1 1 2 6:45 PM 2 2 ' 6:50 PM 1 1 2 WALGREENS PO(PRESS IANAHEIM) TRIP GENERATION SURVEY (CONT'D) NUMBER OF VEHICLES MAGNOLIA DRIVEWAY LINCOLN DRIVEWAY · · 6:55 PM 1 1 7:00 PM. 1 2 1 1 5 7:05 PM 2 1 1 4 7:10 PM 1 1 1 3 7:15 PM 2 1 3 ,,, 7:20 PM 1 1 2 7:25 PM 1 1 1 3 6 · 7:30 PM 1 1 2 7:35 PM 1' 2 1 4 7:40 PM - 2 1 1 4 7:45 PM 1 1 2 7:50 PM 0 7:55 PM 0 8:00 PM 1 1 8'05 PM 2 1 3 8:10 PM 2 2 8:15 PM 2 I I 4 WALGREENS RXPRESS IANAHEIM} TRIP GENERATION SURVEY (CONT'D) NUMBER OF VEHICLES 8:20 PM 1 '2 1 4 8:25 PM . I 1 8:30 PM 1 2. 1 1 5 · o 8:35 PM 1 1 2 8'40 PM 1 1 8:45 PM 1 1 2 8:50 PM 1 1 8:55 PM 0 9'00 PM 0 TOTAL ~ 157 · ~---, 70 75 452 :- DATE OF SURVEY: 12/7/95 (Thursday) -3:00 PM to 9:00 PM 12/12/95 {Tuesday) - 9:00 AM to 3:00 PM APPENDIX E EXISTING PLUS PROJECT ICU CALCULATIONS Intersection- Newport Ave. (NS) / 1st St. (EW) Project- Walgreens RXpress Site Specific Traffic Study Traffic Condition- Lane Configuration- Move Lanes NL 1.0 NT 2.0 NR ~ 1.0 SL 1.0 ST 2.0 SR 1.0 EL 1.5 ET 1.5 ER 1.0 WL 1.0 WT 2.0 WR 0.0 Background + Project Initial Existing AM Intersection Capacity Analysis V O L U M E S Capacity Background Project 1700 220 0 3400 433. 0 1700 23 0 Total 220 433 23 v/c Ratio 0.13, 0.13 0.01- 1700 23 0 23 0.01 3400 838 0 838 0.25* 1790 146 0 146 0.08- 2550 147 0 147 0.06* 2550 9.0 0 90 0.04 1700 96 0 96 0.05- 1700 39 0 39 0.02 3400 158 0 158 0.05* 1700 27 0 27 0.02 Clearance Interval Percentage = Sum of Critical.Movements = PM Intersection Capacity Analysis. 0.05 0.54 Move Lanes NL 1.0 NT 2.0 NR 1.0 SL 1.0 ST 2.0 SR 1.0 EL 1.5 ET 1o 5 ER 1.0 WL 1.0 WT 2.0 WR 0.0 V 0 L U M E S v/c Capacity Background Project Total Ratio 1790 241 0 241 0.14- 3A00 884 9 893 0.26 1790 50 0 50 0.03- 1700 64 7 71 0.04 3400 666 0 666 0.20* 1700 103 0 103 0.05- 2550 338 0 338 0.13- 2550 216 4 220 0 09 1700 172 0 172 0.09- 1700 73 9 82 0.05 3400 177 5 182 0.08* 1700 90 0 90 0.05 Clearance Interval Percentage = Sum of Crit'ical Movements = 0.05 0.60 * denotes critical movement - denotes V/C ratio reduged. 15 percent for right turn on red A A APPENDIX F WALGREENS RXPRESS (ANAHEIM) QUEUING SURVEY WALGREENS RXPRESS [ANAHEIM) QUEUING SURVEY TIME 9:00 AM 9:05'AM 9:10 AM 9:15 AM 9:20 AM 9:25 AM 9:30 AM 9:35 AM 9:40 AM 9:45 AM 9:50 AM 9:55 AM 10:00 AM 10:05 AM 10:10 AM 10:15 AM 0:20 AM NUMBER OF VEHICLES AT OR BEHIND ORDER WINDOW AT OR BEHIND PICKUP WINDOW WALGREEN'S RXPRESS {ANAHEIM) QUEUING SURVEY {CONT'D} TIME 10:25 AM 10:30 AM 0:35 AM 0:40 AM 0:45 AM 0:50 AM 10:55 AM I 1:00 AM 11:05 AM 11:10 AM 11:15 AM 11:20 AM 11:25 AM 11:30 AM 11:35 AM 11:40 AM 11:45 AM NUMBER OF VEHICLES AT OR BEHIND ORDER WINDOW' AT OR BEHIND PICKUP WINDOW 1 WALGREEN'S RXPRESS [ANAHEIM) QUEUING SURVEY ICONT'D) TIME 11:50 AM :55 AM 12:00 NOON 12:05 PM 12:10 PM 12:15 PM 12:20 PM 12:25 PM 12:30 PM 12:35 PM 12:40 PM 12:45 PM 12:50 PM 12:55 PM 1:00 PM .- - 1:05 PM 1:10 PM NUMBER OF VEHICLES AT OR BEHIND ORDER WINDOW AT OR BEHIND PICKUP WINDOW 1 WALGREEN'S RXPRESS (ANAHEIM] QUEUING SURVEY {CONT'D) 1'15 PM 1:20 PM 1:25 PM 1:30 PM 1:35 PM 1':40 PM 1:45 PM 1:50 PM 1:55 PM 2:00 PM 2:05 PM 2:10 PM 2:15 PM 2:20 PM 2:25 PM 2:30 PM 2:35 PM 2:40 PM TIME NUMBER OF VEHICLES AT oR BEHIND ORDER WINDOW AT OR BEHIND PICKUP WINDOW WALGREEN'S RXPRESS (ANAHEIM) QUEUING sURVEY (CONT'Di 2:45 PM 2:50 PM 2:55 PM 3:00 PM 3:05 PM 3:10 PM 3:15 PM 3'20 PM 3:25 PM 3:30 PM 3:35 PM 3:40 PM 3:45 PM 3:50 PM 3:55 PM 4:00 PM 4:05 PM 4:10 PM TIME ,,. NUMBER OF VEHICLES AT OR BEHIND ORDER WINDOW AT OR BEHIND PICKUP WINDOW WALGREEN'S RXPRESS [ANAHEIM) QUEUING SURVEY (CONT'D) TIME 4:15 PM 4:20 PM 4:25 PM 4:30 PM 4:35 PM 4:40 PM '4:45 PM 4:50 PM 4:55 PM 5:00 PM 5:05 PM 5:10 PM 5:,15 PM 5:20 PM 5:25 PM 5:30 PM 5:35 PM 5:40 PM NUMBER OF VEHICLES AT OR BEHIND ORDER WINDOW AT OR BEHIND PICKUP WINDOW . WALGREEN'S RXPRESS IANAHEIM) QUEUING SURVEY (CONT'D) TIME 5:45 PM 5:50 PM 5:55 PM 6:00 PM 6:05 PM 6:10 PM 6:15 PM 6:20 PM . 6:25 PM 6:30 PM 6:35 PM 6:40 PM 6:45 PM 6:50 PM 6:55 PM 7:00 PM 7:05 PM 7:10 PM NUMBER OF VEHICLES AT OR BEHIND AT OR BEHIND ORDER WINDOW PICKUP WINDOW WALGREEN'S RXPRESS (ANAHEIM) QUEUING SURVEY (CONT'D) 7:15 PM 7:20 PM 7:25 PM 7:30 PM 7:35 PM 7:40 PM 7:45 PM 7:50 PM 7:55 PM 8:00 PM 8:05 PM 8."10 PM 8:15 PM 8:20 PM 8:25 PM 8:30 PM 8:35 PM 8:40 PM TIME NUMBER OF VEHICLES '. AT OR BEHIND ORDER WINDOW 1 1 1 1 AT OR BEHIND PICKUP WINDOW WALGREEN'S RXPRESS (ANAHEIM) QUEUING SURVEY (CONT'D) ..~ 8:45 PM 8:50 PM 8:55 PM 9:00 PM NUMBER OF VEHICLES TIME AT OR BEHIND ORDER WINDOW AT OR BEHIND PICKUP WINDOW DATE OF SURVEY: 12/7/95 (Thursday) - 3:00 PM to 9:00 PM 12/12/95 (Tuesday) - 9:00 AM to 3:00 PM APPENDIX STANDARD PLAN 1 1 17 $ or S LI~fed use area "/' 'F ....... '~7~- ' ' ' '~ L___CurD line , ,, A Left ~i Amd £ro$$ Troffl¢ -----~-~ S or S(s) on DISTANCE (FT.) I~JOR 6GO' 580 I 37 37 13 PR[MARY GlO 500 Z5 25 'L3 _ SECONDARY 550 430 18 18 G ~CONMI. ITER S(X) 360 0 0 0 _ COLLECTOR 390 250 0 0 0 LOCAL ZSO 1518 j 18 0 0 ILeft Turn in J JSlght OlstonceJ · ORANGE COUNTY ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEIv(ENT AGENCY - ~.Z~f.o/roctor or Pub/c, wort.s Ack:)Dted.: ties,. 7?-<:JZ RevLr,.ed: Re~. 82-718; 8G-IM]; 8.8-134L; <JH481 INTERSECTION SIGHT DISTANCE STD. PLAN 1117 NOTES: I. ThO dlsfomco S represents The corner &Ighf dksforKze m~asured along tho cenferltne of tho roo~ The corner sight distance is t.ge distance required to allow 7 1/2 seconds for th'~. driver on the cross road Jar ~ft tu~ pocket) to safely ~oss the ~ln rood~Y or turn I~ft ~I1~ th~ approach v~hlci~ ~av~i~ at the asmd decl~ ~d. of th~ mb road~. 2. The dlstmce S ~uld be Increased by 2~Z from ~e ~mt Sho~ on the table on sustol~d dom~o,~o~ ~t~r ~m ~/ and longer thru o~ ~. . . % Points A end AT ~e ~ ~oflom of o flyers line of ~lghf ~.5 ~t eye haiti) fo once.ha vehlc~ J4.25 f~t e~t h~ht) Io~f~ at Pobf~ C ~ ~ mile ~ o vehl~e of an bf~r~ecflon B f~f ~ ~om ~e projection of case ~oll Po~f~ & or &' b~ ~s~, thru flf+e~n feet from the edge o¢ the ~ovei~d ~. 4. The dls~ono~ Y' ~ ~ ~8~an¢~ ~asur~d ~ ~ 6ent~¢l~ right fhr~gh frmel bne. ~ d~f~ T" b ~quol ~o z~ro ~or T-lntersec+lo~. dlstence X Is ~ d~tonce ~ed ~o~ ~e ¢ent~rllne of ~ rain rood to ~e center of the f~ right t~ough ~ovel line. ~e d~fo~ X' ~ the dlstmce ~osured from the .centeri~ of th~ ~b r~d t~ ~e c:nt~ O~ t~ travel 1~ 'n~orest th~ tenferlbe of the rood. 5. The L~t~d U~e ~eo Is dtt~n~d bY the gro~hlcal ~f~d ~ the o~ro~rlote distances alvin In the above table. If ~oll b~ used ~or ~ purpos~ of proh~ltlng or clewing obstmcflo~ ~ or~'fo ~lnto~ adequate sight d~ton6e at btersecflts. 6. ~e LI~ of Sight !I~ ~holl b~ ~m af ~+~r~cflons on oll im~caplng plans, grad~g p~ md ten+afire ~oc$ plms mere safe s~h~ d~mce ~ ~es+l~¢le. In ~ses mere m htersectl~ ~ ~cafed on a vertical ~ve, be reqg~ed.. T. Obstructions s~ os bus falter& ~al~ or landscaping wl~ the L~fed Use Area m~ could rcs~lct ~e line of sight shall not be ~c~tt~ Plants and shrubs ~lthh the L~ted Use Area ~!1 be of the type that ~ll.gro~ no hlgh~ +bm 12 Inches above ~e grou~ and shall be o¢ ~ inches above the groun& blnfen~e at a crest vertical c~ves per Note 6 b. ~ ~o~ie o¢ the Ihe o~ s~t ~f be requ~ed to verl~ ~ ~nl~m vertlcal cle~ance above varlab~ height tstruct~ns such as slope landscaping, plmfs and c. The toe of sio~ ~y en~oach bra the L~ted. Use Area provided that the requlre~nfs of ~) above ore satisfied. [n 'lieu of providing a pro~e of ~e line of sight, the t~ of slo~ Shall not ~x~m fo t~ rood~. ORANGE COUNTY ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGElvlENT AGENCY kdopted: Res. 77-~2 Revised: Re~ 82-718: 86-l~l; 88-1341:91-I481 INTERSECTION SIGHT DISTANCE STD. PLAN SHT.-2 OF Trees shall not be Per--fried wlth. tn any portion of the Limited Uso Are& 9. Median areas l~ss thru slx [6] feet In width shall be paved wlth concrete per Standard Plan 1114. :"~ '" Residential driveways ~ervlng four or i{~re units and comcrclai drlve~¥s ~hall be treated-~ as a local street hters~ctlo.~. ORANGE COUNTY ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT AGENCY l, do'~ted: Res. ?7-cj~ Revl~ed: Rex. 8,?.-?|8; 86-1141,; 88-['3"11:91-H81 INTERSECTION . SIGHT DISTANCE STD. PLAN 1117 FEBRUARY 12, 1996 CITY OF TUSTIN PLANNING COMMISSION RUDOLPH OS\VALD PARTNERS 13400 NEWPORT AVE TUSTIN, C,~M..IFORNIA 92680 714 73 i-1344 TO WHOM THIS MAY CONCERN: RUDOLPH OSWALD PARTNERS STRONGLY OBJECT TO THE ISSUING OF A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 95-008 AND DESIGN REVIEW 95-023 AND CONSTROCTION OF A CHANGEABLE MONUMENT SIGN AND OBJECT TO THE AUTHORIZATION OF CONSTRUCTION OF A 1900 GROSS SQUARE FOOT PHARMACY AND SITE IMPROVEMENrI'S AS PRESENTED. WE OBJECT FOR THE FOLLOWING REASONS: 1. A CHANGEABLE MONUMENT SIGN IS NOT APPROPKIATE FOR TI[IS TYPE OF BUSINEss AND DOES NOT MATCH THE STANDARDS FOR PROPERTY IN THE TUSTIN CENTER REDEVELOPMENT AREA ' 2. THE STANDARD CONSTRUCTION OF WALGREENS RXPRESS-( ATTACHED PICTURES OF 3 ORANGE COUNTRY SITES) SHOWS COMPLETE NON CONFORMANCE TO THE SPANISH STYLE ARCHITECTURE THAT ALL SURROUNDING PROPERTIES H~VE ADHERED TO. WE ARE VERY CONCERNED ABOUT THE GAUDY APPEARANCE USED IN THE WALGREENS RXPRESS LOCATIONS AND FEEL THAT COLOR AND SIGNAGE MUST BE IN CONFORMANCE. TO THE AREA AND THAT THE PLANNING COMMISSION NEEDS TO LOOK AT THIS VERY CLOSELY. 3. THE PROPERTY IS TOO SMALL TO ACCOMMODATE AMPLE PARKING FOR THE TYPE OF BUSINESS PROPOSED AND THE QUEUING OF CARS WILL EVEN'i'UALLY LEAD TO BACK UP OF TRAFFIC INTO THE MOST IMPACTED INTERSECTION OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN AND EVENTUALLY LEAD'TO INCREASED TRAFFIC. ACCDENTS. 4. A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT SHOULD NOT BE ISSUED IE. THE PROPOSED MITIGATIONS WILL NOT CURE.THE PROBLEM. THE ALLOCATION OF 9 PARKING STALLS WITH ONE HANDICAPPED STALL WILL CAUSE BACKUP ON NEWPORT AND FIRST. STREET LEADING TO REDUCED INGRESS AND EGRESS FROM OUR ADJACENT PROPERTY WHICH griLL DIRECTLY AFFECT OUR PROPERTY VALUE. THIS PR. OPOSED CONSTRUCTION WILL BACK UP TRAFFIC ON NEWPORT AVE WHICH IS CLASSIFIED AS A PRIMARY (AUGMENTED) ARTERIAL IN THE CITY'S GENERAL PLAN AND IN, THE ORANGE COUNTY MPAH. ATTACHMENT C RUDOLI~tt OS\VALD PARTNERS 13400 NE\VPORT AVE TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA 92680 714 731-1344 HAVING LOOKED AT THIS LOCATIO'lkl FOR THE WALGREENS RXPRESS, WE '"~: VIEWED THE 3 OTHER LOCATIONS ~OR \VALGREENS IN ORANGE COUNTY ( ATTACHED PHOTOS). THIS APPEA~D TO BE THE SMALLEST LOT AND THE T~N PARKING STALLS WERE THE LEAST PROVIDED. IN ANY LOCATION. THEIR OTHER LOCATIONS HAD THE FOLLOWING PARKING: MAGNOLIA AND LINCOLN LOCATION-. 16 MARKED SPACES PLUS STREET KNOTT AND BALL- 13 MARKED SPACES PLUS NLBX4EROUS STREET SPACES. HARBO~~ EDINGER-17 MARKED SPACES AND 20 ADJACENT SPACES . JUST TO NOTE - KENTUCKY .FR_ITE. D CHICKEN LOT NEXT DOOR- 21 MARKED SPACES WE HAVE ALSO ATTACHED A REPLICATION OF THE LOT DIAGRAM WITH PROBABLE PARKING ALLOTMENT'DURING A PEAK BUSINESS TIME. PER THE EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPAcTs REPORT PAGE 6 ITEM 6 WE DISAGREE WITH ITEMS C THROUGH G- NO IMPACT. WE FEEL THAT THIS CONSTRUCTION DOES DIRECTLy IMPACT THE DEMAND FOR NEW PARKING. PER PAGE SEVEN OF YOUR REPORT LAST'PARAGRAPH INDICATES "IN SUMMARY, THE PROJECT IS ESTIMATED TO GENERATE APPROXIMATELY 450 VEHICLE TRIP-ENDS PER DAY, OF WHICH 45 TRIP - ENDS WILL BE GENERATED IN THE PM PEAK-HOUR" \VE CAN NOW ADDRESS THIS INFORMATION, BUT WE ALSO WILL PRESENT MORE INFORMATION SHOWING THAT THE 45 TRIP-ENDS IS AT BEST A VERY VERy LOW ESTIMATE OF THE TRUE VALUE AT THIE PEAK-HOUR AND THAT A TRUE ESTIMATE SHOULD BE THIS VALUE MULTI:PLIED BY TWO OTHER FACTORS.. LOOKING AT THE SITE.-MAP AS WE HAVE PRESENTED TO YOU (ATTACHED), OF ~ 9 PARKING SLOTS AVAILABLE FOR NON HANDICAPPED PARKING, 4-5 OF ]'HEM SHOULD BE OCCUPIED BY EMPLOYEES .AT THE PEAK HOURS. WE CALLED LOCAL PHARMACIES TO FIND OUT THE NUMt3ER OF EMPLOYEES THAT WERE ON STAFF AT THIS TDvlE OF DAY. '~'HIS LEAVES 3--4 PARKING SPACES OPEN'FOR PATRONS. \VITH 45 TRIP-ENDS IN AN HOUR AND AN AVERAGE OF 20-30 MINUTES TO FII.L A PRESCRIPTION( CALLED WALGREENS AND SAVON TO GET TIME) AND 2-8 MINUTES FOR THE PHARMACIST TO COUNSEL THE PATIENT ON MEDICATIONS AS REQUIRED BY LAW, THE 3-4 PARKING SPACES THAT ARE OPEN COULD BE FILLED IN THE FIRST FEW MINIYFES OF THE PEAK- HOUR LEAVING NO SPACES FOR ADDITIONAL PARKING FOR PATRONS. THIS SHOULD IN ITSELF BACK CARS UP ON TO NEWPORT AND FIRST STREET CONGESTING TRAFFIC AND PREVENTING INGRESS AND EGRESS TO OUR ADJACENT PROPERTY.*****WE WANT THE CITY TO UNDERSTAND THAT EVEN IF ALL THE EMPLOYEES WALKED TO WORK WHEN ONE LOOKS AT THIS TYPE OF BUSINESS AND ITS TRAFFIC FLOW RUDOLPH QS\VALD PAKTNERS 13400 NE\VPOR. T AVE TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA 92650 714 731-1344 IT STILL CANNOT ACCOMMODATE ITg PATKONS WITHOUT LEADING TO OVERFLOW.***** -: A BUSINESS NEEDS TO OFFER. EMPLOYEEs, PATRONS AMPLE PARKING AND ALLOW FOR SAFE ENTRY AND EXIT TO THE PROPERTY. CLEARLY THE SITE PLAN AS WE SEE IT DOES'NOT OFFER ANY OF THESE POINTS . AT THIS POINT WE SHOULD ADDRESS 'THE ISSUE OF TRAFFIC SAFETY. IF YOU STAND. AT THE CORNER OF FIRST AND NEWPORT AT-THE PEAK TRAFFIC TIME, ONE CAN'SEE THAT Tills INTERSECTION IS A VERY HECTIC AND HAZARDOUS CROSSING. ADDING TO THIS A BUSINESS THAT CANNOT AccoMMODATE IT OWN TRAFFIC NEEDS WILL INVARIABLY BACK TRAFFIC FLOW ON TO NEWPORT AND FIRST.. CARS TRYING TO AVOID TIdlS'~L AT SOME TIME END UP IN ACCDENTS WITH CONSIDERABLE HARM TO PROPERTY AND PERSON. WE ALSO ARE ATTACHING TO OUR OBJECTION ,FOR THE RECORD, TWO CURRENT ARTICLES (JANUARY 1996) INDICATING THAT THE PROPOSED PHARMACY WILL BE SPENDING MORE TIME WITH EACH PATIENT AS THE PRACTICE OF PHARMACY CHANGES IN THE FUTURE ( ARTICLE ON PHARMACEUTICAL CARE). THIS WOULD ALSO MAKE EACH TRIP-END REQUIR_E EVEN MORE TIME THAN THE ABOVE ESTIMATES AND WOULD LEAD TO EVEN MORE PARKING AND TRAFFIC CONGESTION.. WE NOW COME TO THE ISSUE OF QUEUED PARKING AT THE DRIVE THRU WI2x,~OWS. ~ TRAFFIC STUDY YOU WERE PRESENTED WAS FOR A RELATIVELY NEW STORE (ONE AND ONE HALF YEARS OLD ) LOCATED AT LINCOLN AND MAGNOLIA. THIS STORE IS NOT'THE BUSIEST OF'THE 3 ORANGE COUNTY LOCATIONS. WE FEEL IT IS'AN UNDER ESTIMATION TO USE FIGURES FROM A RELATIVELY NEW STORE TO APPROXIMATE THE FUTURE TRi~_ENDS OF THIS LOCATION. ONE SHOULD HAVE MULTIPLIED THEIR FIGURE BY SOME FACTOR FOR MATURITY OF LOCATION. WE ALSO FOUND A PROBLEM WITH THE TIMES TI-ElS STUDY WAS RUN.. THE STUDY WAS DONE ON A TUESDAY AND THURSDAY0',/OTED IN STUDY)AND WHEN WE CALLED LOCAL PHARMACIES TO ASK WHEN WERE THEIR BUSIEST DAYS ,THEY ALL SAD" MoNDAy AND FRIDAY ARE CONSDERABLY BUSIER." WITH THIS IN MIND, THIS TOO SHOULD MULTIPLY THEIR 45 TRIP-ENDS AT PEAK PM HOUR BY SOME FACTOR. THEREFORE THEIR 45 TRIPS ENDS SHOULD BE A NUMBER CONSDERABLY HIGHER. VCE THEN' MONITORED THE LINCOLN AND'MAGNOLIA DRIVE THRU WINDOW ON 2/12/96 FROM 3:40PM TO 6:OOPM TO SEE THE cOUNTs OF CARS. THE FOLLOWING ARE THE NUMBER OF CARS AT EITHER WINDOW. WE ONLY COUNTED THE TIMES . TWO OR MORE CARS WERE PRESENT. 3:40 PM 2 CARS 4:35 PM 2 CARS 4:52 PM 2 CARS 5:28 PM 3 CARS 5:32 PM 2 CARS 5:55 PM 2 CARS 5:58 PM 2 CARS RUDOLPH OS\VALD PARTNERS 13400 NEWPORT AVE TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA 92680 714 731-1344 .: IF YOU WILL REFER TO THE QUEUING SURVEY PROVIDED FOR DECEMBER FOR TH2S LOC3kTION THE ABOVE NUM:BERS REFLECT A VERY SUBSTANTIAL INCREASE FROM THE DECEMBER FIGURES AND CONTINUES TO SUBSTANTIATE THE FACT THAT THE LAY OUT AND QUEUTNG PROBLEM WILL CONTINUE TO ESCALATE UNTIL TRAFFIC IS HALTED ON THESE TWO MAJOR STREETS IN TUSTIN. EVEN WITH THIS IN MI-ND, THE STUDY STILL SHOWED THAT IT WAS POSSIBLE TO HAVE 3 CARS QUEUED AT A wINDow AT ONE TIIVIE . PLACING THE FACT THAT TEllS IS A NEW STORE ON A SLOW DAY WE PROPOSE THAT AS TIME WOULD GO ON THIS ALSO WOULD COMPLETELY STOP FLOW OF TRAFFIC ON THIS SITE A_ND LEAD TO BACK UP OF TRAFFIC ON TO NEWPORT AVE AND FIRST STREET, LEADING TO A TRAFFIC HAZARj2) ANrD A SAFETY RISK. WE THEN QUESTIONED A PHARMACIST( KRISTEN HIR~TA 213 667 5197 THAT WORKED AT A LOS ANGELES PHARMACY( AT 4904 SUNSET BLVD)WHICH HAS A PICK UP ONLY DRIVE THRU. WE LOOKED FOR A DRIVE THRU THAT HAD BEEN AROUND FOR SOME TIM]E AND TI-lIS LOCATION WAS IN EXISTENCE FOR OVER 6 YEARS. WE WERE TOLD THAT IT WAS COMMON FOR 3 OR MORE CARS TO BE IN LINE. AND THAT TI-lIS TAKES PLACE SOM]E 30 TO 40 TIMES A MONTH.. OUR ATTACHED PLOT DIAGRAM SHOWS HOW THE TOTAL PARKING IS INADEQUATE AND HOw 3 CARS QUEUED IN LINE WILL ALSO CAUSE TRAFFIC PROBLEMS. WHEN YOU CONSIDER THAT BOTH OF THESE PROBLEMS OF PARKING AND QUEUING CAN SEPARATELY CAUSE BACK UP OF TRAFFIC AT PEAK TRAFFIC TIM:ES ON BOTH MAJOR STREETS AND THAT TOGETHER THEY SURELY WILL CAUSE TRAFFIC BACK UPS. ONE MUST TAKE A NEW LOOK AT THE VIABILITY OF THIS TYPE OF BUSINESS FOR THIS SMALL A LOT. THE CITY OF TUSTIN OBVIOUSLY IS CONCERNED ABOUT THIS PROBLEM SINCE ON PAGE 10 NUMBER 6 THEY ADDRESS THIS ISSUE OF MITIGATION/MONITORING REQUrKED FOR TIlE PARKING. THE ONLY PROBLEM IS THE SOLUTIONS TO TI-iE PROBLEMS AS LISTED ON PAGE TEN JUST WON'T WORK. IF YOU LOOK CLOSELY AT THE SITE YOUR WILL SEE THAT: RUDOLPH OS\VALD PARTNERS 13400 NEWPORT AVE TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA 92680 714 731-1344 A. MODIFICATION OF THE DRIVE-T~RU LANE ALIGNMENT WILL HAVE NO DIRECT AFFECT ON THE TRAFFIC CONGESTION ON THE SITE, 1N FACT THIS MAY INCREASE THE CONGESTION. B. ELIMINATION OF ONE OF THE DRIVE-THRU WINDOWS WILL NOT DECREASE CONGESTION; BUT WILL INCREASE THE NUMBER OF CARS.AT THE OTHER WINDOW WHICH IN ITSELF WILL LEAD TO MORE CONGESTION FLOWING OUT TO EITHER FIRST OR NEWPORT. C. CONSTRUCTION OF PLANTER MEDIANS TO SEPARATE AND DEFINE VEHICULAR ACCESS LANES WILL ELIMINATE EVEN MORE DRIVING AREA AND LEAD TO FURTHER CONGESTION. ' ONE MUST BE FA.MILIAR WITH THE PRACTICE OF PHARMACY TO UNDERSTAND THAT A PHARMACY DRIVE THRU v~q'NDOW. IS NOT THE SAME AS A MACDONALDS DRIVE THRU. FILLING A PRESCRIPTION TAKES MORE'TIME THAN pACKAGING A BIG MAC AND FRIEs. POTENTIAL'FOR A VERY LENGTHY TllX4]E WAIT EXISTS IF A PHARMACIST MUST CLARIFY OR PROCESS A DRUG INTER)kCTION FOR A. PATIENT. TI-tiS PROCESS TAKES ONE OR Two PHONE CALLS TO A PHYSICIAN OR INSUR.ANCE COMPANY, ALL OF WHICH CONSUME TIM~. IF YOU ARE QUEUED UP AND ARE BLOCKING TtiE DRIVE-THRU LANE YOU CANrNOT BE SENrr TO A SPACE TO WAIT AND HAVE THE PHARMACIST DELIVER THE PRESCRIPTION TO YOU., LIKE YOU CAN_GET A BIG MAC SENT TO YOUR CAR WI-~.E WAITING. THE PHA.R2vIAClST IS REQUIRED TO COUNSEL TI--IE PATIENT BY LAW AND CANNOT TAKE THE MEDICATION TO THE CAR SINCE HE IS NOT ALLOWED BY LAW TO LEAVE THE RX DEPARTMENT UNATTENDED BY A PHARMACIST. EVEN IF HE COULD OR A CLERK WOULD TAKE THE MEDICATIO.N TO A PARKED CAR THE POTENTIAL FOR CRIME IS ASTRONOMICAL WI4EN PEOPLE ARE CAKR~G DRUGS OUTSDE OF A PHARMACY. TI-lIS LOCATION IS JUST TOO SMALL FOR THIS PROJECT TO WORK. IT IS NOT TO THE BEST INTEREST OF THE TUSTIN CITY TO ALLOW A PROJECT DESTINED TO FAII.URE ON SUCH A IMPORT~W SITE TO BE CONSTRUCTED. THE FARMER MARKET IS THE PERFECT EXAMPLE OF A'BUSINESS THAT DD NOT SUCCEED DUE TO PATRONS NOT BEING ABLE TO GET IN AND OUT OF A LOCATION'WITHOUT A TRAFFIC PROBLEM. WE WOULD LOVE TO SEE WALGREENS COME TO OUR COMMUNITY AS AN ADDITION TO OUR MEDICAL PROFESSION, 'BUT NOT TO BE DONE AT A PLACE THAT WILL ~ACT ADJACENT TRAFFIC AND THE INGRESS AND EGRESS TO ADJACENT BUSINESSES TO SUCH A DETRIMENTAL AFFECT. IF THE CITY HAS REAL CONCERNS ALREADY ABOUT THE TRAFFIC AND PARKING PROBLEMS AND THE MITIGATIONS ARE NON VIABLE IN THE FUTURE AND ONE RUDOLPH OS\VALD PARTNERS 13400 NE\VPORT AVE TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA 92680 714 731-1344 KNOWS THAT REVOKING A PERMIT .I.~ ALMOST IMPOSSIBLE ,,MNrD WILL LEAD TREMENDOUS AMOUNT OF LITIGAT'I'~)N'"ON BOTH SIDES THE CITY MuST NOT ISSUE A CONDITIONAL PERMIT. -: ANY TRAFFIC BACK UP ON TO NEWPORT AVE WILL ~'IMEDIATELY BLOCK ACCESS TO OUR PROPERTY AND WILL BE DETRIMENTAL TO ALL OUR LEASED BUSINESSES AT OUR LOCATIONi RUDOLPH OSWALD PARTNERS WANT THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, THE ARCHITECT AND DEVELOPER AND THE PROPOSED TENANT'TO UNDERSTAND THAT WE WIlL PROTECT OUR PROPERTY VALUE AND RIGHTS T'O EGRESS AND INGRESS TO OUR PROPERTY TO THE FULL EXTENT OF ' THE LAW. MICHAEL RUDOLPH 1 o Lt./ n N A'v' J_klOdM N % · \ TlOt~ u~O~ oFF Roland Nelson of' Patient. I are By Michael Slezak Roland Nelson has re-engineered his phapmacy after' ;52 yeaPs in retail pPactice, and has freed up his time for 'pharmacy Care' Roland Nelson says that re- modeling ami re-engineering l~is lkwm)lds Drugs in inglmm, A.la, was "tl~e l)est tl~i~lg tlsat ever I~al,pe~lc.d t~ us." "I never realized i~ow inetllcient pl,tr- mac-ists are," s;tx's Nelson, at Mbt m)t til he impleme;~ted changes in die ~nac)'~ design and work flow'some months ago. "We don't l~ave to answer eveD' phone edl or talk to every docton" Now, Nelson spends less time on die phone confirming prescriptions and drug switches witl~ personnel l'ro~n physicians' offices. Instead. he's busy cotmseling patients and managing their drag therapy. Filling prescriptions is a quicker process, too. As a resuh of redirecting tl~e t)l,trmacy~ work flow. tecl~nicim~s {lu more of tl~e coutding and Even Nelson's patients I)ehave (lift f'ercs~tl): Tl~ev tl()ts'l i~tcrrupt I~it~ wldlc Im is wilh ot~er paliu~ds. 'i'l~cy tll't,ll'l ils impatient lo get tl~eir ~nedic, ti~,ss mul spri.t (mt tl~c "These clumges we're niaking got n~e excited al)(,d l~l,an,l,cy agai~. Tl~e)"ve gotten u9' l)h)od II()wi~g." says the 53-year-old Nelson. who gnuhmtml from Auburn Universily School ()t' Pharmacy in lOB4 and llas owned ~e)a~olds Drug since 1969. The remodeling and re-e~gineeri~g. Nelson says, lmve allowed th~ staff Re),nolds Drug. including Nclsm~ 24- year-old pharmacist daughter, to start concentrating on practicing what calls "l,harmaqy care." Nels(,~ currently per[orms disease managemeut for lmndfi~l of patients ~ witl~ dial)utes, ustl~ma and I~)'pertensi()n ~ a~(l l)egtm' t() see some positive results. [-[e Is.pcs ltcs,..h:li~tg tim i)l..'~m~c), was lite first slc'p signs atltl ti,,ie-wastit,g tasks, tltere c)' c.rc. lie received advice [rom A~dmm Unix'ersi~' lnX~¢essors, including Bill FeiSty. M.S.. ami Bruce Berger, I'I~.D.. I~efin'e e~nbarking o~ tl~e process. TI~c ilcw U-si~aped phar~acy cou~der at l/e)'mdds places l)lsar~nacists itt e)'c-lcvcl witl~ patim~ts dm'ing all in- teracti{ms. On tl~e thr right of the phar- ~nac-y cxm~der is its most mfi~l~e l~atm'e, a l~ilt-i~ {les~ witl~ a couq.~ter. The l)lim'.~.cist, sits at tl~c desk. and patie~lts wl,o nccd a new ln-escriptios~ filled or xs'l.~ I.~ve tlt~usli~.~s sil i~l il c]lair direct- 26 JANt;.',BY ltcufi- AMEIiIC.',N I)RI.;CCI~T I%' ;ICl' tl~c p: ~)tl~cr · ,'catti~ A R les~ eve, N fron urol ap cur( tion N py ~ ovel A ~ak~ ' the pro~ he t The, Iv across fro,,! tire pharmacist. TI]ere. ti,e patie,,t receives c-~,l]],seli,g as,d gets oilier services, s,,ch as blood l)ress,,-e readings. A ,]ea,-by c-om,seli,~g room also is ax':~ilal~le ifexli'a l~,-iv:~cy is "'l'{~c lxdic~l is c'~,,,,,st;{c'<{ w{~ilc' ti,o' sc),,, l'],;i'r,]mcisls ~]s(' ;L denmatlt il~e desk ti(mt i~f0rmatiou if ~e('d('({. "XVil}~ pali('nl siiiiu~ (l()w~. ~5({ed alle~dio]~." he says. "lle~ soaking Ul) more than if we were just standing there. It) seen ~m sedous bust,mss." "! never realized how inefficient pharmacists are. We don't have to answec every phone call or' talk to every, doctor." Nels<m says a,,()tl,er added I)e,,efit the co,.,nseling desk is il,at otl~e,' lit'nfs no lo,,~e,-~ i,,t(.,'r,,pt wl,ile l~e is cot,use{tug someone, something they used to do before he remodeled. P~- tieuts waiti,,g for a pha,'macist are seat- ed iu chairs near d~e center of the phar- ,uacx~ "Nm~ ti,er respect tl~e fact l',u sitti,g, talki,g to a,mtl,er patient. I {,;,'.'c'~'l Ir;,i~lc'({ t{~c~ lc, wait t{~cre. I{,<'v <1¢)it." says I':,,rtl~('r. t{~c {~llar~;tc.)' desk is ";t sell- i,~,,~ i~,ol," },e exl)lai~s. "T{,e palie,~ts sit- li,sg i~ II~e wailing area xvl}~lt tl~e same t)]~e (_)f seca'ice" they see being given at the l)harmac5· desk. "It raises the level of expectation of the customer." At tl~e left end of the pharmaU, is a "P,'esc,'ipti(m Pick-Up" area where pa- Oents c;m quickly get d~eir mfrs. T~hni- cians do their work at the center of the cot,,de,'. Mercha,)dise such as xdtamins, l~erhs, feminine l~>'~ene p~ucts m~d p~- l)l,>'lac, tic~ are placvd in fix)ut of this ~ea. Anollser c'lmnge was re(lesiguiug the sl~elvi~g and storage for prescription dn,gs. Nelson replaced the traditional "pl,armaey bays" that run pe~endieu- la,' to the counter witl~ large shelves ti,at nm pa,'allel to c~)unter. Eigh~'-six percent of the n~edications dispe~sec{ at Reynolds Drugs are held on the ]~ew sl~elves. Nelson monitored all prescripti()],s {bt a 45-da>' period and plac.('d tim ,t,osI fre(uwnily dispensed drugs on tl~e new shelves so pharmacists or tech,~icians could simply tu'rn ar(),md, get tl~e drug. and dispense it. Patients are ple~ed that they aren't xx'~,~g ~m long to get their prescdpaons filial. N~n~; on average, diD, xx~dt {~veen tlu'~ arid seve~l minutes, sax~ Nelson. Is] additi(m, the pharmacy now has ac[justable sheM,g so eacl~ shelf can be An Uplifting Experience Roland Nelson hasn't been paid for much of the phar- macy care he has performed for his patients. Nonethe- less, a recent experience left him feeling optimistic that eventually, he'll be reimbursed for his efforts. Nelson was paid $150 for helping a man suffering from impotence. The Iongtime patient had visited the urologist and, he told Nelson, he was dismayed because a pair of nurses there told him his only options for a cure were using a pump or a regular combination injec- tion of Regitine and papaverine. Nelson says he offered to perform a ~pharmacothera- py outlook" and review the patient's prescription and over-the-counter medications, for a fee. After the review, Nelson recommended the patient be taken off two of his medications, including Inderal, and the patient's physician agreed. The recommendation proved a success and the patient's impotence was cured. "He was.happy to pay [the fee]," Nelson recalls. 'Then, he took that to his insurance company, and they balked. They said they didn't pay for these kinds of services. "This guy was a hard-nosed fellow, though," chuckles Nelson. "He said that was fine, he'd just start taking the Inderal again, and then start the Regitine therapy at $79 a month for the rest of his life. The woman al: the insur- ance company said she'd have to call her supervisor. The insurance company ended up paying." Nelson hopes that customer demand for pharmacy care will lead to the day when ."eventually, our paycheck will be proportional to the number of patients we care for and case-manage." That will be a slow process, though, he predicts, "probably five years away." And when pharmacists begin getting paid for services, Nelson says he has "some off-the-wall" ideas about how it should be done. "1 don't want insurance companies to pay," he muses. *i'd rather have patients receive the services and 'set their value. If we let insurance companies [decide what to] pay for it, they'll do the same thing as they do now [with dispensing rates]." Perhaps not such an off-the-wall idea at all. AMERICAN I)RU(;(;IST o {ANUARY 19o6 27 set at a difF¢l-ent l,cigllt to acc()mlrlOdate packages and I,oltles.<~F vao-ing sizes. Tills allowed Nelson to create a variety of small si,elves of vadous l,eights and resulted ia 28% additkmal space. Physical changes in the Beynoids Drug pharmacy were accompanied by changes in the work flow. The phone system w~ revam~d so it only rings in the pharmac)~ and only the pharmacy c~hier is desi~mted to an~v~r it. Tile l)luu'lnacy also dcvel()pcd a ln'i- vale voice ,nailb~ox for pl,)'sicians, wlso ~, call llie li~e'?firecfly and leave a mes- sage to approve prescription clmnges. q~clmicians l¥11ing refills now work separately from'the pharmacist, too. "Previously. when teehs asked ques- tions, the pharmacist tended to push them ~itle and say '~t me show you.'" ~)'s Nelson. By eliminating that ~ct of-the relationship, technicians have (:omc more indepc,deut, saving time for tJ~emseJves and (lie pharmacists.",~ Nelson says he is ",ct a guru" when it comes to rem~leliug or re-engineering ~ he was merely able to see be),Snd some of the ineffieieneies p~sed dox~ through generations ofpharmacists. "You need to get out of the box" and see pharmacy in a new waF he says. One of the b~ rear&, Nelson adds, is that 'onc~ you do it, patients love it? Taking 'Care' of Business Roland Nelson and his staff are ready to expand their efforts to practice what he calls "pharmacy care," now that Reynolds Drug has been remodeled and re-engi- neered. Among the disease states Nelson is tackling are diabetes, asthma and hypertension. The pharmacy recently held a seminar for about 75 people with diabetes at a local hotel with a diabetes ed- ucator making a presentation.-The pharmacy has since helped four or five patients with monitoring the disease. Nelson also has managed therapy for one asthma pa- tient for the past year, and the patient's peak-flow read- ing has improved to over 200. Prior to receiving pharma- cy care, he had a maximum reading of 150. Even better, Nelson adds, the patient only visited the emergency room once in 1995 ~ compared With six visits in 1994. Nelson gives this' patient a medical chart where he can record when and if he has taken his medication, and the results of his peak-flow readings. Results are entered into the pharmacy computer monthly, when the patient comes in to pick up a new chart. The pharmacy is also setting the stage for 'managing patients' hypertension. "We see 20 to 30 patients a week who have hyper- tension," says Nelson. Pharmacists have measured pa- tients' blood pressure manually using a stethoscope and inflatable cuff since the late 1970s, but now record the data on a computer. When a patient is heading to the physician, Nelson prints out the readings for a given time period and displays, them in graph form. "We have never, and we never will, use a machine to take blood pressure readings," he says. 'There is some- thing to be said for touching the patient. It's hard to build trust and a relationship unless tl~ere's touch." Pharmacists at the store also ask. patients with hyper- tension a series of open-ended questions to learn more about their condition. Nelson says he decided to start down the path to pharmacy care because 'the writing is on the wall. This is where we're heading. Pharmacy care starts one pa- tient at a time." Pharmacists, says Nelson, already have the knowl- edge to practice pharmacy care, they just need to have the confidence. "It's like when you first get out of school and you're afraid of patients asking you questions," he explains. "You wonder 'Will I be able to answer them?'" Nelson's own worries, however, were alleviated soon after he re-engineered his business. "One doctor knew what we were trying to do with the pharmacy," recalls Nelson. "He called me and said '1 have a patient coming in 45 minutes. She's~on methotrexate. I ne. ed to know her BSA.' He gave me her height and weight. '1 got off the phone and thought, 'What is a BSA?'" With a little research, Nelson discovered the meaning of BSA ~ body surface area. "Now, I own th'at," he says. "You never stop learning." The education process, though, is easier than the mo- tivation process, Nelson says. It has been difficult for the Reynolds staff, Nelson included, to make what amounts to a paradigm shift. 'We're no different than 95% of pharmacists. Our pharmacists talk about how many prescriptions they filled yesterday," he says. "1 want them to say how many new diabetics we served. How many signed, up for the new hypertension management program?" Nelson says his own daughter, out of pharmacy school less than two years, is as hooked on filling, counting and pouring as he is. This philosophy is reinforced because "the number-one job the pharmacist does in a communi- ty setting is tb fill those prescriptions. Why is that? If you don't do that, you don't get paid." Another problem for pharmacists is "convincing insur- ance providers we can't do their job and our job, too. That is so frustrating," he says. "You get a high by mak- lng an intervention or helping a patient. And right after that you spend 35 to 40 minutes getting a $5 prescrip- tion to go through the computer. It takes you from the top of the mountain to the bottom of the valley." Nonetheless, he says, he is confident a critical mass of pharmacy care pharmacists will develop, and change the perception of'the profession. 'I'm back to practicing pharmacy the way I did in :!.964, when I took care of patients," says Nelson. "I'd do a manual patient profile to keep track of drug interac- tions as much as to remember Mrs. Jones' first name , and the names of her kids. We're moving to pharmacy care, and I just want to keep going forward." ~ Michael Slezak JANUARY 1996 · AMEBICAN I)IIL;(:C'IST o- b 1 (2~ t k4 ('f I tic~ cisl I,al tl~t pe, Piers~ Publicati, . . . In Wisconsin and other stat~s. pharmacists are risking thousands of dollars to create practices that focus on patient care in the hope that their efforB will be recognized~ and rewarded monetarily. Pharmacist John Bohllnan invested in store improvements, staff training and software in order to implement new patient care model in his pharmacy in Boscobel, \Visconsin. Pharmacies Redesign PractiCes, and (Some) Payers Respond David Vaczek Apractice model that enahles pharmacists to focus patient cnre without the - distractions of ad~ninistra- tire tasks is taking a group of Wiscon- sin pharmacists into a brave new world of patient care management. In a conversion process of six to nine months duration, 38 state phar- David Vaczek is a Westchester. Nen' : }>d'-basedpeelance medical and phar- mag' writer. ................. macies are redefining the focus of their practices and adopting methods that allow a m~re hands-on approach to patient care, which includes teachin, g patients how to 'manage their own health. In these "ground-up" revisions, the phammcies are each spending thou- sands of dollars for store improvements, training and new software to imple- ment the Pharmcare practice model designed by Pharmaceutical Care Ser- vices, Inc., Waco, Texas. The Wisconsin Pharmacists Associ- ation has picked Pharmcare as the cor- nerstone of an aggressive program to roll out a standard patient care manage- merit system into the marketl,lace. "h's risky. This will put our pharma- cists out in front of the patients," says John ~hhnan, who is spending $7,000 for store improvement,s, staff training, and software to implement the model in his [-k~scobel, Wisconsin, pharmacy. "\Ve will be educating the patients on their care so that they will have a much better idea of what outcomes to expect," says I~hlman, adding: "The patient is going to be the final judge. Continued ~ January 1995 Pharmacy Times 23 Reimbursenqent Focus One of Several Models. Pharmcare is one of several practice models that have recently emerged that offer sys-, terns for pharmacists to expand patient care services beyond traditional DUR interventions and focus on determining the outcomes of drug thf:rapies. In per- forming tests and developing lab values when needed, in communicating with other caregivers, and in following stan- dardized treatment strategies, pharma- cists in these models are blazing a trail which all of retail pharmacy will inevitably follow, many contend. Meanwhile, patients and a number of pioneering payers, who have recog- nized that pharmacists are uniquely qualified to "keep patients between the lines" in d.rug therapy and health care management, have increasingly sig- naled interest in reimbursing pharma- cists for these expanded patient care ser- vices. Pharmcare's success in Wisconsin, and in the 11 other states where it is being tried, doesn't only rest with the reception it receives from enlightened patients, who will often be the ones deciding whether or not to pay for addi- tional services. Institutional payers are also evaluating pharmacists' ability to improve outcomes and reduce medical costs, as pharmacists begin to set the rates they hope to charge for these "ct~g- nitive services." The Wisconsin project has found cause for optimism on that score. The program has kindled interest in a major state inst, rer and in the state's Medicaid program. The private insurer, Wisconsin Physicians' Services (WPS), has agreed to pal' for the pharmacy management services provided by the 38 pharmacies on a trial basis for one'year. WPS was attracted to Pharmcare's approach to work-flow management, which leaves the pharmacist~physi- cally situated away from the cot, nter~ to concentrate on patient counseling 24 Pharmacy Times January 1995 ,~.~. ,~:.-4~,;--.'~ ~ ..~ assigned ro collection of patient data, d on the type of interve~- ments based on the type of intervm~- pr~uct dis~nsing, and administrative don; based on a payment retrospective task. review of performance; or paying the "1 like the work-flow changes. That kind of commonsense approach to the problem was the first thing that attracted us to the program. Pharmacists haven't often been available to provide these services," says David Armstrong, WPS's pharmacy benefits director. The insurer will process 3.3 million claims in 1994, administers the state's Medicare Part B program, and is the regional administrator for the Champus military Medicare program for civilian depen- dents. In the trial starting January 1, 1995, WPS will pal' pharmacists a fixed amount--S25 for an individt,al, $50 for a family~to cover patient care services for a year. The money isn't paid until the pharmacist enlists the patient into the program, which requires a 20% patient co-pay. The payment method is "just for the study period. It is not the · way we necessarily see cognitive ser- vices being financed in the future," says Am~strong. Under Watch by Medicaid. The Pharmcare program is also being closely watched by Wisconsin Medicaid administratt~rs, who arc planning develop an incentive-based reimburse- ment system for phammcy services, says Kevin Piper, Wisgonsin's lqirecr~r {~f Health ~re Financing. "We want to bc one of the payers of plmrmacy services. We [~lieve ye%, firmly in thc g,~ and expertise of the pharmacy commu- nity, and that what is in their interes~ is also in the interest of patients and tax- payers," says Pier, who is working with the pharmacists association and the University of Wisconsin in a study ro develop a reimbursement system. Piper says an incentive payment sys- tem might take one of three forms: a pharmacist a fixed amount per month to act as the patient's case manager or care coordinator. Piper believes' an incentive payment system for pharmacists would contribute to the health care savings that Medicaid plans to achieve through the launch of a planned on-line prospective DUR sys- tem and a retrospective DUR system cugently l~ing developed. Medicaid and WPS both anticipate significant health care savings in reduced hospital visits and lower drug costs as a result of pharmacists' care-giv- ing activities. Ina budget proposal to the gover- nor's off'ice, Piper has projected that the Medicaid program would save $12.5 million a year with the implementation of the DUR systems and a pharmacists' incentive payment program. WPS's goal in the Pharmcare test is to'reduce patients' overall medical costs by 2.5%~a substantial saving consider- ing d~e escalation in health care expen- ditures in recent years. That saving would allow an estimated three-to-one return on its investment, according .Armstrong. T,, d,,c, Wisc~n,in's experience with a new approach to pharmacy ser- vices is typical of what fs happening acr,~ss tl~e c~untry. Pharmacies are test- tion iilld patient management, as payers I, ~k t~,r resuhs. The Pharmcare program, developed by tbrmer Waco, Texas, pharmacist Jeanne Ann Stasny, i~ ~eing used hy 150 pharmacie~ ~ ~ar, says Howard Biel, vice president of pharmacy operations. Two-year-old CarePoint, Inc., a Charleston, Sot,th Carolina, company, is marketing a program similar to Pl~armcare's, that empl~ys training, ] C ~S ~ o~Oe, ~edOrm m I,Om eSS,rigS ,opr~ale s. t4DC ~5~B6 CJ2FHY25~ Reimi}LJrserr~er.~[ Focus w~,rk-fh~w clm]~cs, sucre rcdcsil2n, and software tlmt SUl~ports a patient-f,<used pn~clice. l'harm;<i~t~ ,<cupy ;i separate selin~ r,~,m a~d I,efl~rln lab (estin~ that ,~eets [l~e (;linical macist~ in tl~e recently launcl~cd I,a~ed 1 lealth Outc(,mes fi~cus ~,n c~,nditit,ns, afl~ctin~ 16% of patients~ ;~thina, diabetes, hTpertensi~,n }~igh ch,,lestcr, fl~where intervemi~,ns ctfiefexecutive T~,m R~<cnthal. Launched in 3 Stores. Up and run- nin~ in three CV-c' st~res today, the pro- gram will be targeted to ~lcKesson"s Valu-Rite pharmacies next year. "We are teaching the (CVS) pharmacies how to implement it, and testing it with pntients to find out what works and what ~sn't work," says Rosenthal. Lucinda Maine, senior director for pharmacy affairs at APhA, observes: "The practice models are in an advanced state of continuous evolution. We learn something every day about what we know or don't know." While pharmacies seek to reach a "consensus on what the core components of the model are," interest in paying for ser- vices has gained momentum among payers, Maine notes. The Pharmcare model has received support from state associations and pharmacies, which feel a "~rot]nd-up" approach is needed to allow pharnmcists full ~ope in exercising their communi- cation and cognitive skills. The Illinois Pharmacists As~iation, for example, is training pharmacies in the m(~el, with a goal of 2~ pharmacies in the program by the end of 1996, says Mark Pilking- ton, executive director. "We wanted a model of practice services inclucle: AssociatiSn-/cl~ris Illinois pharmacists 312-939-7300. - '~'.:'"5:.)/':-:/.5~!:ii51!:f5:?i751:;i.-.'..::' ~'-,'"~ '.'.:-'>:'?:"~"~"':'" Pharmcare Practice Model.. Phatmabe'uti~l Carl S~n'[c~ ld~.'; Wacb,'"'."': ' Texas, Howard Biel, vice'pfesideist~?h~?hiacy~0Pai'a~16~gi'~'Sg'00:3447 Ca~e?oint Total ?harm~ceutical'e~r~ Program madel,"Oatai~°in~, - ..... Charleston, So~th Carolina' L806-;~96-i825. ' ":-".. :..,'"' .... . ' Health Outcomes Inc., Richm0M,' virginia,'Tom Rosehth~l, C:EO, 804- 359-3995. ":i')"""'"';'":"' '"'" ' !'::' ' ':: .... Institute of Pharmaceutical Care, ljniversity of Minnesota, ongoing three-year demonstration project to develop a model for phai'macy care. Some training materials are available. Linda Strand, Mary Ann Tome chko, 612 -627-183 0. "Achieving Value frOm Pharmacists' Services," pamphlet, APh.A.~ Mitch Rothholz, 202-429-7549. Pharmacists' care claim form, and information on payers for sen, ices, NARD Management Institute, Ken ~hittemore, ?03-683-8200. (that supports) a philosophy of caring. We will be selling these concepts to the patients, first and foremost," Pilkington says. \Visconsin is aiming to enroll I00 pham~a'cies a year, says Chris Decker, executive vice president. The WPA has c~,mmitted $80,000 to help roll out its program~the Wisconsin Pharmaceuti- cal Care Initiative. "We determined it was do-or-die time for pharmacy practice, and that the window of ot~portunity for us to demonstrate 0dr value to the heahh care system was, and still is, quite nar- row, and veq, real," says Decker. "There is simply no economic future in the dispensing of prescription drugs. Tl~ere is no question we need to change our business focus, and no question soci- ety has a need for drug therapy manage- ment. What we are striving to do is show tha{ pharmacists have an impact beyot~d the cost of the drug. They are caregivers, not just purveyors of drug prcxtucts," says Decker. The success in its new initiative, and the future of pharmacy, Decker feels, 'depends on the extent to which, phar- macies rally behitid the patient care experiment. Says Decker: "The ball is definitely in our court." C1 January 1995 Pharmacy Times 27 M. Marlene ~odo. y, D.D.S. ~eneral and Cosmetic Den£istrj/ 13420 Newport Ave., Suite L Tustin, California 92680 o[ Ty OF- 7-~7~ ~o · M. Marlene Godoy, D.D.S. General and Cosmetic Dentistcv 13420 Newport Ave., Suite L Tustin, California 92680 M. M~rlene Godo~v, D.D.S. General and Cosmetic Den£i~tcV . 13420 Newport Ave., Suife L Tustin, California 92680 ROBERT E. DREIBELBIS, M.D. 2-13-96 City of Tustin Community Devel6pment Department 300 Centennial Way Tustin, Calif. 92680 At'tn: .Sara J. Pashalides RE: Wal~reens Pharmacy Dear.Ms. Pashalides, I am concerned about the Walgreens Pharmacy construction for the followin~ reasons: 1. I am concerned about the traffic back up on to Newport Ave. which would directly impede cars getting to and leavin~ my property. The site plan does not have enough parking and queuing at the drive thru Windows will directly lead to back up of traffic. The lot is too small for this business. 2. I am concerned for safety'and crime,when queuin~ takes'place and potential for carrying dru~s outside'of pharmacy occurs an increase in crime will happen. 3. I am concerned about aesthetic of new buildin~ since it does not conform to spanish type typical construction. The site is an extremely visible location in Tu~tin. 4. The changeable monument sign does not conform to area. 5. As directly adjacen~ property owner, I would like to see soil studies over time showin~ non seepage to my property. Sincerely, 13420 Newport Ave., fiD · Tustin, CA 92680 · (714) 544-6050 Paul D. Braun, D'. D. S. Diplomate of the American Board Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery February 13~ 1996 City'of Tustin C~mmunity Development Department 3~0 Centennial Way Tustin, Ca. 92680 Attn: Sara J. Pashalides RE: Wa'lgreens Pharmacy I am very concerned about the Walgreens pharmacy construction for the following reasons: 1. The traffic back up on to Newport Ave. which would directly impede cars getting to and ~eaving my property. The site plan does not have enough parking and queuing at the drive thru windows will directly lead to back up of traffic. The lot is too small for this business! _. 2. I am very concerned for safty and crime! When.queuing takes place and potential for carrying drugs outsi~e of pharmacy occurs an increase in crime will happen. 3. The site is an extremely visible location in Tustin. I am concerned about the aesthetics of the new building since.it will not conform to the spanish type contruction which is so prevalent in this area. 4. Also the Changeable Monument Sign will not conform to our area. 5. Most importantly, as a directly adjacent property owner I would like to see soil studies over time showing non-seepage to my property! I look forward to hearing from'you as I am very interested in your response on these very critical issues! Critical for me as a business'owner but critical for the city of Tustin as well! S ly, a~fi D. Braun, D.D.S. A Prolessional Corporation 2401 W. Chapman Ave., Ste. 101 Orange, California 92668 (714) 939-7505 13362 Newport Ave., Ste. G Tustin..California 92680-3492 (714) 838-4141 DAVID A. COHEN, M.D. Internal k[edicine 13362 C Newport Avenue Tustin, California 92680 i..~ Tei'~phoJe: 838-4160 Febuary 13,1996 City of Tustin Community Development Dept. Tustin, Ca 92680 Attentin:Sara Pashatides RE: Walgreens Pharmacy Dear Ms. Pashalides In regards to the proposed Walgreens Pharmacy at Newport Ave and First Street. I have concern due to the traffic back up on Newport'Ave. NeWpoct"Ave is a very well traveled street with an abundant amount of traffic which a drive-thru pharmacy will not help in any way. It will make it difficult for patients leaving my office to exit the parking lot to Newport while cars wait in the drive-thru. I also have concern regarding the parking. The previous business, had an accident in where an automobile hit the buildinz and damaged an examining room, not to mention the scare it gave patients as well as the staff. At that time the area was not used as a parking lot. I feel the property is to small to have this type of business,and possibly not enough parking spaces for the patrons. DAC/pd RONALD W. COTLIAR, M.D., F.A.A.D. DIPLO,%~ATE A~.~ERICAN BOARD OF DEtq~,AATOLOGY 13420 NE%',/PORT AVENUE. SUITE O TUST N, OALIFO~NIA ~2680 (714) 73~ ~ ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR O~ERMATOLOGY. UC~ MEDICAL CENTER DIRECTOR OF PEOIATRIc',~RM~TOLOGY. UC~ MEOICAL CENTER 4' February 13, 1996 Sara Jo Pashalides City of Tustin Community Development Department 300 cen~nnia1 Way Tustin, CA 92680 Dear Ms. Pashalides: Re: Walgreens Pharmacy As a practicing physician in Tustin, I am concerned about the Walgreens Pharmacy construction for the following reasons: 1. I am concerned about the traffic back-Up onto Newport Avenue which would directly ~mpede cars getting to and leaving my property. The site plan does not.have enough parking and queuing at the drive through windows will directly lead to back-up of traffic. The lot is too small for this business. 2. I am concerned for safety and crime. When queuing takes place and potential for carrying drugs outside of the phar- macy occurs, an increase in crime will happen. 3o I am concerned about aesthetics of new building since it does not conform to the spanish-type typical construc- tiono The site is an extremely visable location in Tustin. 4o I am concerned that the changeable monument sign does no~ conform to the area. 5. As a directly adjacent property owner, I would like to see soil studies over time showing non-seepage to my property. Sincer~~ ~~ ~ Ronald Wo Cotliar, M.D. ~ NI)ltAM MEDICAl. GROUP RICHARD W. SANDHAM, M.D. 13372 NEW'~RT, SUITE C TU 5"?~ N, CA 92680 (714) 544-7632 :'TOLL FREE: ! -800-252--0,~":::;~9 February 12, 1996 City of Tustir/ Community Development Department 300 Centennial Way Tustin, CA 82680 Attn. Sara J. Pashalides Re proposed Walgreen's Pharmacy at Newport Ave. and First Street. I am concerned with the effects that tkis development might well have on traffic at an already congested comer. The ingress and egress of cars in a "drive through" format where patrons would have to wait for their prescriptions to be filled would very likely add to the congestion and obstruction of traffic flow that occurs now. There are also concerns for the aesthetics architecturally and the appropriateness of the type of signs proposed. I have occupied space in the adjacent medical center for over 20 years ,and have been able to observe the changes that have occurred. I have observed numerous accidents related to the many cars and trucks around this intersection. I feel that the increasing traffic is indeed a problem that could only be worsened by this proposed usage of this property. Please deliberate carefully and thoroughly about this matter! Thank you. Sincerely, Richard W. Sandham M.D. SAM P~I~I~O\VITZ, ~/I.D. Dil'to":atc. l~,ncri¢,~,: A.",n'~cm)' of ?,~mily [~r,~cticc 12462 ?~rookhurq Arc.. 5tJitc A · Cat'den C, rove, CA 92640 ° 714/741-3220 13362 .~cx,,port Ave., Suite A ° Tustin CA 92680 o 714/505-7770 February 13, . 1996 Cit~ of Tustin Community Developement Dept. 300 Centennial Way Tustin, Ca. 92680 Attn: Sara J. Pashalides This letter is in regards to the Walgreen's Pharmacy that is to be built on the corner of First and Newport in Tustin. As an employee in the medical facility next door I am concerned. Allowing this pharmacy to locate here will compound an already difficult'traffic situation. Especially with the addition of a drive thru window, the potential for back up traffic is great. The size of this lot is not large enough to accomodate the parking necessary for this business. I am also concerned about the possibility of an increase in crime with two pharmacies so close together. This could become a central location for theft because of the assumed availability. Thank you for considering these concerns. Please feel free to contact me-if you have any further questions.. Sinerely, Karen Mqnis Office Manager FEBURARY 12, 1996 CITY OF TUSTIN COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPT. 300 CENTENNIAL WAY TUSTIN, CA 92680 ATTN: SARA J. PASHALIDES I AM CONCERNED ABOUT THE WALGREENS PHARMACY CONSTRUCTION FOR THE FOLLOWING REASONS... 1. CONCERNED ABOUT THE TRAFFIC BACK UP ON TO NEWPORT AVE, wHICH WOULD DIRECTLY IMPEDE CARS· GETTING TO AND LEAVING MY PROPERTY. THE SITE PLAN DOES NOT HAVE ENOUGH PARKING AND QUEUING AT THE DRIVE THRU WINDOWS WILL DIRECTLY LEAD TO BACK UP OF TRAFFIC. THE LOT IS TOO SMALL FOR THIS BUSINESS. 2. CONCERN FOR SAFETY AND CRIME. WHEN QUEUING TAKES PLACE AND POTENTIAL FOR CARRYING DRUGS OUTSIDE A PHARMACY OCCURS AN INCREASE IN CRIME WILL HAPPEN. 3. CONCERNED .ABOUT AESTHETIC OF NEW BUILDING SINCE IT DOES NOT CONFORM TO SPANISH TYPE TYPICAL CONSTRICTION THE SITE IS AN EXTREMELY VISIBLE LOCATION IN TUSTIN. 4. CHANGEABLE MONUMENT SIGN DOES NOT CONFORM TO AREA. 5. AS DIRECTLY ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNER, I WOULD LIKE TO SEE. SOIL STUDIES OVER TIME SHOWING NON SEEPAGE TO My PROPERTY. ~ · '~JUNE E. BEAMER-PATTON, M.D. ~ 13372 NEWPORT AVE STE A TUSTIN, CA 92680 James J. Zahrowski, D.M.D., M.S. Practice Limited to Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics City of Tustin -,--- ~ .~-. Community Development ~Department 300 Centennial Way Tustin, CA 92680 Attention Sara J. Pashalides February 13, 1996 . Re: Walgreens Pharmacy construction at Newport and First St. As a business owner I am concerned about the Walgreens Pharmacy construction for the following reasons- e Concern about the traffic back up on to Newport Avenue which would directly impede cars getting to ahd'leaving from our place of'business. The site plan does not have enoUgh parking. The lines of cars at the drive through windows Will.directly lead to a back qo.'of traffic. The lot is too small for this business. Concern for safety and crime. When queuing takes place and potential.for carrying drugs'outside of the pharmacy occurs, an increase.in crime will happen. 3o Concern about the aesthetics of the new building, since it does not conform to a spanish type typical construction. The site is an extremely visible location in Tustin. 4. Changeable monument sign does'not conform to the area. Thank you for your time on this matter! Sincerely, //~ame~~ahrowski, DMD, MS DIPLO/~,ATES AMERICAN BOARD OF PEDIATRICS FEBRUARY 13, 1996 SUBJECT: TO: WALGREENS PHARMACY CITY OF TUSTIN Community Development Department We are writing in re§aurds to the Walgreen Pharmacy project. We are very concerned about having a drive through pharmacy at the present location suggested. Our concerns are as follows: t. concernedabout the traffic back up on to Newport Ave. which would directly impede cars getting to and leaving our office parking for patients. The site plan does not have enough queing for a drive though window and also not enough parking space availability. 2. concern for safety and crime. When queuing takes place and potential for carryin§ dru§s outside of pharmacy occurs an increase in crime will happen. 3. concernced about aesthetic of new buildin9 since it does not conform to spanish type typical construction. The site is an extremely visible location of Tustin. 4. changeable monument sign does not conform to area. Please take the time to consider our concerns. Thankyou '~. ' Hitesh Patel,. M'.D. ':', Sangeeta Patel, M.D. · Carol T. Swartz, M.D. ' 13372 INEWPORT AVENUE 0 SUITE 8 :. TUSTIN.'CA 92680 ~ (714) 544-3430 ~ FAX (714) 573-8330 MAR\'IN R_ SHAPIRO, M.D., INC. In~emal Medicine 15362 NEWPORT ^VE., SUITE B TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA 92680 Telephone 838-1351 2/13/96 City.of Tustin Con~tyDevelp~ment Dept 300 Centerunial Wa~ Tustin, CA92680 I wish to register an objection to the pro- posed Walgreens Pharmacy at the 0orner of Newport and First St.' There is clearly no need for another drug store in thes area. There would be further interference with the already heavy traffic here . There is in- adequate park/rig at the site. Also, itseems the building would not fit in well-aesthet- ically to the area. Sincerely, Marvin R. Shapiro, M.D. DR. WALTER F. COt'4BS OPTOMETRIST TUSTIN MEDICAL CENTER SUITE O 13372 NEWPORT AVE. TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA 92680' TELEPHONE :544-4810 City of Tustin C~mmunity Development Dept. 300 Centennial Way Tustin, CA. 92680 Attn- Sara J. Pashalides . I have been a doctor in the Tustin Medical Center for 30 years. We have just enough parking for our own patients now & its very crowded at times. A new Walgreen's Pharmacy on the corner of 1st and Newport Ave. is way too small to allow adequate parking. Our already over'- burdened' parki.ng would then take Walgreen's great overflow-? create havoc in our center This would cause great, hardship for our' patients. Also there would be a greater potential for crime in our area because of the 'carrying of drugs. We also have found out that the building would not conform to the ~'panish style architecture of the Medi~cal Center & would stand out like a sore thumb on the highly visible corner of our center. A changeable monument sign also detracts from the area. Finally, I would like to see soil studies done over time showing non seep.age · to my property. . ' Dr. W.F. Combs MICHAEL J. PAQUETTE, D.D.S. Family Dentistry. Cosmetic Dentistry February 26, 1996 City of ~Tustin Community DeVelopment 300 Centennial Way Tustin, CA 92680 Attention- Sara Pashalides Sub j ect: Walgreens RXpress Newport & First Street Dear Ms. Pashalides' It has come to my attention that Walgreens i's proposing to build a 1,976 square foot drive-thru pharmacy at the southeast corner of Newport Avenue and First Street. My office is located in the professional complex next door to this proposed development and I am concerned about the increase in traffic which will result with a drive-thru service. It is currently very difficult to make a left-hand turn into the parking, area because of traffic lined up to make a left turn onto First Street. Having a drive-thru on this very busy corner will only aggravate the current traffic situation. Sincerely, Michael J. ?aquet~e, D.D.S. 13.4--.20 Newpori Ave., Suite C, Tustin, CA 92680 (714) 838-7561 February 21 ~ 1996 Corporaie Offices 2OO V,,~not Roa4 Oeedlglcl, II~nols 60015 · .. Ms. Sara J. Pashdides A~soci~te Planner City ofTustin Phnning Department 300 Centennial Way Tustin, C~. 92680 · -Subj=t: ' W~lgr¢¢ns Pot Press .. First & Newport , Tustin. Ca. .P.e: L,..ter dated February' 12, 1996 from Randolph O>-wald Partners Dezr Ms P~he-l'ides: We we in rec, eipt ofthe letter from Randolph Oswald Panners (POP) opposing' the issuance of a Conditional Use Permit for the Walgreens Rx Press at the above location. After careful review with our Store Operation_s/Health Service ('Pharmacy) Management to verify how the Rx Press units function, and review of the planning process that Walgreens and the. City of Tugtin has catered into that has lead to The architectural design and site layout for this project, .we would like to offer t.he following response: 1) Walgreens stand~d sign package for both P,x Presses and full siz.e stores includes a pylon sign with a readerboard. As the nations leading drug store Chain, operating more than 2,1 O0 units, we feel that it is not only appropriate to have a readerboard, bui that the ability to noti~' the consumer of ongoing Health Care Specials is an integral part of operationzl success. Because ofthat, we are pursing a conditional'use permit for the readerboard portion of the monument sign that we understand is pemfitted by code. 2) Although we feel strongly that the design, image and construction of'our prototypieal 'Rx Press units is that of a first class retailer, we have agreed to modify the exterior design and building materials based on numerous reviews and discussions with the city. Signage for this project will not exceod that permitted by code.. ATTACHMENT D Fabrua~, 2 t, 1996 ,'v~ Pashalid¢.~ page 2 3,4) The. property is'large enough to accommodate our building (which is designed xdth two separate drive-thru window~ to minimize queuing and max/mize ~peed/service), 1'0 parking spaces which meets the city requirements, and "es~po" lanes' around the building (a.Walgreens requirement) which allows a vehicle full acces_~ of the site even ifthere are customers at both the drive-thru windows. A traffic study was prepared by m independent traffic engineering firm, RK]K & Associates, Inc., and was basecl on the existing Orange County Rx P/ess unit which he's been .in operation the longest. Thcs' concluded that the parking provided "will acconunodate the parking demands in the . project", and that "the proposed site plan for the Walgr.een-q Rx Press is ad~uate from a traffic circulation stand point". It is our understanding that this report ha~ be~ reviewed md a,ecepted by the City ofTustin Tr2/:fic Engineer. Additionally, the worst case scenario presented by ROP (as shown on their markexl up site plan) does not block Traffic on either Newport Avenue or Fir,t Street, and most c~-~rtainly does not block traffic on any adjacent or ne~r-by properties. 1) The number of par.king spaces at the Tustin location, as well as all other locations is a . gunction of the land available. The p~-king provided at the Tu5iin site meets both the city requirements and Wv. lgreen* criteria. 2) This Walgi'eens Facility does not include "One Hour" Photo processing as does the Lincoln & Magnolia facility which ROP cited, and therefore has one less employee. Daily operations will provide for one Pharmacist and one cl:rk at the time the store open~. They will be relieved for tho evening shift by a ~econd Phea'macist and clerk. The short time that they overlap occ.~rs before 5:00 p.m.,.and therefore a more accurate estimation of parldng available for cuxtomers is 8 spaces. 3) Most of the prescriptions are phoned in and are filled in advance of the patient arriving. O£those patJen~ who drop offprescriptions themselves, most leave the premises at, er that very short exchange and return later to pick up prescriptions that h~ve already been filled. The picking up transaction, including patient consultatio~ lakes an average of'2-3 [~nutes. This quick service is entirely consistent ~th the convenience philosophy of the Rx Press program. Fcbfu~W 21, 1996 Ms. Pashalides Page B 1) Walgreens would not pursue a site plan layout without serious'concern and ~onsideration for the ~afety'of employees, patrons and the public in general. Based on the traffic report provider, and on our extensive experience in re~all site planning,' .we not only feel tM site layout is adequate, bUt safe a, well. . · 2) The traffic study was ba~ed on p -cake hour traffic at the existing. Lincoln a Magnolia store, which has not 0nly been open longer th~ the other two Kx Presses in this m~ket, but was the busiest store at the time the traffic study was performed. It is interesting that both the traffic report and the ReP data, gathered at peak hours, suggest queuing for two cars is more the norm. The ~ite plan easily accommodeaes two cars, and in fact accommodates three cars without impending traffic flow on the site. I) Conversations with Walgreens Pharmacist~ operating existing RX Presses stores indi~tes that it is extremely.rare when ther~ ex~ more than two cars queued at either of the Drive-thru windows.. 2) As vreviously stated, it is Walgreens opinion, as well a~ the.Trefffic; Engineer's, that the site is ~esigned tO provide adequate parking as well gs adequate queuing. p.a._ce 5_ 1) The drive-thru lanes have been intentionally designe.8 to include an "escape" lane, wb. ieh not only helps eliminate traffic c. ongestion~ but is a customer convenience. · 2) The facility is intentionally designed with two drive-thru windows to provide convenience and eliminate on-sit~ trnffl¢ congestion_ 3) Any planter medians introduced to the site plan ~re at the request of'the City of Tustin. Walgreens woulc~ be ~greeable to reducing or eliminating them it' they are not required. 4) '5\re ~gree that Pharmacy Drive-thru windows are not the same as MeDonalds Drlvo- thru windows, although one must be familiar with Walgreens Kx Press Drive-thru facilities to understand how they differ from McDontlds, or for that matter, other Pharmacy Drive- thvas. Ms. Pashalidcs page As Previously stated, the majority of the prescriptions fillM ~.re either phoned ia or dropped off for pick up at a later time. This allows for a Pre~criptlon pick up/patient" consultation time that averages 2 to 3 rrfinutes. For those patients who are ih the minority, w/shing {o drop off their prescription and waiting until it has been filled, we offer the option of'waiting inside thc store or being issued 'a pager so tlmt as they wait in a parldn8 space they. will be alerted when the pre.scripfion i~'ready.' Convenience-and quick serv/ce beihg the cornerstone of the P,x Press program, every effort is made to fill the prescription .. in much less time then the 20-30 minutes cited in the ROP letter. 5) Walgreerts site selection process takes a very in-depth look az ~¢ry site for demograpWcs, population densities, competition, traffic counts and patterns, and a host of other factors. This sophisticated and painstakSng review process means two thin~s: 1) Only the very best sites' are ~'pproved, and - 2) The Likelihood for a successful store is extremely high. Based' on W~l~e~n~ track record for selecting superior sites, we have 'every reason to believe ~his will be a very successful location. We appreciate the opportunity tO respond to the concerns expres,ed b~,'Rudolph Osward Partners. Should you have any que. stions or ned additional informafion'pl~se do not hesitate to contact me at (847) 940-3373. . Yours Truly, , R/chard S. Coen. ,adA- Project Architect Wal~eens Co. W. Thien T. Bergseth G. Riedi J. Pmbin J. Bandura fL Isackson D. Sheegog Via UPS Overnight Service February 2 I, 1996 Ms. Sara J. Pashalides Associate Planner City of Tustin Planning Department 300 Centennial Way Tustin, CA 92680 RE: Wa~greens Rx Press Newport Boulevard / First Street Tustin, CA RECEIVED FEB 2 2 1996 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BY Dear Sara: As you are aware, Village Properties is the owner of the above referenced location where Walgreens Rx Press has applied for a Conditional Use Permit. The purpose of this letter is to respond to the letter of opposition I have received from Rudolph Oswald Partners (ROP). The ROP ownership certainly has taken a considerable amount of effort in generating such a lengthy and detailed opposition letter. I found this to be quite odd because in the 20 plus Walgreens projects our company has developed throughout California over the past ten years, it is rare we are subject to any neighborhood opposition as Walgreens is regarded as a neighborhood asset to communities. I have come to learn that this is not a letter of opposition from a concerned citizen, but a letter of opposition from a competitor for competitive reasons after being informed that ROP owns and operates a small pharmacy on their property. The ROP letter goes into considerable detail in reporting findings which are inaccurate and false. It is my understanding that Wal~eens corporate will be sending you a letter to respond directly to the operational, traffic, parking circulation etc. issues falsely cited in the.ROP letter. We have worked for well over one full year with the Planning Department and the Redevelopment Agency to bring for-ward to the Planning Commission a project which has addressed all the various architectural, landscaping and site plan concerns voiced by the City. In order to accommodate compatibility and architectural Concerns, Walgreens has gone to great effort and expense to modify their prototype to have a Mediterranean style elevation. This store will be the only non prototype of the Walgreens Rx Press stores. The original site plan proposed, which is Walgreen's preference, (see attached) had the parking in front and the building to the rear. Walgreens has since moved the building to the front of the site and p-laced the parking to the rear to accommodate Planning Department design guidelines. We have had to drop the parking count to 10 spaces from 14 to accormnodate the landscape guidelines. I think this demonstrates Walgreens good faith efforts tO be compatible with the downtown architectural environment and to work with the City staff which is rare among .large retail companies. Rl/Pashalidesfrustin W O12- 21 .Ms. Sara J. Pashalides February 21, 1996 Page Two Walgreens has signed a 25 year groundlease and will make a $1,000,000 plus commitment to this location. As the most respected and successful pharmacy provider in the U.S., they do not open stores which'do not operate properly. Walgreens has studied this site in detail and have 'hired oUtside professionals in making their decision. We have received numerous inquiries for this propertY from one hour oil changers, drive thru fast food restaurants and other users who are often considered controversial. However, we chose to work with WalgreenS and I am confident that their unique operation at this location will be well received by the community. I appreciate the opportunity to respond to the ROP letter. Sincerely, Ney)port / Firs~t~ners t' Robert Isackson enclosures J. Rubin R. Coen D. Sheegog RI/Pashalides,Tusxin WG/2-21 ' ' Februa~ 7, 1996, Sara J. Pashalides .. Associate Planner City of Tustin Planning Department 300 Centennial Way Tustin, California 92680 s bje : Walgreens RxP~-ess, Fi/st Stceet & Newpod Boulevaid., Tuslin TCA Job # 94039 Regarding: ' JtJstification of Reader Board Vadance Dear Sara: Together with our CUP Application 95-008, we have requested a variance to' allow a changeable copy readerboard integral with our free-standing sign, Our client, Walgreen Company, see~i this readerboard as a vital part of their business, and rarely constructs stores without this amenity. As a grounds of justification, there is another business two blocks north at the. southwest comer of Newport Avenue and irvine Bouleva~, whi,ch . enjoy, s this privilege. This business is Executors I11 Escrow. To deny Walgreens a changeable copy sign would - be to deny them a privilege enjoyed by a neighboring business. If y(~u have any questions,' please do not hesitate to call. Sin~cerely, ~ ~ ' gog, Principal - DS/alc. ... M:L94039~tust-I 1 .doc /az: JN 433-012 ... April 25, 1996 Ms. Sara Pashalides Community Development Department City of Tustin 300 Centennial Way Tustin, CA 92680 WALGREEN'S DRrVE-~U PHARMACY, CUP 95-008 AND DESIGN REVIEW 95-023 Dear Sara: .. On behalf of Walgreen's, we would like to submit the attached letter dated April 17, 1996 from the project traffic consultant, Robert Kahn, John Kain & Associates, Inc. (RKJK). The letter summarizes RKJK's findings based on their review of the April 11, 1996 Linscott, Law & Greenspan traffic letter submitted by Rudolph Oswald Partners at the April 15, 1996 public hearing. As Mr. Kahn points oUt, Linscott, Law & Greenspan's observations of queuing at the pi. ck-up window confirm what our analysis has contended all along - there will never be more than three cars waiting at the pick-up window. Both traffic consultants agree that there will never be more than two cars waiting at the drop-off window. It is apparent that both Rudolph Oswald and Linscott, Law & Greenspan are unaware that the drop-off window is located on the south side of the building, backing toward Newport Avenue. The pick- up window, which is occasionally (3.6% of the time) subject to a three car back-up, is located on the north side of the building and backs toward First Street. As Linscott, Law & Greenspan's exhibit shows, a three- car back-up at the pickup window and a tWo-car back-up at the drop-off window'can be accommodated on, site without interfering with on-site circulation and parking. Cars would never back up to block traffic on Newport Avenue or First Street. Please note that the Linscott, Law & Greenspan letter and parking analysis confirm that there will be adequate parking on-Site. EXHIBIT F Ms. Sara Pashalides CUP 95-008 and Design Review 95-023April 25, 1996 Page 2 In summary, the traffic, circulation, parking and qUeuing concerns expressed by RUdolph Oswald and other tenants of the Tustin Medical Center have been completely dispelled by the findings of their own traffic conSultant. We would respectfully urge the City Council to proceed with public hearings on this case since all of the factual data submitted by both the Applicant and the Appellant demonstrate that the Planning Commission's approval of the project should be upheld. Thank you for your time and assistance. Please don't hesitate to contact me if you need anything further from us. Very truly yours, T&B PLANNING CONSULTANTS, INC. B ~~~l~lprinciph,1~ BB:bb Attachment - April 17, 1996 letter from Robert Kahn, John Kain & Associates xc: Jim Bandura ROBERT KAHN · JOHN KAIN & ASSOCIATES INC. April 17, 1996 Mr. Richard S. Coen WALGREEN 'COMPANY 200 Wilmot Road Deerfield, IL 60015-4681 Subject: Walgreen's RxPress- Tustin Response to Appelents Traffic Review . Dear Mr. Coen: INTRODUCTION ROBERT KAHN, JOHN KAIN & ASSOCIATES, INC. (RKJK) has reviewed the April 11, 1996 letter to Mr. Michael Rudolph (Friendly Hills Pharmacy) prepared by Linscott, Law & Greenspan Engineers (LL&G). This letter reviewed the adequacy of the queuing and parking for the proposed Walgreen's RxPress to be located in the City'of Tustin which was evaluated in RKJK's December 22, 1995 Walgreen's RxPress Site Specific Traffic Study. The results of the Linscott, Law. & Greenspan Engineers (LL&G) study in our'opinion confirm the results of the previous RKJK traffic study. The LL&G study reviewed queuing 'at the drop-off and pickup windows at the Lincoln at Magnolia Walgreens for both a Monday and Thursday during the hours of 12:00 to 7:00 PM. According to the LL&G data, there was more activity at the pharmacy on the Mon'~lay observation period than the Thursday. However, their findings confirmed a similar maximum demand as the previous RKJK study. RKJK does not find any data contained in the report which would change the overall conclusions of the previous study· The following findings have been determined baSed upon a review of the LL&G study. FINDINGS I · The LL&G study confirmed that during the majority of the time for either a Monday or Thursday only one or two vehicles would be queued at the pickup window. On some occasions (3.6% of the time) a maximum of three vehicles were queued at the pickup window. TRANSPORTATION PLANNING · GIS · TRAFFIC/ACOUSTICAL ENGINEERING 4101 Birch Street. Suite 100 · Newport Beach, CA 92660 · Phone: i714) 474-0809 - Fax: (714) 474-0902 Mr. Richard S. Coen WALGREEN COMPANY April 17, 1996 Page 2 . . . 5~ The LL&G study confirms the RKJK study that very little queuing occurs at the drop-off window. During the majority of the time, there is a maximum of one vehicle queued at the drop-off window. During LL&G's Monday observation period of 420 minutes, there were only two vehicles queued at the drop-off window for a total of two minutes (less than 1/2% of the time). The LL&G study concluded that three vehicles queued at the pickup window would block internal circulation. This is not true as can be seen by the attached LL&G exhibit. The third vehicle parked at the pickup window does not encroach into the 20' circulation aisle of the Walgreen's RxPress. Based upon their own drawings, there will be approximately 20' of clear aisle space to permit circiJlation around the building. The LL&G exhibit shows three vehicles parked at the pickup window. In no case during LL&G's or RKJK's observation period were there ever three v~hicles queued at the drop-off window. The RKJK survey had a maximum of 1 vehicle queued at the drop-off window, whereas, the LL&G study shows a maximum of 1 vehicle queued at the drop-off window with the exception of a two minute timeframe when 2 vehicles were queued during the 420 minute observation period. In any event, a third vehicle is not expected to be queued at the.drop- off window, therefore, it would not block the internal circulation to the site as shown in the attached LL&G exhibit. The LL&G study indicates that the peak observed parking for~the site was six vehicles. According to the study, it was claimed that these are customer vehicles, however, this has not been documented based upon the data contained within the. report. It is not clear if the observations also included any of the employees at the Walgreen's RxPress. Previous parking surveys by RKJK at the Anaheim facility indicated a maximum of 7 total parked vehicles on the site for either Tuesday or Saturday period. It is not clear from the data provided in the LL&G study whether the parking counts also included on-site employees. It should be also noted that the Anaheim facility provides for photo developing which requires an additional employee and a larger facility (1,979 square feet versus the proposed site which would include 1,900 square feet). The Tustin site will not have photo developing services and will be a smaller building which will also reduce parking demand at the site. It should be noted that when the LL&G study observed a maximum of 6 on,site parked customers (5:30 PM), Mr. Richard S. Coen WALGREEN COMPANY April 17, 1996 Page 3 there would be two employees within the building. Therefore, there appears to be sufficient parking based upon the ten spaces provided at the Tustin site. The Tustin site has been designed based upon the City of Tustin parking code requirements of one space per 200 square feet of building. CONCLUSIONS RKJK has reviewed the LL&G study with respect to the prOposed Walgreen's RxPress in Tustin. This study confirms the previous results by RKJK which indicated a · maximum of 3 vehicles queued at the pickup window and typically one or less vehicles at the ~lrop-off window. Even with three vehicles queued at the pickup window, internal circulation will not be blocked as shown in the attached LL&G site plan. It should be noted that typically only one vehicle will be parked at the drop-off window and it will not block internal circulation as shown on the LL&G diagram. The LL&G study al~o confirms that on-site peak parking demand would be approximately 8 to 9 vehicles including employees. Also, it is not clear from the LL&G study whether employee vehicles were counted at the Anaheim Walgreen's RxPress facility. It should be noted that since the Tustin facility will not provide photo developing and is slightly smaller than the Anaheim facility, a lower parking demand would be expected. In conclusion, RKJK has reviewed the LL&G study Which collaborates the findings of the previous RKJK study. If you have any questions regarding this or need further review, please do not hesitate to give me a call at (714) 474-0809. Sincerely, · ROBERT KAHN, 'ES, INC. Robert Kahn, P.E. ~~P. 12/31197 Principal RK:kgd]5752 ~95-001 Attachments xc: Mr. Dave Sheegog, THOMAS COX ARCHITECTS Mr. Barry Burnell, T & B PLANNING R ~WPOP~T ,'-e RECEIVED J ADMINISTRATION To the Tustin City Council March 16,1996 :~ I have been a resident of Tustin for about 19 years. I have been doing business with the Tustin Pharmacy for.a very long time. I .would be very upset if it were to be driven out of business by a Walgreen Pharmacy. Small businesses are the.back bone of the-American Way and the economy. Now the Tustin City Council wants to shoot it dbv;,,n by letting a Walgreen Pharmacy build on the corner of 1st. and Newport Ave. As we ali know there is a say:on Pharmacy and the Tustin Pharmacy almost in the same block--NOW we need a Walgi'een in the same block, too? To me that is Bad Planing-- Bad Idea-Bad PR. Small businesses that might be thinking of locating in Tustin will give it a little more thought, and might not do So. You are telling the world you do not care about small business, you will not support the small businesses in Tustin. Those other small businesses will go where the City Government will be behind them and support them. I am sure, if you keep this kind. of action up, you will see the economy in Tustin dry up. . . Best you give this one a little more 'thought! Your truly , Cle6 Cousineau .o John & Cleo CousLueau 46 1Vr~,~%,~a St. Tusdn, CA 9~$912 EXHIBIT G ... --- RECEIVED -- M^R 1 I iSS8 t~t~i~UNil"l' DEVI.EO' Cwa~, ("G/PlO Z.,/ /1 '-/Ta,a 7 ~ /t,o'/ Z wC.4' = rr.,:,-J/ ~' /,o' 7,4(:'- 7--/4.4,~'-/ C.. ,;w,,?~ :r~a S' /0o z:_ z,, 7',.a't/ f ~.c' ?-7/~' 7-/C- 'rr.,'w · c,"="t'7 b~j Cid CC ' <~a,a ~ x,M/wit:t-: a soft touch ?:1. R~l)erla D(m!an, D.D.S. I ,\,\111 Y I I! fUll\IR',' i I 1,11'¢ iI{t ),\D'~NI )Hit II &R Al-Il ) I A( IAI PAIN I::: l l,'nl.d Alll,-rh ,111 Rt-~'al~ h /\lIlt'tit I h-I:l.d .'\lil~ it .Itt Alli¢'l ii .Ill I'~ Ih(, ,,I i I.-.~,1.. I.- February 14, ! 995 City of Tustin Community Devcl6pment Department Attn: Ms. Sara J.-Pashalides :300 Centennial Way Tustin, CA 92680 Dear Ms. Pashalides, I was in Larwin Square at lunchtime today. As usual, I had to zigzag past the stopped cars near thc Burger King drive-thru. You see, there is only room for 2-3 cars in the queue So the overflow cars have to "park" helte; sk.elter in the middle of traffic lhnes, wailing their turn to get in line. Now it has come to my attention that the City of Tustin may allow Walgreen's to build a drive-thru pharmacy, creating a traffic snarl right next to my place of business. Please, use your foresight and do not approve of the proposed Walgreen's Drive Thru Pharmacy at the busy intersection of Newport Avenue and First Street. I have a dental office in the Tustin Medical Arts P. iaza. It isn't news to'you that there is considerable traffic congestion along Newport Avenue, especially during the peak travel hours at lunchtime and the endof the day. I am very concerned that the inevitable traffic congestion associated with this pharmacy will have an 'adverse effect on my patients ability to enter and leave my place of business. Walgreen's has proposed building a Drive-Thru Pharmacy on a very small lot. Due to limited space, parking will be inadequate and there is virtually no room for cars to queue-up, thus causing · congestion., ! think of this problem as Burger King revisited. Based on Walgreen's prediction of '45 ~p-ms mour during peak hours, cars will have no other choice but to block up Newport "tr' ' '" Avenue or take up valuable parking spots in my medical Complex. Ne~ither alternative is acceptable to rne. I chose to start-up my dental practice at this location because of its ease of access and lots of available parking. Building the drive-up pharmacy ,,viii take away both of these amenities. , - In addition. I object to the esthetics of the sign and new building since they will not be of';Spanish" style so prevalent in surrounding structures. I chose' the City of Tustin to set up my business bemuse it is well established and has retained its small tox~m charm. It is upsetting to me to see Ncwpo~ Avenue look more and more like Tustin Avenue in the City of Orange. - , . l ~ not against develoPmcut or the opening of new bhsinesses. ~e propos~ pharmacy is simply ill~onceivcd by being built on t~ small a lot at a veD, busy intersection. Do not sacrifice the \veil- being of your existing businesses in the name of development. Please do not allmv the Walgr~n's to build a drive-thru pham~acy at the propos~ I~tion of Newpo~ andFirst String. Si:~crclv~ ~ . / M7 Robe~a Doman, D.D.S. 13.172 N~.v,.l ,{ ,:l Ave.. Ste. F. rt:slit:. CA q2fll'l{~ (714) 544-2020 February 19, 1996 ,. TO: CITY OF TUSTIN .COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT 300 Centennial Way Tustin, CA 92680 Attn. Sara j. Pashalides RE- Proposed Walgreens Pharmacy Dear Ms. Pashalides- As a General Partner in both the Tustin Medical Dental and Selcasnan partner- ships, add as a thirty year resident of Tustin and occupant of tile medical center, I am very concerned with some of tile issues surrounding the 'proposed ~.Jalgreens pharmacy on tile corner of Newport Avenue and First Street. Further, I am not' aware of any mention of a toxic waste clean up or. environ.- mental evaluation on tile cornel- site. Tile Union 76 gas station which occu- pied'tile lot for twenl:y-plus years was suddenly gone and tlleir ground lease was not renewed and I am Wondering if this action was in any way related to tile cle'an up costs? 'ts .there a report relating to tile underground tanks, soil condition, or other aspects of tile former service station? Finally, I-am very disappointe(I with tile aesthetic aspect of tile proposed building. Tile highly visible corner is literallyin the center of town and over tl~e past tl~irty years tl~e owners of Li~e medical center haw: gone to great, lengl, l~s to keep ou.r buildings up and mainLain tile upscale appearance of our city. Hany other residents and business owners have also put forLil great effort to bui'ld and/or upgrade structures in Tustin Lo a suil(:rior level. To a large extent, ti~ese efforts along with the municipal build.in.g codes and Ll~e work of tl~e ciLy huil(ling a~d planning departments l~ave kep~_ our home town from looking like Garden Grove or parts of Santa Aha where there is a si:rip mall on every corner. I feel tidal tile arctiitects hired by Walgreens have Traffic flow and safety are a major concern and we have had problems in tile past where a driver lost control and actually rm~ned into our medical office building. I feel that any traffic backup whatsoever at tile proposed 'Walgreens drive-up window could create major problems near'such a busy intersection. I would like to know if Caltrans has reviewed tl~e specific site plan and what was their evaluation? l.ls. Pasha] ides Page two completely missed tile mark on t~is project and should not be allowed to erect this type of bui'lding. ! have been advised by counsel that should our concerns not be met and our questions answered, legal action may be necessary to obtain the information we are requesting. I sincerely'hope this is not necessary. ! loo~,, forward, to hearing from your department in the near future. Earl ~iern'an, M.D. Primary Care Physiciaas Josel,h A. Cruz, M.I). * Karen A. Fong, M.D. * Clenn M. Jal~ola, M.D. * Chester D. hlojica, M.D. * ReginaY. Mojica, M.D. · '/;'~ ~ City of Tustin , Community Development Department 300 Centennial Way Tustin, CA 92680 · February 13;1996 Re: Walgreens Ph, armacy Dear Ms. Pashalides, I am'concerned about the Walgreens Pharmacy construction for the following reasons: 1. Concerned about the traffic back up on to Newport Avenue Which would directly impede cars getting to and leaving my property. The'site plan does not have enough parking and queing at the drive thru windows will directly lead to back up of traffic. The lot is too small for this business. 2. Concern for safety and crime. When queing takes place and potential for carrying drugs outside of pharmacy occurs an increase in crime will happen. 3. Concerned about aesthetic of new burl'ding since it does not conform to spanish type typical constr~ction. The site is an extremely visible location in Tustin. 4. ~hangeable monument sign does not conform to area. Sincerely, Orion Primary Care Physicians 13372 Newp6rt Ave., Suite I, Tustin, CA 92680 · (714) 505-1460 · Fax (714) 505-1470 Cily of 'Fustin Community Development Deparlment 300 Centennial Way Tustin CA 92680 ',.':~ : Attn' Sara J. Pashalioes · . RE: Walgreens Express Drug Drive Through Dear Ms. Pashalioes, As a tenanI in the medical building adjacent to Newport Ave and'First Street, I am concerned · about the propo.sed building of the express drug drive through on the South East corner of this intersection. Presently I find it difficult to make a left mrn into my locatiOn going South on Newport Avenue. With the proposed'drive through traffic pattern, we will see a significant fie-up of · cars on Newport Avenue possibly impacting the intersection at First Street. · . I don't believe the Express Drug Store lot is adequate in size to handle the accumulation of auto traffic in a drive through situation. It also appears parking on this lot ~vill not allow adequate 'spaces for both customers.and employees and I anticipate a migration of the overflow into the parking spaces in our medical facilities. · 'Another problem is the design and appearance of the new building, which as I understand does not conform to the red file roofs of the buildings in the adjacent area. Your attention to these concerns will be deeply appreciated.' Sincerely, John L. Croal, D.D.S. 1 RESOLUTION NO. 96-36 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF 'TUSTIN, CERTIFYING THE FINAL NEGATIVE DECLARATION AS ADEQUATE FOX? CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 95-008 AN~ DESIGN REVIEW 95-023 INCLUDING REQUIRED FINDINGS PURSUANT TO TH~ CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALIT~ ACT' . The City Council of the City of Tustin does hereby resolve as follows: The City Council finds and determines as follows: a. The request to approve Conditional Use Permit 95- 008 and Design Review 95-023 is considered a "project" pursuant to the terms of the California Environmental Quality Act. o A Negative Declaration has been prepared for this project and has been distributed for public review. C . Whereby, the City Council of the City of Tustin has .considered evidence presented by. the Community Development Director and other interested parties with respect to the subject Negative .Declaration. D . The City Council has evaluated the proposed final Negative Declaration and determined it to be adequate and complete. II. A Final Negative Declaration has been completed in compliance with CEQA and State guidelines. The City Council, having final approval authority over Conditional Use Permit 95-008 and Design Review 95-023, has received and considered the information contained in the Negative Declaration, prior to approving the proposed project, and found that the Negative Declaration adequately discussed the environmental effects of the proposed project. On the basis of the initial study and comments received during the public review process, the City Council has found that although the proposed projects could have impacts, there will not be a significant effect because mitigation measures identified in the Negative Declaration have been incorporated into the project which mitigate any potential significant environmental effects to a point where clearly no significant effect would occur. The mitigation measures are identified in Exhibit A of the Negative Declaration and Initial Study and are adopted as findings and conditions of Resolution No. 96- 37. 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Resolution No. 96-36 Page 2 PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Tustin City Council held on the 6th day of May, 1996. TRACY WILLS WORLEY Mayor PAMELA STOKER CITY CLERK STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF ORANGE ) CITY OF TUSTIN ) SS I, Pamela Stoker, City Clerk and ex-officio Clerk of the City Council of the City of Tustin, California, do hereby certify that the whole number of the members of the City Council of the City of Tustin is five; that the above and foregoing Resolution No. 96-36 was duly passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the Tustin City Council, held on the 6th day of May, 1996, by the following vote: COUNCILMEMBER AYES: COUNCILMEMBER NOES: COUNCILMEMBER ABSTAINED: COUNCILMEMBER ABSENT: PAMELA STOKER CITY CLERK 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 RESOLUTION NO. 96-37 A RESOLUTION~ OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN, UPHOLDING THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S ACTION TO AppRovE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 95- 008 AND DESIGN REVIEW 95-023, AUTHORIZING THE ESTABLISHMENT OF A DRIVE-THRU SERVICE IN CONJUNCTION WITH A PHARMACY LOCATED AT 13342 NEWPORT AVENUE. The City Council does hereby resolve as follows: I. The City Council finds and determines as follows: a. That a proper application for Conditional Use Permit 95-008 and Design Review 95-023 was filed by Thomas Cox Architects on behalf of Walgreens Pharmacy to request authorization for the establishment of a drive-thru service in conjunction with a pharmacy and a changeable copy monument sign at 13342 Newport Avenue, more specifically described as Assessor's Parcel No. 500-062-01. B . That a public hearing was duly called, noticed and held on said application on February 26, 1996 and continued to March 11, 1996 by the Planning Commission at which time the Planning Commission approved the project. C , That Rudolf Oswald Partners has submitted an aPpeal of the Planing Commission's action on this project. D ~ That a public hearing was duly called, noticed and held on said appeal on April 15, 1996 and continued to May 6, 1996 by the City Council. F . .That the proposed use is allowed within the C- 1 Retail Commercial District, with the approval of a Conditional Use Permit. The subject property is located within the Town Center Redevelopment Project Area. Pursuant to City Code Section 9299b, the Zoning Administrator forwarded action on Design Review 95-023 to the Planning Commission for consideration. 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Resolution No. 96-37 Page 2 G , H . The subj~ect project has been found consistent with the Town Center Redevelopment Pro~ect Area Pla'n.~ That the establishment, maintenance and operation of the drive-thru service applied for 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, as evidenced by the following findings: 1) The proposed use can be accommodated on the subject property, providing for adequate on-site circulation and queue length as supported by the Traffic Study prepared for this project. 2) The uSe will not negatively affect surrounding properties or impact the availability of off-street parking in that the pharmacy has provided adequate parking in compliance with the Tustin City Code and the drive-thru service will not create a demand for additional parking. In addition, based upon the Traffic Study, the additional volume of traffic generated by this use can be accommodated on Newport Avenue and First Street as currently improved. 3) The use is compatible with the surrounding uses in that there are other commercial uses that have drive-thru service in the immediate vicinity, including another drive-thru pharmacy approximately 100 feet away from the subject site and there will be no outdoor speakers. 4) On-site traffic concerns have generally been mitigated through the separation of the drive-thru aisle from the on-site parking. 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 26 27 28 Resolution No. 96-37 Page 3 I . J. 5) Of~-Site traffic concerns caused by,the number of vehicles waiting in the drive aisle to enter the queuing aisle during peak hours have generally been mitigated through the use of two windows, and a condition of approval requiring the implementation of additional mitigation measures should there be traffic impacts in the future. That the establishment, maintenance and operation of the changeable copy monument sign applied for will, 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, and 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, as evidenced by the following findings: 1) The changeable copy sign is not consistent with signs typically installed for retail businesses and will create sign clutter along the Newport Avenue business corridor. 2) Changeable Copy signs are utilized by public or institutional uses such as churches and sChools to provide information about activities or services. The use of a changeable copy sign for advertising could encourage advertising specific brand names and pricing, both of which are prohibited by the Sign Code. Pursuant to. Section 9272 of the Tustin Municipal Code, the Council finds that the location, size, architectural features and general appearance of Design Review 95-023, as conditioned, will not impair the orderly and harmonious development of the area, the present or future development therein, or the occupancy as a whole. In making such findings, the Council has considered at least the following items: 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Resolution No. 96-37 Page 4 n . , Hei~ght, bulk and area of buildings. Setbacks and site planning. 3. Exterior materials and colors. 4. Type and pitch of roofs. . Size and spacing of windows, doors and other openings. o Towers, chimneys, roof structures, flagpoles, radio and television antennae. . Landscaping, parking area design and traffic circulation. 8. Location, height and standards of exterior illumination. o Location and appearance of equipment located outside of an enclosed structure. 10. Location and method of refuse storage. 11. Physical relationship of proposed structures to existing structures in the neighborhood. 12. Appearance and design relationship of proposed structures to existing structures and possible future structures in the neighborhood and public thoroughfares. 13. Proposed signage. 14. Development Guidelines and criteria as adopted by the City Council. A Negative Declaration has been prepared and certified for this project in accordance with the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). That the project has been reviewed for consistency with the Air Quality Sub-element of the City of Tustin General Plan and has 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 23 24 25 26 27 28 Resolution.No. 96-37 Page 5 been determined to be consistent with the Air 'Quality ~ub-element. ~ II. The City Council hereby upholds the Planning Commission's action to approve Conditional Use Permit 95-008 and Design Review 95-023 to authorize the establishment ~of drive-thru service in conjunction with a pharmacy and deny the request for a changeable copy monument sign on the property located at 13342 Newport Avenue, subject to the conditions contained in Exhibit A of Planning Commission Reoslution No. 3419, incorporated herein by reference. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Tustin City Council, at a regular meeting on the 6th day of May, 1996. PAMELA STOKER CITY CLERK TRACY WILLS WORLEY MAYOR STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF ORANGE ) CITY OF TUSTIN ) SS I, Pamela Stoker, City Clerk and ex-officio Clerk of the City Council of the City of Tustin, California, do hereby certify that the whole number of the members of the City Council of the City of Tustin is five; that the above and foregoing Resolution No. 96-37 was duly passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the Tustin City Council, held on the 6th day of May, 1996, by the.following vote: COUNCILMEMBER AYES:' COUNCILMEMBER NOES: COUNCILMEMBER ABSTAINED: COUNCILMEMBER ABSENT: PAMELA STOKER CITY.CLERK