HomeMy WebLinkAboutPH 1 CODE AMEND 92-006 10-19-92NDA
Inter-Com
PUBLIC HEARING N0. 1
AGE%-
10-19-92
�1 0�
DATE: OCTOBER 19, 1992 �T
TO: WILLIAM A. HUSTON, CITY MANAGER
FROM: COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
SUBJECT: CODE AMENDMENT 92-006 ( IRVINE COMPANY)
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the City Council take the following actions:
1. Approve the Environmental Determination for the project by
adopting Resolution No. 92-123; and
2. Have first reading by title only and introduction of Ordinance
No. 1100.
BACKGROUND
The applicant is requesting amendments to standards of the City of
Tustin Zoning Code to allow self -storage mini warehouses in the
Industrial (M) District as a conditionally permitted use. The
amendment would be applicable to all properties in the City with an
"M" zoning designation. No applications for storage facilities on
specific sites have been submitted.
On September 28, 1992, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution
No. 3091-B recommending to the City Council approval of the
proposed code amendment (Attachment A).
At least two such facilities are presently operating in Tustin.
One is located on a parcel in the Planned Industrial (PM) district
located at 550 W. Sixth Street (Tustin Self Storage). Business
license records show the facility has been operating since March of
1986. Another self storage warehouse (Self Lock Storage) is
located in the Industrial (M) district at 1611 Parkway Loop and has
had a business license since 1976. However, provisions of the Code
do not specifically list these uses.
Due to the growth of the self storage industry, it is appropriate
to amend the Zoning Code to specifically recognize such uses as
conditionally permitted, and to establish appropriate development
standards, such as parking criteria.
City Council Report
Code Amendment 92-006
October 19, 1992
Page 2
A public hearing notice identifying the time, date and location of
the public hearing for the proposal was published in the Tustin
News. In addition, hearing notices were posted at the Community
Development Department public counter and at the Police Department.
The applicant was informed of the availability of a staff report on
this project. Since this project effects over 1,000 parcels,
notices were not required to be mailed to property owners within
300 feet of the project site.
DISCUSSION
A mini -warehouse can be basically described as "a structure
containing storage spaces of varying sizes leased or rented on an
individual basis". Spaces are usually 30 to 400 square feet with
direct access to paved driveways. The structures are usually one-
story structures, although not always, and may resemble a series of
attached garages. The space is often used to store inactive
business records, household goods and some facilities even provide
space for recreational vehicle storage.
In reviewing the proposed amendment, staff contacted a number of
nearby cities to determine how mini -warehouses were regulated in
other jurisdictions. While many cities consider self -storage mini -
warehouses as an outright permitted use in industrial districts,
there are a number of design and operational issues that are
discussed for these types of uses in planning literature. The
Planning Commission felt that the conditional use permit process
would permit them not only to review the architectural design of
these facilities but also to specify height, distance between
structures, width of driveways and whether outdoor storage is
permitted (some facilities allow boats and similar large items in
an outdoor storage area on a site). The conditional use permit
process could also specify whether a space could be used for other
than storage (music rehearsal halls, for example). Security
measures such as lights, fencing and the need for an on-site
resident manager could also be considered through this process.
Unlike the normal design review process, the conditional use permit
process affords the Commission an opportunity to review the
specific project and site characteristics (i.e. adjacent uses and
gives the Commission the ability to impose operational conditions
on the use).
City Council Report
Code Amendment 92-006
October 19, 1992
Page 3
Subsection (i) would be added to Section 9242b of the Tustin City
Code:
;:o::•;ks:ill, +r?:..�r.•::;%:
According to the Institute of Transportation Engineers there are
typically two employees per mini warehouse facility with average
weekday vehicle trip end of 2.606 per 1,000 -square feet of gross
floor area (September 1987). This is a lower rate than the 4.882
average weekly trip ends generated by standard warehouses or the
3:846 trip ends generated by manufacturing uses.
In developing a parking standard the layout or configuration of a
typical facility was considered. Generally, self -storage
facilities have an office, located near the main point of entry to
the site, and rows of single -story warehouse units separated by
drive aisles. It is important to provide adequate parking near the
project entrance for employees as well as customers stopping in the
office to conduct business. While accessing their storage units,
some customers may park their vehicles in front of their individual
storage units, especially during short visits for loading and
unloading. However, it is also important to provide parking spaces
that are evenly distributed throughout the facility so that
customers accessing their units for longer periods of time can be
accommodated. The proposed parking standards require spaces based
on the square footage of office, as well as the warehouse area.
The City's Design Review process would ensure that subsequent
proposals for specific warehouse developments meet criteria
stipulated in the code, and that the location and configuration of
parking spaces is adequate. Subsection (5) would be added to City
Code Section 9242c(c) related to off-street parking to read as
follows:
City Council Report
Code Amendment 92-006
October 19, 1992
Page 4
CONCLUSION
Based upon the above analysis, the specific listing of self -storage
facilities as conditionally permitted uses would be appropriate and
compatible with existing uses authorized in the M District. It is
recommended that the City Council approve Code Amendment 92-006 and
have the first reading and introduction of Ordinance No. 1100.
r
Daniel Fox Christine Shingl on
Senior Planner Assistant Cityanager
Attachments: Initial Study/Negative Declaration
PC Reso No. 3091-B, Attachment A
Resolution No. 92-123, Ordinance No.1100
NEGATIVE DECLARATION
CITY OF TUSTIN
GS'C� 300 CENTENNIAL WAY, TUSTIN, CA. 92680
Project Title: Code Amendment 92-006 File No.
Project Location: City of Tustin
Project Description: Add mini-storage/self storage uses to the list of
permitted or conditionally permitted uses within the M (Industrial) zoning
Project Proponent: The Irvine Comany
Contact Person: Daniel Fox, Senior PlanneTle 1 ep hone: 714-544-8896xt- 258
The Community Development Department has conducted an initial study for the
above project in accordance with the City of Tustin's procedures regarding
implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act, and on the basis of
that study hereby find:
That there is no substantial evidence that the project may have a
si gni fi cant effect on the environment.
istrict.
aThat potential significant affects were identified, but revisions have
been included in the project plans and agreed to by the applicant that
would avoid or mitigate the affects to a point where clearly no
significant effects would occur. Said revisions are attached to and
hereby made a part of this Negative Declaration.
Therefore, the preparation of an Environmental Impact Report is not required.
The initial study which provides the basis for this determination 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 a
Negative Declaration and extends for seven calendar days. Upon review by
the Community Development Director, this review period may be extended if
deemed necessary.
REVIEW PERIOD ENDS 4:30 p.m. on September 28,1_99271-
DATED: 1•9•g2-
mmunity Development Director
CITY OF TUSTIN
Community Development Department
ENVIRONMENTAL INITIAL STUDY FORM
I. Background
1. Name of Proponent -TVIe IrVM6 COM
2. Address and Ppone.Number of Proponent
r,nr) Mot,inmv rP A1- i>v uV 1AM-PLMA ie
3. Date of Checklist Submitted 4�p1.0q
4. Agency Requiring Checklist
5. Name of Proposal, if applicable
II. Environmental Impacts
(Explanations of all "yes" and "maybe" answers are required on
attached sheets.)
Yes Maybe No
1. Earth. Will the proposal result in:
a.
Unstable earth conditions or in
changes in geologic substructures?
b.
Disruptions, displacements, compaction
or overcovering of the soil?
�/
C.
Change in topography or ground surface
relief features?
d.
The destruction, covering or
modification of any unique geologic
or physical features?
e.
Any increase in wind or water erosion
of soils, either on or off the site?
f.
Changes in deposition or erosion of
beach sands, or changes in siltation,
deposition or erosion which may modify
the channel of a river or stream or the
bed of the ocean or any ban, inlet or
lake?
Yes Maybe No
g. Exposure of people or property to
geologic hazards such as earthquakes,
landslides, mudslides, ground failure,
or similar hazards?
2. Air.
Will the proposal result in:
a.
Substantial air emission or
✓
deterioration of ambient air quality?
b.
The creation of objectionable odors?
C.
Alteration of air movement, moisture,
or temperatures, or any change in
climate, either locally or regionally?
✓
3. Water. Will the proposal result in:
a.
Changes in currents, or the course
of direction of water movements,
in either marine or fresh water?
b.
Changes in absorption rates,
drainage patterns, or the rate and
amount of surface runoff?
✓
C.
Alterations to the course or flow
of flood waters?
d.
Change in the amount of surface
water in any water body?
✓
e.
Discharge into surface waters,
or in any alteration of surface water
quality, including but not limited
to temperature, dissolved oxygen or
turbidity?
f.
Alteration of the d=irection or rate
of flow of ground waters?
✓
g.
Change in the quantity of ground
waters, either through direct additions
or withdrawals, or through interception
of an aquifer by cuts or excavations?
✓
h.
Substantial reduction in the amount of
water otherwise available for public
water supplies?
HN
5.
CF
7.
Yes Maybe No
i. Exposure of people or property to
water related hazards such as flooding
or tidal waves?
Plant Life. Will the proposal result in:
a. Change in the diversity of species, or
number of any species of plants (including
trees, shrubs, grass, crops, and aquatic
✓
plants) ?
b. Reduction of the numbers of any unique,
✓
rare or endangered species of plants?
C. Introduction of new species of plants
into an area, or in a barrier to the
normal replenishment of existing
species?
d. Reduction in acreage of any
✓
agricultural crop?
Animal Life. Will the proposal result in:
a. Change in the diversity of species, or
numbers of any species of animals (birds,
land animals including reptiles, fish and
shellfish, benthic organisms or insects)?
✓
b. Reduction of the numbers of any unique,
rare or endangered species of animals?
C. Introduction of new species of animals
into an area, or result in a barrier to
✓
the migration or movement of animals?
d. Deterioration to existing fish or
wildlife habitat?
Noise. Will the proposal result in:
a. Increases in existing noise levels?
✓
b. Exposure of people to severe noise
levels?
Light and Glare. Will the proposal produce
new light or glare?
V/
Yes Maybe No
8. Land Use. Will the proposal result in
a substantial alteration of the present
✓
or planned land use of an area?
9.
Natural Resources. Will the proposal
result in:
a. Increase in the rate of use of any
natural resources?
b. Substantial depletion of any
nonrenewable natural resource?
10.
Risk of Upset. Will the proposal involve:
a. A risk of an explosion or the release
of hazardous substances (including, but
not limited to, oil, pesticides, chemicals
or radiation) in the event of an accident
or upset conditions?
b. Possible interference with an
emergency response plan or an
✓
emergency evacuation plan?
11.
Population. Will the proposal alter
the location, distribution, density, or
growth rate of the human population of
an area?
12.
Housing. Will the proposal affect
existing housing, or create a demand
for additional housing?
13.
Transportation/Circulation. Will the
proposal result in:
a. Generation of substantial.additional
vehicular movement".'
✓
b. Effects on existing parking facilities,
or demand for new parking?
C. Substantial impact upon existing
transportation systems?
d. Alterations to present patterns of
circulation or movement of people
and/or goods?
Yes
Maybe No
e.
Alterations to waterborne, rail or
air traffic?
✓
f.
Increase in traffic hazards to motor
vehicles, bicyclists or pedestrians?
14. Public
Services. Will the proposal have
an
effect upon, or result in a need for new
or
altered governmental services in any of
the
following areas:
a.
Fire protection?
b.
Police protection?
C.
Schools?
d.
Parks or other recreational facilities?
e.
Maintenance of public facilities,
including roads?
.- f.
Other governmental services?
�.
15. Energy. Will the proposal result in:
a.
Use of substantial amounts of fuel or ✓
energy?
b.
Substantial increase in demand upon
existing sources of energy, or require
the development of new sources of /
energy?
16. Utilities. Will the proposal result in a
need for new systems, or substantial
alterations to the following utilities:
a.
Power or natural gas?
✓
b.
Communications systems?
C.
Water?
✓
d.
Sewer or septic tanks?
e.
Storm water drainage?
f.
Solid waste and disposal?
17. Human Health.
result in:
Will the proposal
a. Creation of any health hazard or
potential health hazard (excluding
mental health)?
b. Exposure of people to potential
health hazards?
18. solid Waste. Will the proposal create
additional solid waste requiring disposal
by the City?
19. Aesthetics. Will the proposal result in
Yes Maybe No
the obstruction of any scenic vista or view
open to the public, or will the proposal
result in the creation of an aesthetically
offensive site open to public view?
20. Recreation. Will the proposal result in an
impact upon the quality or quantity of
existing recreational opportunities?
21. Cultural Resources
a. Will the proposal result in the
alteration of or the destruction of
a prehistoric or historic archaeological
site?
b. Will the proposal result in adverse
physical or aesthetic effects to a
prehistoric or historic building,
structure, or object?
C. Does the proposal have the potential
to cause a physical change which
would affect unique ethnic cultural
values?
d. Will the proposal restrict existing
religious or sacred uses within the
potential impact area?
Yes Maybe No
22. Mandatory Findings of significance.
a. Does the project have the potential to
degrade the quality of the environment
substantially reduce the habitat of a
fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or
wildlife population to drop below self
sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate
a plant or animal community, -reduce the
number or restrict the range of a rare or
endangered plant or animal or eliminate
important examples of the major periods
of California history or prehistory?
b. Does the project have the potential to
achieve short-term, to the disadvantage of
long-term, environmental goals? (A short-
term impact on the environment is one
which occurs in a relatively brief, definitive
period of time while long-term impacts will
endure well into the future).
C. Does the project have impacts which are
individually limited, but cumulatively con-
siderable? (A project may impact on two
or more separate resources where the impact
on each resource is relatively small, but
where the effect of the total of those
impacts on the environment is significant.)
d. Does the project have environmental effects
which will cause substantial adverse effects
on human beings, either directly or
indirectly?
III. Discussion of Environmental Evaluation
IV. Determination
(To be completed by the Lead Agency)
On the basis of this initial evaluation:
I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a
significant effect on the environment, and a /
NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. ✓
I find that although the proposed project could have
a significant effect on the environment, there will
not be a significant effect in this case because the
mitigation measure described on an attached sheet have
been added to the project. A NEGATIVE DECLARATION WILL
BE PREPARED
I find the proposed project MAY have a significant effect
on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
is required.
D t142'0 ) RV1VI�i�'
Date I Sig aturel-"4
PART III - DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION
EXHIBIT A
INITIAL STUDY RESPONSES
FOR
CODE AMENDMENT 92-006
BACKGROUND
The applicant, The Irvine Company, requests amendments to standards
of the City of Tustin Zoning Code regulating the Industrial (M)
District. The proposed amendment will allow self -storage mini
warehouses as permitted or conditionally permitted uses in the
Industrial (M) District, as determined by the Tustin City Council.
No specific sites for -the warehouses have been selected. However,
the facilities will be required to meet all development standards
of the zoning district. Parking standards specifically for the
mini warehouse use are included in the proposed amendment.
Further, the change in permitted or conditionally permitted uses of
the industrial zoning district will require the Tustin City Council
to adopt an Ordinance containing findings that mini warehouses will
not be detrimental to the health, safety, morals, confort and
general welfare of persons residing or working in the neighborhood
or the general welfare of the City.
1. EARTH
Items A, B, C, D, E, F and G - "No": The code amendment will
not result in changes to existing earth conditions, topography
or ground features. The amendment is for a change of land use
regulations only; no development is associated with the
proposal. However, as a result of the amendment, the
subsequent development of mini warehouse facilities may occur.
Sources: Submitted Application
City of Tustin Municipal Code
Mitigation/Monitoring Required: None required. Any impacts
related to minor grading activity for the construction of
footings and/or foundations required for any specific
development proposals will be addressed under separate CEQA
review.
2. AIR
Items A, B and C - "No": Based on review of AQMD standards
for preparing Environmental Impact Reports, this project will
not result in any degradation to the existing air quality.
Exhibit A - Initial Study Responses
Code Amendment 92-006
September 10, 1992
Page 2
Sources: Submitted Application
City of Tustin Municipal Code
AQMD Standards
Mitigation/Monitoring Required: None required. Any
possibility of dust generated by future construction activity
will be evaluated and, if necessary, mitigated during the
review of that specific development proposal.
3. WATER
Items A through I - "No": The proposed code amendment will
allow an additional land use which is similar to existing land
uses in industrial areas; it will not result in any changes
to any existing water conditions.
Sources: Submitted Application
City of Tustin Municipal Code
Mitigation/Monitoring Required: None required. Specific
proposals for future development will be evaluated on a case-
by-case basis. Any activities which increase runoff flows or
storm water movement will be assessed during the review of
individual proposals.
4. PLANT LIFE
Items A, B, C and D - "Maybe": It is anticipated that future
self -storage mini warehouse sites will be located in areas of
existing development. Entirely new facilities will be "in
fill" projects, typically constructed on previously graded
parcels; other facilities may occupy existing building shells,
with limited improvements customizing the structure. In
either case, the proposal will be evaluated by Community
Development Department staff during the Design Review process.
It is unlikely that any storage facilities resulting from the
code amendment would result in negative effects to plant life.
Sources: Submitted Application
Tustin City Code
Exhibit A - Initial Study Responses
Code Amendment 92-006
September 10, 1992
Page 3
MitigationfMonitoring Required: None required at this time.
There are no significant environmental impacts created by the
proposed amendment. Any applicable mitigation measures
related to plant life identified during the future review of
individual projects will be recommended for implementation.
5. ANIMAL LIFE
Items A through D - "Maybe": The proposed amendment will not
result in adverse impacts to animal life. However, future
facilities resulting from the proposed code amendment will be
evaluated during the City's Design Review process on a case-
by-case basis.
Sources: .-Submitted Application
Tustin City Code
Mitigation/Monitoring Required: None required at this time.
No significant environmental impacts will be created by the
proposal. Any mitigation measures identified during
subsequent evaluations, including the revegetation of specific
sites, will be incorporated into individual proposals on a
project -by -project basis.
6. NOISE
Items A and B - "Maybe": The proposed code amendment itself
will not result in any degradation of existing noise levels.
However, individual development may occur as a result of the
amendment which could create short-term construction noise
impacts. It is not known if subsequent development will
result in residents or others being exposed to severe noise
levels because specific locations have not been proposed.
Typical activities associated with moving items in and out of
storage facilities may generate some sporadic noise.
Nevertheless, it is not anticipated that noise will be
excessive.
Sources: Submitted Application
Tustin City Code
MitigationIMonitoring Required: None required at this time.
Any construction work resulting from the code amendment must
meet standards of the City's Noise Ordinance, which contains
specific requirements regarding construction noise.
Exhibit A - Initial Study Responses
Code Amendment 92-006
September 10, 1992
Page 4
Each specific mini warehouse site proposed will be evaluated
on an individual basis. The potential to create noise and
impact residents or others will be determined at that time;
appropriate mitigation measures will be incorporated into the
project.
7. LIGHT AND GLARE
"Maybe": The code amendment itself will not produce new light
or glare. No specific locations for storage facilities are
proposed, and exact illumination requirements for individual
warehouses are not known. Each subsequent request for the
construction of a self -storage facility will be evaluated
individually. However, all facilities will be required to
meet standards of the Tustin Security Ordinance which provides
criteria for minimum lighting levels.
Sources: Submitted Application
Tustin City Code
Mitigation/Monitoring Required: None required at this time.
During the Design Review process required for all new
development, and/or Conditional Use Permit process, on-site
illumination will be evaluated. Any mitigation measures
required to minimize the impacts of *light and glare on nearby
or adjoining properties will be included as conditions of
approval for individually proposed projects.
8. LAND USE
"Maybe": The proposal will not result in a substantial
alteration of present or planned land uses, however,. the code
amendment will allow an additional use in existing industrial
areas. However, the self -storage mini warehouse use is highly
compatible with existing permitted industrial land uses such
as warehouse and distribution facilities. Further, all such
facilities will be required to meet development standards
currently in place.
Any construction of new warehouses, subsequent to the adoption
of the code amendment, will most likely occur as "in fill"
projects on land parcels surrounded by existing industrial
buildings. No additional or altered land use impacts are
anticipated.
Sources: Submitted Application
Tustin City Code
Exhibit A - Initial Study Responses
Code Amendment 92-006
September 10, 1992
Page 5
Mitigation /Monitoring Required: None required. Adherence to
and compliance with provisions of the Tustin City Code and
Industrial District regulations will ensure that any
development proposed as a result of the code amendment will be
compatible with existing land uses.
9. NATURAL RESOURCES
Items A and B - "No": The code amendment, a change in land
use regulations, will not require natural or non-renewable
resources.
Construction resulting from the amendment may result in the
short term use of power, lumber, stone and other materials;
however, there will not be any long-term or significant
quantities of resources used. Nevertheless, each individual
proposal will evaluated under separate CEQA review during the
City's Design Review and/or Conditional Use Permit processes.
Sources: Submitted Application
Tustin City Code
Mitigation/Monitoring Required: None required.
10. RISK OF UPSET
Items A and B - "No": The proposal will not increase risk of
upset to the City as it involves changes in land use
regulations only. The subsequent construction of mini
warehouses as allowed by the proposed code revisions, will
require measures to mitigate any potential risk of upset.
Sources: Submitted Application
Tustin. City Code
Mitigation1Monitoring Required: None required.
11. POPULATION
"No": The proposed code amendment will not' increase or
decrease the population of the City. It is anticipated that
patrons and employees of any future mini warehouse facilities
will live or work in Tustin or the surrounding area.
Sources: Submitted Application
Tustin City Code
Exhibit A - Initial Study Responses
Code Amendment 92-006
September 10, 1992
Page 6
MitigationJMonitoring Required: None required.
12. HOUSING
"No": The proposed code amendment will not create a need for
additional housing. No dwelling units are being eliminated or
proposed in conjunction with the proposal.
Sources: Submitted Application
Tustin City Code
Mitigation/Monitoring Required: None required.
13. TRANSPORTATIONICIRCULATION
Items A through F - "Maybe": The code amendment itself will
not result in additional vehicular movement or demand for new
parking. The authorization of an additional warehouse -type
use in existing industrial zones will not create substantial
impacts on existing transportation systems or present
circulation patterns. Trip generation rates established in
September of 1987 by the Institute of Transportation Engineers
indicate that the average weekday vehicle trip ends per 1,000 -
square feet of gross floor area of a mini warehouse facility
is 2.606. That is a lower rate than the 4.882 trip ends
generated by standard warehouses or the 3.846 trips generated
by manufacturing facilities.
The code amendment proposal includes parking standards for the
new use. All such new and existing development standards must
be complied with. Further, transportation and circulation
issues of individual proposals will be evaluated on a case-by-
case basis during the Design Review process.
Sources: SubmittedApplication
Tustin City Code
Mitigation/Monitoring Required: None required at this time.
Mini warehouse facilities constructed subsequent to the
approval of the code amendment may generate temporary
construction traffic in the vicinity of individual sites.
However, each location will be evaluated on a case-by-case
basis and any mitigation measures found necessary at that time
- will be included as conditions of approval.
Exhibit A - Initial Study Responses
Code Amendment 92-006
September 10, 1992
Page 7
14. PUBLIC SERVICES
Items A, through F - "Maybe": The code amendment will not
have an impact on or result in an increased demand for or
alter any public service. The proposal will allow an
additional land use in existing industrial areas. Fire and
police services are currently in place to service existing
developments; school facilities, parks and roads will all be
unaffected by the code amendment.
Sources: Submitted Application
Tustin City Code
Mitigation/Monitoring Required: None required.
15. ENERGY
Items A and B - "Yes": The code amendment will not increase
the demand for or consumption of energy. However, the
subsequent construction of warehouses will require minor
amounts of fuel and energy; the actual operation of the
facilities will also require small quantities. Nevertheless,
energy needs will not be substantial and the development of
new sources of energy will not be required.
Sources: Submitted Application
Tustin City Code
MitiaationZMonitorinq Required: None required. Any future
construction associated with the development of self -storage
facilities must comply with the Energy Conservation Standards
set forth in Title 24 of the California Administrative Code.
Mitigation measures related to energy, as applicable, will be
incorporated into individual warehouse projects, or included
as conditions of approval.
16. UTILITIES
Items A through F - "Maybe": The proposal itself will not
increase the demand for traditional public utilities, such as
water, natural gas, storm drains or sewers. Any new
development which results from the code amendment will require
minimal amounts of utilities during construction and for
general operation. However, necessary quantities are not
anticipated to be substantial. No new systems or major
alterations to existing systems will be required.
Exhibit A - Initial Study Responses
Code Amendment 92-006
September 10, 1992
Page 8
Sources: Submitted Application
Tustin City Code
Mitigation/Monitoring Required: None required. Each mini
warehouse installation facilitated by the code amendment will
require separate review and approval of the Community
Development Department. During the review process, comments
from impacted agencies will be solicited. Any mitigation
measures identified during that review will be incorporated
into the project plans or required by conditions of approval.
17. HUMAN HEALTH
Items A and B - "No": The proposed code amendment will not
create new health hazards to those living or working in the
vicinity. The additional land use proposed is very similar to
currently permitted and conditionally permitted land uses.
No adverse impacts to human health are anticipated by the
development of new self -storage mini warehouses. If during
the Design Review and/or Conditional Use Permit processes any
mitigation measures are found to be necessary, they will be
incorporated into the project design or included as conditions
of approval.
Sources: Submitted Plans
Tustin City Code
Mitigation/Monitoring Required: None required at this time.
Any potential risk to human health identified in subsequent
reviews of warehouse facilities facilitated by the amendment
will be evaluated on a case-by-case basis. Appropriate
mitigation measures will be included as conditions of
app. -oval.
18. SOLID WASTE
"Maybe"_ The code amendment itself will not create additional
solid waste. The development of mini warehouse facilities
made possible by the adoption of the code amendment may create
a limited amount of solid waste. During the Community
Development Department's Design Review and/or Conditional Use
Permit processes, the location and quantity of trash
-- enclosures will be evaluated by City staff and, if necessary,
by Great Western Reclamation.
Exhibit A - Initial Study Responses
Code Amendment 92-006
September 10, 1992
Page 9
Sources: Submitted Plans
Tustin City Code
MitigationJMonitoring Required: None required at this time.
Any mitigation measures found necessary will be incorporated
into the project design or included in conditions of approval.
19. AESTHETICS
"Maybe": The amendment to the zoning code not impact any
scenic vista or view. Following the adoption of the code
amendment, each individual proposal for mini warehouses will
be evaluated under the City's Design Review process. Staff
will help ensure that new or renovated facilities will be
compatible with their surroundings. Careful attention will be
paid to setbacks, on-site circulation, the scale and form of
building elevations, materials, colors and landscaping. All
standards of the zoning district will be required to be met.
Sources: Submitted Plans
Tustin City Code
Mitigation/Monitoring Required: Subsequent to the proposed
code amendment, any requests for the construction of self -
storage facilities will be evaluated on a case-by-case basis.
Aesthetics will be considered during that review. Applicable
mitigation measures will be included into individual project
designs or as conditions of approval.
20. RECREATION
"No": The proposal will not create a need for additional
recreational services or impact existing services.
Sources: Submitted Plans
Tustin City Code
Mitigation/Monitoring Required: None required.
21. CULTURAL RESOURCES
Items A through D - "No": The code amendment will not result
in the alteration or destruction of archaeological sites and
historic buildings, or cause a physical change which will
affect cultural values. Any construction occurring as a
result of the code amendment will most likely take place in
existing industrial areas or on vacant parcels which have been
Exhibit A - Initial Study Responses
Code Amendment 92-006
September 10, 1992
Page 10
previously mass graded.
Sources: Submitted Application
Tustin City Code
Mitigation/Monitoring Required: None required.
PR: nm\miniware. env
R
LAND USE: 151
MINI -WAREHOUSE
DESCRIPTION AND TRIP
CHARACTERISTICS
A mini -warehouse is a building in which a storage
unit or vault is rented for the storage of goods. Each
unit is physically separated from other units and
access is usually provided through an overhead door.
The mini -warehouses studied contained, on the
average, 612 storage units or vaults, 49,000 gross
square feet of total building area on 3.2 acres of
land. Typically there were two employees per mini -
warehouse.
AVERAGE WEEKDAY TRANSIT TRIP
ENDS
No data available.
DATA LIMITATIONS
A more diverse geographical distribution of data
points is needed.
SOURCE NUMBERS
113, 212.
Trip Generation, September 1987/Institute of Transportation Engineers
211
L—A-WAREHOUSE (151J
Average Vehicle Trip Ends vs: 1,000 SQUARE FEET GROSS FLOOR AREA
On a: WEEKDAY
TRIP GENERATION RATES
Average Weekday Vehicle Trip Ends per 1,000 Square Feet Gross Floor Area
Average Range of Standard Numberoff AveraSquarege 1,000
Fee GFA
Trip Rate Rates Deviation
2.606 1.214-4.360 11 49.1
400
350
DATA PLOT AND EQUATION
10 30 5U --
X = 1000 SQUARE FEET GFA
Q ACTUAL DATA POINTS - FITTED CURVE
Fitted Curve Equation: Ln(T) = 1.05 Ln(X) + 0.66
R2 = 0.715
DIRECTIONAL DISTRIBUTION: Not available.
Trip Generation, Septemberl987/Institute of Transportation Engineers
221
0
w
300
ac
�-
250
w
J
U
=
200
w
w
Q
150
CC
w
Q
10C
~
5(
DATA PLOT AND EQUATION
10 30 5U --
X = 1000 SQUARE FEET GFA
Q ACTUAL DATA POINTS - FITTED CURVE
Fitted Curve Equation: Ln(T) = 1.05 Ln(X) + 0.66
R2 = 0.715
DIRECTIONAL DISTRIBUTION: Not available.
Trip Generation, Septemberl987/Institute of Transportation Engineers
221
WAREHOUSING (15%.J.
Average Vehicle Trip Ends vs: 1,000 SQUARE FEET GROSS FLOOR AREA
On a: WEEKDAY
TRIP GENERATION RATES
Average Weekday Vehicle Trip Ends per 1,000 Square Feet Gross Floor Area
Average Range of Standard Number of Average 1,000
Trip Rate Rates Deviation Studies Square Feet GFA
4.882 1.506-17.004 15 285.3
z
Ili
0-
F—
J
U
w
cr
w
Q
111
. 111
4,000
2,000
0
DATA PLOT AND EQUATION
4uu tsuu 1,200 1,600 2,000 2,400
X = 1000 SQUARE FEET GFA
❑ ACTUAL DATA POINTS FITTED CURVE
Fitted Curve Equation: T = 3.68(X) + 342.65
R2 = 0.821
DIRECTIONAL DISTRIBUTION: Not available.
Trip Generation, September 1987/Institute of Transportation Engineers
197
,,,ANUFACTURING (140)
Average Vehicle Trip Ends vs: 1,000 SQUARE FEET GROSS FLOOR AREA
On a: WEEKDAY
TRIP GENERATION RATES
Average Weekday Vehicle Trip Ends per 1,000 Square Feet Gross Floor Area
Average Range of Standard Number of Average 1,000
Trip Rate Rates Deviation Studies Square Feet GFA
3.846 0.500-52.050 3.09 60 351.5
10,000
0 8,000
Z
w
rl
H
J 6,000
U_
w
w 4,000
Q
w
Q
n 2,000
I-
0
DATA PLOT AND EQUATION
❑
❑
0 ❑ ❑
❑ ❑ � p
❑`-'
❑ ❑
❑
0 400 800 1,200 1,600 2,000
X = 1000 SQUARE FEET GFA
❑ ACTUAL DATA POINTS FITTED CURVE
Fitted Curve Equation: T = 3.88(X) — 13.0
R2 = 0.875
DIRECTIONAL DISTRIBUTION: Not available.
Trip Generation, September 1987/Institute of Transportation Engineers
175
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12!
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
RESOLUTION NO. 3091-B
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING TO
THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF CODE AMENDMENT
92-006, AMENDING SPECIFIC SECTIONS OF THE
TUSTIN CITY CODE TO ALLOW SELF -STORAGE .MINI
WAREHOUSES AS CONDITIONALLY PERMITTED USES IN
THE INDUSTRIAL (M) DISTRICT
The Planning Commission of the City of Tustin does hereby
resolve as follows:
I. The Planning Commission finds and determines as
follows:
A. The Zoning Code was adopted to identify
specific land uses and standards of
development to occur within certain Zoning.
Districts; and
B. It has been determined that there is a current
and future need for facilities where
individuals and businesses can warehouse small
quantities, which is not currently addressed
in the Zoning Code; and
C. The amendment is in the best interest of the
public health, safety and welfare in that it
will facilitate orderly development of self -
storage mini warehouses; and
D. The amendment is consistent with the General
Plan in that it will not negatively impact the
orderly growth and development of the City.
II. The Planning Commission hereby recommends to the
City Council approval of Code Amendment 92-006,
amending specific sections of the Tustin City Code
to allow self -storage mini warehouses in the
Industrial (M) district as shown in Exhibit A.
ATTACHMENT A
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11�
12.
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Resolution No. 3091-B
September 28, 1992
Page 2
PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Planning Commission of the City
of Tustin at a regular meeting held on the 28th day of
September, 1992.
KATHLEEN CLANCY
Recording Secreta
'M
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF ORANGE )
CITY OF TUSTIN )
I, KATHLEEN CLANCY, the undersigned, 'hereby certify that
I am the Recording Secretary of the Planning Commission
of the City of Tustin, California; that Resolution
No.3091-B was duly passed and adopted at a regular
meeting of the Tustin Planning Commission, held on the
28th day of September, 1992.
KATHLEEN CLANCY
Recording Secretary
RESOLUTION NO.3091-B
EXHIBIT A
DRAFT ORDINANCE NO. 1100
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN,
CALIFORNIA, AMENDING SPECIFIED SECTIONS OF ARTICLE 9 OF
THE TUSTIN CITY CODE TO ALLOW SELF -STORAGE MINI
WAREHOUSES AS A CONDITIONALLY PERMITTED USE IN THE
INDUSTRIAL (M) DISTRICT (CA 92-006)
The City Council of the City of Tustin finds and
determines as follows:
A. The Zoning Code was adopted to identify
specific land uses and standards of
development to occur within certain Zoning
Districts; and
B. It has been determined that there is a current
and future need for facilities where
individuals and businesses can warehouse small
quantities, which is not currently addressed
in the Zoning Code; and
C. The amendment is in the best interest of the
public health, safety and welfare in that it
will facilitate orderly development of self -
storage mini warehouses; and
D. The amendment is consistent with the General
Plan in that it will not negatively impact the
orderly growth and development of the City.
NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Tustin
DOES HEREBY ORDAIN as follows:
Section 1. Article 9, Chapter 2, Part 9 of the Tustin
City Code is hereby amended as follows:
A. Subsection 9242b entitled "Conditionally
Permitted Uses" is amended to add the
following:
'..0 ........ 5elf...:s rac m 1... wa -are, ,
Resolution No. 3091-B
Draft Ordinance 1100
Exhibit A
Page 2
Subsection 9242c(c) entitled "Development
Standards" is amended to add Subsection 5 to
read as follows:
PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of
the City of Tustin held on the day of , 1992.
LESLIE ANNE PONTIOUS
Kayor
MARY WYNN
City Clerk
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF ORANGE ) SS
CITY OF TUSTIN )
CERTIFICATION FOR ORDINANCE 1100
MARY E. WYNN, City Clerk and ex -officio Clerk of the City
Council of the City of Tustin, California, does 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
Ordinance No. 1100 was duly and regularly introduced, passed
and adopted at a regular meeting of the City Ccuncil held on
the day of , 1992, by the following vote:
COUNCIL4EMBER AYES:
COUNCILMEMBER NOES:
COUNCILMEMBER ABSTAINED:
COUNCILMEMBER ABSENT:
Mary E. Wynn, City Clerk
1
2
3
4
5
6
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
5
26
27
28
RESOLUTION NO. 92-123
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
TUSTIN, CERTIFYING THE FINAL NEGATIVE DECLARATION
AS ADEQUATE FOR CODE AMENDMENT 92-006 INCLUDING
REQUIRED FINDINGS PURSUANT TO THE CALIFORNIA
ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT.
The City Council of the City of Tustin does hereby resolve as
follows:
I. The City Council finds and determines as follows:
A. The request to approve Code Amendment 92-006 is
considered a "project" pursuant to the terms of the
California Environmental Quality Act.
B. 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 authority over Code Amendment 92-
006, has received and considered the information
contained in the Negative Declaration, prior to approving
of the proposed project, and found that it adequately
discussed the environmental effects of the proposed
project. The City Council has found that the project
involves no potential for an adverse effect, either
individually or cumulatively, on wildlife resources and
makes a De Minimis Impact Finding related to AB3158,
Chapter 1206, Statutes of 1990. On the basis of the
initial study and comments received during the public
review process, the City Council has found that, the
proposed projects would not have a significant effect on
the environment.
c
f
i
11
1:
1'
1'
l�
l�
1!
1'.
1'
1'
2!
r
2'
2'
2
2;
21
2'
2'
Resolution No. 92-123
Page 2
PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Tustin City
Council, held on the 19th day of October, 1992.
LESLIE ANNE PONTIOUS
Mayor
MARY E. WYNN
City Clerk
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF ORANGE ) ss
CITY OF TUSTIN )
CERTIFICATION FOR RESOLUTION NO. 92-123
MARY E. WYNN, City Clerk and ex -off icio Clerk of the City
Council of the City of Tustin, California, does hereby certify
that the whole number of the members of the City Council of
the City of Tustin is 5; that the above and foregoing
Resolution No. 92-123 was duly and regularly introduced,
passed, and adopted at a regular meeting of the Tustin City
Council, held on the 19th day of October, 1992.
MARY E. WYNN, CITY CLERK
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
29
23
24
2-0
26
27
28
ORDINANCE NO. 1100
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN,
CALIFORNIA, AMENDING SPECIFIED SECTIONS OF ARTICLE 9 OF
THE TUSTIN CITY CODE TO ALLOW SELF -STORAGE MINI
WAREHOUSES AS A CONDITIONALLY PERMITTED USE IN THE
INDUSTRIAL (M) DISTRICT (CA 92-006)
The City Council of the City of Tustin finds and
determines as follows:
A. The Zoning Code was adopted to identify
specific land uses and standards of
development to occur within certain Zoning
Districts; and
B. It has been determined that there is a current
and future need for facilities where
individuals and businesses can warehouse small
quantities, which is not currently addressed
in the Zoning Code; and
C. The amendment , is in the best interest of the
public health, safety and welfare in that it
will facilitate orderly development of self -
storage mini warehouses; and
D. The amendment is consistent with the General
Plan in that it will not negatively impact the
orderly growth and development of the City.
NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Tustin
DOES HEREBY ORDAIN as follows:
Section 1. Article 9, Chapter 2, Part 9 of the Tustin
City Code is hereby amended as follows:
1
2
3
4
5
6
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Ordinance No. 1100
Page 2
PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of
the City of Tustin held on the 19th day of October, 1992.
LESLIE ANNE PONTIOUS
Mayor
MARY WYNN
City Clerk
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF ORANGE ) SS
CITY OF TUSTIN )
CERTIFICATION FOR ORDINANCE 1100
MARY E. WYNN, City Clerk and ex -officio Clerk of the City
Council of the City of Tustin, California, does 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
Ordinance No. 1100 was duly and regularly introduced, passed
and adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council held on
the 19th day of October, 1992, by the following vote:
COUNCILMEMBER AYES:
COUNCILMEMBER NOES:
COUNCILMEMBER ABSTAINED:
COUNCILMEMBER ABSENT:
Mary E. Wynn, City Clerk