The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About01 CUP 94-023 DR94-030 02-21-95NO. 1 2-21-95 DATE: FEBRUARY 21, 1995 Inter-Com TO' WILLIAM A. HUSTON, CITY MANAGER FROM: COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT SUBJEC~ APPEAL OF CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 94-023 & DESIGN REVIEW 94-030 (McDONALD'S CORPORATION) RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the City Council take the following actions: . 1. Approve the Environmental Determination for the project by adopting Resolution No. 95-20; and 2. Approve Conditional Use Permit 94-023 & Design Review 94-030 by adopting Resolution No. 95-21, as recommended by the Planning Commission. FISCAL IMPACT There is no fiscal impacts associated with this project, as this is an owner initiated project. The applicant has paid application fees to recover the cost of processing this application. BACKGROUND On January 23, 1995, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 3329 conditionally approving a request to establish a fast-food restaurant with drive-thru service on a one acre vacant pad within the Costco/K-Mart Center located at the southeast corner of Bryan Avenue and Tustin Ranch Road (Attachment A). On January 30, 1995, the City received a request from ColeOthmer appealing the Planning . Commission decision to approve the Conditiona!_~ Permit and Review (Attachment B). c~F~,~-.~. ~ Design The East Tustin Specific Plan (ETSP) allowS restaurants with drive- thru service in the Mixed Use land use designation, subject to approval of a Conditional Use Permit. The site and architectural design of the proposed restaurant requires Design Review approval. City Council Report Appeal of CUP 94-023 and DR 94-030 February 21, 1995 Page 2 K-Mart is located south of the proposed project and Costco is located to the east. Existing multiple family residential uses are located across Tustin Ranch Road to the west and across Bryan Avenue to the north. There are still four other vacant tenant pads within the Costco/K-Mart Center: two that are adjacent to Bryan Avenue, and; two that are immediately east of K-Mart. At the time the original development plans for the Costco/K-Mart Center were proposed by The Irvine Company, it was represented to the Planning Commission and City Council that a family-style "sit- down" restaurant would likely be located on the subject pad site. The Irvine Company, along with their leasing agents, have indicated that the only interest they've received in the subject site has been from service stations, auto'service uses and fast food uses. A public hearing notice identifying the time, date and location of the public hearing for the proposal was published in the Tustin News. Property owners within 300 feet of the site were notified by mail of the hearing and notices were posted on site, at City Hall and the Police Department. A copy of this staff report and the agenda for this meeting have been provided to the applicant and property owner. PROJECT DESCRIPTION/SITE PLAN/ARCHITECTURE Development plans propose a 2,871 square foot fast-food restaurant and drive-thru facility to be sited on the northwest portion of the existing lot. The building would meet the ~~~~q~irements of the East Tustin Specific Plan. A total o~ 50 seats a~e proposed for the indoor dining area and an additional~4--s~s~re proposed for the outside dining area in conjunction with the "playland". Access to restaurant parking would be from existing driveway locations on Tustin Ranch Road, Bryan Avenue and E1 Camino Real. Parking for the project is proposed east and south of the proposed restaurant. The proposed restaurant would require a minimum of 46 spaces, however, the applicant is providing a total of 61 parking spaces on this site, 53 of which will be for the exclusive use of McDonald's. A total of 1,354 parking spaces are currently required for the existing Center with Costco, K-Mart, the proposed restaurant use, and anticipated development of future vacant tenant pads. A total of 1,362 parking spaces would be provided on the site with implementation of the proposed project. City Council Report Appeal of CUP 94-023 and DR 94-030 February 21, 1995 Page 3 The proposed entrance to the drive-thru facility would be from an exclusive drive-thru lane perpendicular to Bryan Avenue, on the southeast side of the proposed restaurant. The drive-thru lane will direct vehicles north and then wrap around the north side of the structure (adjacent to Bryan Avenue) where the pick-up window would be located and exit on the southwest side of the structure. The ardhitectural design of the project is generally consistent with the design guidelines for the Center. The main portion of the building is 17 feet in height with a 29 foot tower element at the northwest corner of the building. The building will be predominantly a light beige stucco plaster (same as Costco and K- Mart), which compliments the surrounding residential projects. Contrasting~'bands of reddish-brown honed and split-face, concrete masonry block will be used as accents at the base of the building and for pilasters connecting the wrought iron fence surrounding the outdoor seating and "Playland" area. The building is proposed to have a predominantly flat-roof with cornice moldings painted beige in color. The trademark, double- pitched McDonald's mansard roof element extends across a portion of the south, west and north elevations. The roof will be a reddish mission tile to match the existing buildings within the center. The west elevation has a covered arcade across the main entry. This adds to the pedestrian scale of the building. Adopted design guidelines for the site suggest that pad buildings have a residential scale and that building masses be broken down through the use of architectural features and decorations. Building materials, forms and colors should relate to the surrounding residential neighborhoods. The general architectural form and design details of this project are consistent with the guidelines, however there are modifications recommended by staff that would make the architecture more consistent with the adopted guidelines. The proposed conceptual landscape plan generally meets or exceeds the requirements of the ETSP and the Center design guidelines. The ETSP requires that all parking areas adjacent to arterial highways be screened from view by a solid opaque screen (wall, earth berm or fence) of not less than 30 inches and not more than 42 inches in height. The parking areas adjacent to Bryan Avenue and Tustin Ranch Road are required to be screened pursuant to the ETSP and the drive-thru facility has been designed and conditioned to be partially screened with a wall and/or landscaping. City Council Report Appeal of CUP 94-023 and DR 94-030 February 21, 1995 Page 4 The hardscape elements proposed are primarily concrete walkways. Pedestrian pathways are proposed to cross the vehicular drive-thru lane at two locations. These pathways are proposed to be identified with brick pavers (matching the pavers used in the Center) creating a visual cross-walk and a slightly textured surface which would alert drivers to look for pedestrians. A trash enclosure at the eastern side of the site would be constructed to accommodate refuse from the new restaurant. It is designed to have a 7 foot high masonry wall to screen the trash compactor. The compactor is designed to be quiet and would be subject to the City of Tustin Noise Ordinance. The sign program for the center allows tenants in buildings on stand-alone pads, such as the subject site, a maximum of 60 square feet of copy area per building elevation, for a maximum of 240 square feet of total signage. The applicant proposes to install two business identification signs, one on the west and one on the north elevations and four logo signs on each of the tower elevations for a total area of 174' square feet. RESIDENT CONCERNS During the Planning Commission public hearing for this item, eleven (11) residents from surrounding neighborhoods spoke in opposition to the project. The main points presented by those who spoke at the Planning Commission public hearing and subsequently submitted as part of the appeal have been summarized below. Responses to each concern have been identified following each concern. 1. CONCERN: Noise impacts to adjacent residential area from speake--~, play ground, employees, customer's cars and radios, trash compactor. RESPONSE: The restaurant is proposed to be op~2~__from 6:00 ~~ 6~ a.m. to~l-l~.-00 p.m~. Sunday - Thursday and 6:00 a.m. to~~ Friday andy. The applicant proposes to u~e a fa~ ordering system on most occasions and would oniy us-----~--a~sp-e~ker system when an employee is not available. The Planning' Commission's action included conditions of approval requiring compliance with the City's Noise' Ordinance related to the use of the loud speaker system, as well as construction activities. The City cannot regulate incidental noise associated with car radios or loud engines. The Planning Commission also added a condition of approval requiring that the trash compactor only be utilized between the hours of 8:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m. City Council Report Appeal of CUP 94-023 and DR 94-030 February 21, 1995 Page 5 ~ In order to further reduce the is ' 'th the project, the applicant'proposes to rest~ct the hours of the "playland,, to between 8:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m., Sunday - Thursday and 8:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m., Friday and Saturday. This limit on the hours of operation of the "playland" would help minimize noise during the early-morning and late-night hours. Staff has included an additional condition of approval related to the "playland" hours of operation. The following represents some additional' options that may be available to minimize noise impacts associated with the proposed use which the Council may wish to consider. Staff has included additional conditions to reflect the options below:' Limit''the- hours of operation of.the drive-thru lane between 8:00 a.m. and 10:00 p.m. and require a physical barricade and sign be posted across the entrance to the drive-thru facility when it is not in operation. Such a limitation would further reduce the potential for early-morning and late-night noise impacts associated with the drive-thru facility. Relocate the building and drive-thru lane aDproximat?J~z 10 to 15 feet to the east to provide area ~-~-~i%ional berm~ and landscaping which would help buff~m~the ~~ the residences to the west of Tustin Ranch Road. Implementation of this option would probably eliminate approximately 5 parking spaces and shift the location of the trash enclosure to the opposite drive aisle. This modification would not negatively impact on-site circulation and there would be adequate parking to serve the proposal. 2. CONCERN:. Lights from signs, building and car headlights in the drive-thru lane would impact street traffic and adjacent residences. A.landscaped berm, rather than a 3.5 foot high wall would more effectively buffer the use. RESPONSE: The project was designed and conditioned to provide a 3.5 foot high screen around the perimeter of the drive-thru lane consisting of a combination screen wall and/or landscape berming. Such a screen was designed to minimize visual impacts of the drive thru lane from surrounding streets and properties, and reduce light and traffic impacts. A condition of approval was also imposed requiring that signs be turned off at the closing of the establishment. The tower sign has been conditioned to be modified so that only the "M" logo is illuminated, with the red background being non-illuminated to minimize potential light and glare impacts. City Council Report Appeal of CUP 94-023 and DR 94-030 February 21, 1995 Page 6 In an effort to further respond to the resident concerns about the potential light and glare impacts, the applicant has proposed to increase the height of the screen wall ~and-- berm around the perimeter of the drive-thru facility to 4.5 feet in height adjacent to Bryan Avenue and Tustin Ranch Road. The increase in height would be accomplished by relocating the proposed sCreen wall closer to the drive-thru lane, raising the height of the wall, and berming up to the wall from the street side. As a result, the height of the berm and opportunity for additional landscaping would be effectively increased. The existing landscaping and irrigation systems would need to be removed and replaced with new material of similar size and species. The ~plicant has .a~~ed to turn off the exterior building ligh lng oh-the north and west elevation at the time of store closing. Conditions have been included to reflect the proposed increase in screening height and requiring the exterior lights on the west and north elevations to be turned off at closing time. The project will still need to comply with the requirements of the City's Security Ordinance for a minimum of one footcandle of light throughout the site. 3. CONCERN: The business will attract unsupervised ~teenagers late at night which could result in increased noise or loitering. RESPONSE: The Planning Commission conditioned "No Loitering" signs to be posted on the site provide the Police Department with an additional enforcement tool on private property to combat any impacts of loitering. 4. CONCERN~ Food odors generated from the use will negatively impact surrounding residences. · RESPONSE: Since the proposed operation does no~.__utilize a char-broiler method for cooking, food odors ar~--~nticipated to be minimal. The applicant~has indicated that their exhaust system contains tWo air filters designed to also minimize food odors. 5. CONCERN'.~~i Trash and debris generated by patrons of this restaurant could blow off site. City Council Report Appeal of CUP 94-023 and DR 94-030 February 21, 1995 Page 7 RESPONSE: An additional condition has been included requiring the i~stallati°n of permanent, decorative type traSh receptacles to be located throughout the site (entrance, playland and parking area). The ap~includes routine clear~-up of outdoor seating areas as part of their operational procedures. 6. CONCERN: The project will generate an excessive amount of traffic that---cannot be adequately accommodated on adjacent streets. RESPONSE: This proposed fast-food.restaurant will generate approximately 150 p.m. peak hour trips, which is an increase over the original allocation for a restaurant in the Tustin Annex Traffic Analysis, dated January 22, 1992. The entire Tustin Annex site, however, is allocated 1308 p.m. peak hour trips per the East Tustin Specific Plan, Traffic Analysis Zone #42. With this proposal, 195 p.m. peak' hour trips remain available, without additional mitigation being required. The amount of additional retail and financial uses (24,000 square feet) originally anticipated for construction in this center can also be accommodated without additional mitigation. However, should future retail or financial uses be more intense than anticipated, additional environmental review will be necessary and further mitigation measures may be necessary. The subject project will not impact the surrounding streets beyond what was originally anticipated when the East Tustin Specific Plan was adopted. 7. CONCERN: A sit-down type restaurant would be more compatible with the neighborhood. ~urm0~~~ RESPONSE: The EDs~ustin Specific Plan does not differentiate'~between a~down" res[au~or a "fast-food" restaurant and both are oufri~h~ p-~mi~ted use-~for this site. The only aspect of this project that is conditionally permitted is the drive-thru facility. As previously mentioned,.at the rime'original development plans for the Costco/K-Mart Center were proposed by The Irvine Company, it was represented to the Planning Commission and City Council that a family-style "sit-down" restaurant would likely be located on the subject pad site. The Irvine Company, along with their leasing agents, have indicated that the only interest for the subject site has been from service stations, auto service uses and fast food uses. City Council Report Appeal of CUP 94-023 and DR 94-030 February 21, 1995 Page 8 CONCERN~.=~=.._L The tower proposed is not consistent o/appropriate 8. within the center (residents called it a "Rocket Silo"). RESPONSE.! During the initial review of the project, staff identified a concern with the design of the tower element, the lack of design details and the predominately flat roof of the structure and the use of the plant-on, double-pitched roof element. The applicant strongly opposed many of staff suggestions although did modify some aspects of the building by lowering the tower, eliminating roof-mounted "bands" of light, adding column and bulkhead details to the building exterior and modifying sign locations. The typical design of a McDonald's restaurant with drive-thru facilities is box-.shaped, has a flat-roof and a double-pitched roof surrounding all or a portion of' the building. Not all McDonald's restaurants throughout the country utilize this "prototype" design and many are designed to be reflective of the predominant architectural design of the specific geographic area. There are several additional eXterior modifications that the City Council may wish to incorporate in the final design that would give the structure a more residential and cohesive appearance. Staff has included an additional condition of approval in the attached ~resOlution to require the following modifications. The use of a full-pitched, hipped roof for the entire building would make the structure more aesthetically pleasing and relate better to the form and massing of the surrounding residential neighborhood and modify the tower element so that it is better integrated into the roof design. Another alternative would require less modification to the exterior of the building while at the same time provide a more residential architectural design, as follows: Eliminate the double-pitched roof element and replace it with a single pitched roof consistent with other roof elements within the center on K-Mart and Costco. 9. CON... CERN: City approval of such a project could expose the City to legal challenges, based upon recent court cases. RESPONSE: The City Attorney has reviewed correspondence sent to the Mayor and City Manager regarding the subject project. The City Attorney also reviewed the statutory and case law submitted to the City by the appellants. The appellants apparently contend that City Council Report Appeal of CUP 94-023 and DR 94-030 February 21, 1995 Page 9 the City would be liable for damages in both inverse condemnation and nuisance should the City Council uphold the action of the Planning commission and give final approval to the project. In support of their position, the appellants have cited several cases in which public entities have been held liable for damages in inverse condemnation and nuisance for conditions which include noise and odor. However, in each of the cases cited by the appellants, the public entities owned and operated the improvement which caused the nuisance. In this case, the City is considering approval of a privately owned project. In the City Attorney's opinion, none of the cases cited by the appellants would support a theory of liability against the City of Tustin based upon nuisance were the City to approve the subject project. The appellants have not cited, and we are not aware of, any cases in which a public entity has been held liable for damages on a nuisance theory solely because the public entity gave discretionary approval, to a project which subsequently created ~a nuisance. It is likely that the City would be entitled to the governmental immunity provided by Government Code Section 818.4 (which immunizes public entities against claims for damages arising out of the discretionary issuance of permits) in any lawsuit which alleges that the City's approval of the subject project permitted the operator to create a nuisance. The authority cited by .the appellants would also not support a cause of action for inverse condemnation. Such an action may arise from a physical or regulatory taking of private property. The approval of the subject project would not constitute a physical taking of the appellant's property. The case law suggests that a city can be held for inverse condemnation based upon a physical taking only when the city physically invades a land owner's property rights. Here, as the City will not operate the subject restaurant,'the City will not cause any physical taking of any of the propertY rights of .the appellants. (When created by .a City owned or operated enterprise, noise and odor can constitute a physical invasion of property giving rise to damages in inverse condemnation.) Were the law any different, virtually every land use decision could give rise to inverse condemnation damages, since virtually all such decisions have some negative impact on surrounding land uses. LG._.ATiON MAP ,, NO SCALE I 11 ii1' ,l,,,i~ li,,lll !l{i,l,l, ll~l,l..lll.lII. i 'iiii 'i' ~ I ~[ [ , I l l,,,:I,II , !i Il ' 0 V 0 ~t h 'D N ~' ~1 N I .I.~{I.L ',1, '1' i, f OVOI:I HDNYI:J NIISrll _ *'.- .0~'0~1 HOlVV~ NLlSflJ I .% i I i I I .- COMMUNITy~ DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT 300 Centennial Way, Tustin, CA 92680 ('714) 573-3105 INITIAL STUDY '' L '"" B~Ci{GROi~D' Name of Proponent Address and Phone Number of Proponent Date check List Sub~aed ]- 3 - ~ 7 Agency Requiring Check List Name of Prop°sal, if applicable . ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS YES Earth. Will the proposal result in: a. Unstable earth conditions or in changes in geologic substructures? Disruptions, displacements, compaction or overcovering of the soil? c. Change in topography or ground surface relief feature~? · 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? II 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 bay, inlet or lake? 'b. MAYBE NO g. Exposure of people or property to geologic hazards such as earthquakes, landslides, mud slides, 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, .0r.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? eo 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 direction 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? i. Exposure of people or property to water related hazards Such as flooding or tidal waves? 4. 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? YES MAYBE NO Introduction of new species of plants into an area, or in a barrier to the normal replenishment of existing species7 ' d. Reduction in acreage of any agricultural crop? 5. 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).9.. ............. · ........ - .... b. Reduction of the numbers of any unique, rare or endangered species of animals? Co 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? YES MAYBE NO 6. Noise. Will the proposal result in: . a. Increases in existing noise levels? b. Exposure of people to severe noise levels7 7. Light and Glare. Will the proposal produce new light or glare? 8. Land Use. W'fll 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 or 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? 7-1 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? bo · . . 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? 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_.' V~5ll the p.roposal 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? YES MAYBE NO [-I ii 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? YES 17. Human Health. Will the proposal result in: a. Creation of any health hazard or potemial health hazard (excluding memal health)? Exposure of people to potential health hazards? MAYBE NO 18. Solid Waste. W'fll the proposal create additional solid waste requiring disposal by the City? 19. Aesthetics. Will the proposal result in 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. Will the proposal result in: The alteration of or the destruction of a prehistoric or historic archaeological site? bo AdverSe physical Or aesthetic effects to a prehistoric or historic building, structure, or object? c. The potential to cause a physical change which would affect unique ethnic cultural values? Will the proposal restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the potential impact area? YES MAYBE NO 22. Mandatory_ Findings of' Significance. a. bo Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment substantially reduce the habitat ora 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? 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). Co Does the project have impacts which are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? (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.) do Does the'project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION SEE ATTACHMENT A ...o ATTAC~IMENT A PART III: DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION INITIAL STUDY RESPONSES CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 94-023 DESIGN REVIEW 94-030 Backqround The'purpose "~f t~is initial study is to determine"'if EIR 85 ~, which was previously certified on March 17, 1986, and subsequently amended with supplements and addenda for the East Tustin Specific Plan, adequately addresses any potential.impacts of the proposed project and; therefore, can serve as a Program EIR for this project. This proposal is covered by a previously certified program EIR (85- 2) for the ETSP. Section 15150 of the CEQA guidelines permits an EIR or other environmental document to incorporate by reference all or portions of another document containing information relevant to that EIR. Therefore, in referencing EIR 85-2, this Initial Study hereby incorporates East Tustin Specific Plan Environmental Impact Report 85-2', City of Tustin, December 1985 (State Clearinghouse #85052217), as well as the Technical Appendices, Response to Comments, Supplement (November 15, 1986) and Addenda (May 1989). The purpose of this Initial Study is to identify any conditions affecting the project site which were not addressed by the program EIR. On February 10, 1992, the Tustin Planning Commission approved Tract 14610 and Design Review 91-55 for the Master Site Plan for a 274, 175-square foot retail center known as the Tustin Annex. The approved development consists of two major retail tenants or "anchors" with a combined floor area of 238,055-square feet, and , five individual tenant pads. An Environmental Determination recertifying Final Environmental Impact Report 85-2, as adequate to serve as the program EIR for the proposed shopping center project, was approved and filed. The applicant, McDonald's Corporation, now proposes to construct a third comPonent of the previously approved shopping center, a drivelthru restaurant. The restaurant will be approximately 2,900 square feet in size to be located on an approximate one'acre site within the Tustin Annex Shopping Center. The previously approved Master Site Plan established site entrances, building locations, parking area layout and design theme for the entire center. The current proposal is for the architectural design of one of the pad buildings of the 'retail/commercial center. In addition, a conditional use permit is'requested to permit the establishment of a drive-thru restaurant. The site, located in Sector 12 of the East Tustin Specific Plan (ETSP) area, is designated Mixed Use. A variety of land uses are Attachment A Environmental Evaluation CUP 94-023; DR 94-030 Page 2 in the vicinity. To the north, across Bryan Avenue, are multiple family residences. Residential development is also to the west, across Tustin Ranch Road. The Commercial development (Costco and K-Mart) of the Tustin Annex are located to the east and south. The ...... .,.proper~y is..legal!y..identified as Lot .!. of Tract 14610. ~ .. .. , . . .K4' · . . .. . .:. EIR 85-2 identified several impact categories where a Statement of Overriding Consideration was adopted by the City for the entire ETSP area. For the purposes of this initial study check list, these items have been checked "Yes". Mitigation measures identified in the EIR to minimized the impacts that would be applicable to this project have been identified. EIR 85-2 also identified several impact categories where impacts could be lessened to a level of insignificance with the imposition of mitigation measures. For the purposes of this initial stqdy check list, these items have been checked "No" and the mitigation measures identified in the EIR that would'be applicable to this project have been identified. · Potential impact categories in EIR 85-2 not identified to haVe a potential impact have been check "No" and were reviewed to ensure that no new impacts would be created by the project. Since the Specific Plan included a variety of uses, and this project is a relatively small scale commercial project some of the impact categories are not applicable. Items B, and C - "Yes": The project site is within the ETSP area and is primarily flat. The site has been mass graded in accordance with Tract 14610. Minor grading will be required to prepare the site for construction. Applicable conditions of approval will accommodate the restaurant and drive-thru and incorporate mitigation measures identified in the certified EIR 85-2. Items A, D, E, F, and G - "No": The project site is within the Specific Plan area for which the certified EIR 85-2 identified' impacts to the project site related to the necessary grading activity that would occur in order to accommodate the various types of development and the resultant change to existing landform and topography of the area. Consequently, mitigation measures were identified in EIR 85-2 and were implemented during mass grading of Tract 14610. Additional conditions of approval related to construction activities will be added to this project. Attachment A Environmental Evaluation CUP 94-023; DR 94-030 Page 3 Sources: Field Verification Submitted Plans Tustin City Code Certified EIR 85-2 .0.. .... E.ast Tus.tin .Spe..ci. fi.c..p1...an......~ Mitiqation/Monitorinq Required: A detailed soils engineering report and grading plans for the site are required as a condition of approval to ensure that all grading activities on the site minimize the grading impacts. 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. · AIR Item A - "Maybe": The program EIR finds that development within the Specific Plan will result in an incremental degradation of air quality in conjunction with other past, present and reasonably foreseeable future projects. Since this project alone is relatively small in scale and will not generate a significant amount of air pollutant emissions, the impacts will not be significant. A Statement of Overriding Considerations was prepared to address necessary compromises for the~overall benefit of the Specific Plan area and region. Conditions of approval will be required for the project to meet all applicable mitigation measures, as required by the certified EIR 85-2. Items B, and C "No": The development of a 2,900 square foot restaurant and drive-thru is within the Specific Plan area covered by the program EIR. The certified EIR 85-2 identified impacts to the project site related to the proposed development and the resultant negative effects to air quality. Consequently, mitigation measures were identified in EIR 85-2 and this proposal has incorporated those measures related to air. quality into either the submitted plans or will be included in the conditions of approval, for the subject project· Sources: Field Verification Submitted Plans Tustin City Code Certified EIR 85-2 East Tustin Specific Plan Mitiqation/Monitorinq Required: Construction activity dust generation shall be reduced through regular watering as Attachment A Environmental Evaluation CUP 94-023; DR 94-030 Page 4 required by the SCAQMD Rule 403. Additionally, applicable mitigation measures encouraging use of alternative transportation methods have been incorporated into~the Tustin Annex Master Plan. All measures identified in certified EIR 85-,2~, .as.app!icable, have been .incorporated in~o the .proj¢.ct as submitted' o~ ~iii"'be" 'inc°rpor&~ed'' 'as ' 'c~nd~ions of approval. . WATER Items B, C and F - "Yes": This project site is within the ETSP area for which the certified EIR 85-2 identified impacts to surface runoff, drainage flows, water quality and water percolation. The impacts associated with this Design Review are no greater than those previously evaluated in the EIR 85- 2. The City Council considered the benefits of the specific plan and balanced those benefits against the plan's unavoidable effects. A Statement of Overriding Considerations was adopted for the specific plan. The certified EIR 85-2 identified impacts to the project site related to the proposed development and the resultant negative effects to water quality. Applicabl~ mitigation measures were identified in EIR 85-2. This proposal has incorporated those measures related to water quality into either the submitted plans or will be included in the conditions of approval for the subject uroject. Items A, D, E., G, H, and I - "No": The project site is within the Specific Plan area. The certified EIR 85-2 identified impacts to the project site related to the proposed development and the resultant negative effects to water quality. Applicable mitigation measures were identified in EIR 85-2. This proposal has incorporated those measures related to water quality into either the submitted plans or will be included in the conditions of approval, where applicable, for the subject project. Sources: Field Verification Submitted Plans Tustin City Code Certified EIR 85-2 East Tustin SpeCific Plan Mitigation/Monitorinq R~quired: Mitigation measures identified in certified EIR 85-2, included plans to accommodate increased runoff flows associated with the proposed developments by incorporating on-site and off-site drainage improvements, providing erosion control measures and developing appropriate Attachment A Environmental Evaluation CUP 94-023; DR 94-030 Page 5 pollution control plans. These measures have been incorporated into the project as submitted or will be incorporated as conditions of approval. Items A, B, C and D - "No": The project site has been rough graded, and is presently vacant. The certified EIR 85-2 identified impacts to the project site related to the proposed development and the resultant negative effects to plant life. Applicable mitigation measures were identified in EIR 85-2. This proposal has incorporated those measures related to plant life into either the submitted plans or will be included in the conditions of approval, where applicable, for thq subject project. Sources: Field Verification Submitted Plans Tustin City Code Certified EIR 85-2 East Tustin Specific Plan Mitigation/Monitorinq Required: Mitigation measures require revegetation on graded and cut-and-fill areas where structures or improvements are not constructed, with consideration given to the use of drought-tolerant plant materials, especially those native to the foothills and coastal plains of Southern California. These mitigation measures have been incorporated into the project as submitted, or will be incorporated as conditions of approval. 5. ANIMAL LIFE Items A throuqh D - "No": The project site is within the East Tustin Specific Plan area. The certified EIR 85-2 identified impacts to the project site related to the proposed development and the resultant negative effects to animal life. Applicable mitigation measures were identified in EIR 85-2. This proposal has incorporated those measures related to animal life into either the submitted plans or would be included in the conditions of approval, where applicable, for the subject project. Sources: Field Verification Submitted Plans Tustin City Code Certified EIR 85-2 East Tustin Specific Plan Attachment A Environmental Evaluation CUP 94-023; DR 94-030 Page 6 Mitiqation/Monitoring Required: Those measures identified in certified EIR 85-2, including revegetation of the site, have been incorporated into the project as submitted or would be incorporated as conditions of approval. 6. NOISE Item A - "Yes": Development of the site would result in short-term construction noise impact, and a long-term increase in the ambient noise levels in and around the project site as a result of increased vehicles in the area. The City Council considered the benefits of the ETSP in the original program EIR and balanced those benefits against the project's unavoidable effects. A Statement of Overriding ConsidDrations was adopted for the ETSP. Mitigation measures addressing the acoustic environment were identified in the program EIR, and are included in the submitted project, or would be conditions of approval. Item B - "No": The project site is within the East Tustin Specific Plan area and the certified EIR 85-2 identified impacts to the project site related to the proposed development and the resultant negative effects of noise. Consequently, mitigation measures were identified in EIR 85-2. This proposal has incorporated those measures related to noise into the submitted plans or they will be included in the conditions of approval, where applicable, for the subject project. Sources: Field Verification Submitted Plans Tustin City Code Certified EIR 85-2 East Tustin Specific Plan Mitiqation/Monitoring Required: Mitigation measures included in the program EIR required additional studies to identify exterior noise levels to ensure compliance with City Noise Ordinance. In addition, the City's Noise Ordinance No. 828 has specific requirements in regard to construction noise. Those measures identified in certified EIR 85-2 and the City of Tustin Ordinance No. 828, have been incorporated into the project as submitted or will be incorporated as conditions of approval. In addition, a condition fo approval has been included requiring the intercom speakers within the menu ordering board to comply with the Noise Ordinance. Attachment A Environmental Evaluation CUP 94-023; DR 94-030 Page 7 7. LIGHT AND GLARE "Yes": The proposed commercial development would create a minimal amount of additional light within a center which is .alr. eady illuminated.:.Th¢..~ighting [rQm. t.he signs., pedestrian safety lights and dec'orative wal'l lights will not have a significant impact. The project site is within the East Tustin Specific Plan Area in which the program EIR and Addendum for the Marketplace and Annex addresses the impact of commercial development and the resultant negative effects from light and glare. The City Council considered the benefits of the specific plan and balanced those benefits against the project's unavoidable effects. A Statement of Overriding Considerations was adopted for the specific plan. Mitigation measures were identified in EIR 85-2. This propQsal has incorporated those measures related to light and glare into the submitted plans or the mitigation measures would be included in the conditions of approval for the project. Sources: Field Verification Submitted Plans Tustin City Code Certified EIR 85-2 East Tustin Specific Plan Mitiqation/Monitorinq Required: Conditions of approval for the project require that a lighting plan be submitted for the project, and prohibits lights that create any glare or have a negative impact on adjoining properties. o LAND USE "No": The project site is within the East Tustin Specific Plan Area for which the certified EIR 85-2 identified impacts to the project site related to the proposed development and the resultant negative effects of land use. The program EIR identifies that the development of the project site would result in the gradual conversion of existing open space into urban use. The City Council considered the benefits of the specific plan and balanced those benefits against the project's unavoidable effects. A Statement of Overriding Considerations was adopted for the specific plan. This project is consistent with the planned land uses within the shopping center. Mitigation measures identified in EIR 85-2 have been incorporated into the Tustin Annex Master Plan or would be required as conditions of approval which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the program EIR. Attachment A Environmental Evaluation CUP 94-023; DR 94-030 Page 8 Sources: Field Verification Submitted Plans Tustin City Code Certified EIR 85-2 -. ~ East ~Tustin. Specifi.c Plan, Mitiqation/Monitorinq Required: Adherence to and compliance with the guidelines and provisions of the East Tustin Specific Plan would ensure that the development of the proposed restaurant and drive-thru complies with mitigation measures specified in the certified EIR 85-2. . NATURAL RESOURCES Items A and B - "No": The project site is within the Specific Plan area for which the certified EIR 85-2 identified no impacts to the project site related to the proposed development and the resultant negative effects to natural resources. Mitigation measures were identified in EIR 85-2 · regarding natural resources. Those mitigation measures identified in the program EIR 85-2 have been incorporated into East Tustin projects, where applicable. sources: Field Verification Submitted Plans Tustin City Code Certified EIR 85-2 East Tustin Specific Plan Mitiqation/Monitorinq Required: No mitigation measures are required. t0. RISK OR UPSET Items A and B - "No": The project site is within the Specific Plan area for which the certified EIR 85-2 identified no impacts to the project site related to the proposed deVelopment and the resultant negative effects from risk of upset. Sources: Field Verification Submitted Plang Tustin City Code Certified EIR 85-2 East Tustin Specific Plan Mitiqation/Monitorinq Required: No mitigation measures are Attachment A Environmental Evaluation CUP 94-023; DR 94-030 Page 9 required. 11. POPULATION "Yes":. This .project site~ is..within .the ETSP area for which the certified EIR 85-2 identified 'impacts frock'the plan on population. The City Council considered the benefits of the specific plan and balanced those benefits against the project's unavoidable effect. A Statement of Overriding Considerations was adopted for the specific plan. Consequently, mitigation measures were identified in EIR 85-2. Development of the proposed restaurant and drive-thru would not add population to the East Tustin area since it is a commercial project. The project would provide a service to the existing and planned population. . Sources: Field Verification Submitted Plans Tustin City Code Certified EIR 85-2 East Tustin Specific Plan Mitiqation/Monitorinq Required: No mitigation measures are required for this project. 12. HOUSING "No": This project site is within the ETSParea for which the certified EIR 85-2 identified impacts on housing. Mitigation measures were identified in EIR 85-2 relating to new housing developments. Since this project is a commercial development and there will not be any impacts on housing and no mitigation measures are required. Sources: Field Verification Submitted Plans Tustin City Code Certified EIR 85-2 East Tustin Specific Plan Mitigation/Monitorinq Required: No mitiganion measures are required. 13. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION Items A ~and B - "Yes": The site is within the specific plan area for which EIR 85-2 identified impacts related to traffic. Attachment A Environmental Evaluation CUP 94-023; DR 94-030 Page 10 Implementation of the Specific Plan will result in an increase of vehicular traffic and the need for improved transportation and circulation facilities. Consistent with the requirements of CEQA, EIR 85-2 discusses environmental effects in .proportion to their severity and probability of occurrence. Moreover, in the process of preparmng EIR "85-2 it~ was determined that, given the level of specificity of planning for the project, certain impacts, including infrastructure engineering plans, could be more comprehensively addressed with subsequent, focused studies as part of future discretionary actions (i.e., subdivision maps, grading permits, etc.). EIR 85-2 also states that no significant adverse impacts beyond those discussed in the EIR are anticipated as a result of subsequent focused studies. However, the Tustin City Council reserved the p~wer to incorporate any measure, including off-site traffic improvements recommended by such subsequent studies. Therefore, during the evaluation of Tract 14.610 a detailed, project-specific traffic analysis was prepared by a licensed traffic engineer and reviewed by Community Development Department staff and the City Traffic Engineer. The analysis evaluates on-site circulation, existing on-street traffic conditions, specific plan area buildout traffic forecasts obtained from the ETSP, and capacity impacts of project- generated traffic. During design review of this project, on-site and off-site traffic impacts were reviewed. Exhibit A is a queuing study prepared for this restaurant/drive-thru project, which concludes that the amount of stacking distance and the "three- window" operation is adequate to serve this project. This proposed fast-food restaurant will generate approximately 150 p.m. peak hour trips, which is a substantial increase over the allocation, for a restaurant in the Tustin Annex Traffic Analysis, dated January 22, 1992. The entire Tustin Annex site is allocated 1308 p.m. peak hour trips per the East Tustin Specific Plan, Traffic Analysis Zone #42. With this proposal, 195 p.m. peak hour trips remain without additional mitigation being required. The amount of additional retail and financial uses (24,000 square feet) originally anticipated for construction in this center can be accommodated without additional mitigation. However, should future uses be more intense than originally anticipated, additional environmental review will be necessary and further mitigation measures may be necessary. Therefore, the project is consistent with EIR 85-2 and the ETSP, and original traffic mitigation measures remain valid. Attachment A Environmental Evaluation CUP 94-023; DR 94-030 Page 11 Items C, D, E, and F - "No": The project site is within the specific plan. area for which EIR 85-2 identified impacts related to the development and resultant negative effects on transportation and circulation. There are no · signi£icant~ new environmental~ impacts created by. the proposed project which were not 'considered in the previous program EIR 85-2 and additionally referenced documents. Mitigation measures identified in the certified EIR and recommended for implementation have been incorporated into the submitted plans, or will be included as conditions of approval for the project. Sources: Field Verification Submitted Plans Tustin City Code Certified EIR 85-2 East Tustin Specific Plan Mitiqation/Monitorinq Required: Conditions of approval required that Tract 14610, and any portion thereof, meet the requirements of the ETSP, Ordinance No. 1062, Tustin City Code and City parking standards. Further, adherence to and compliance with those provisions and standards will ensure t'hat the development of the proposal complies with mitigation measures specified in certified EIR 85-2. 14. PUBLIC SERVICES Items A throuqh F-'"Yes": Implementation of this project to construct a 2,900 square foot restaurant, will not result in an increase in the demand for and utilization of public services, since it is proposed to be located within an existing shopping center that is already receiving public services. The subject site is within the Specific Plan area for which the certified EIR 85-2 identified potential impacts from the proposed development and the resultant negative effects to public services. The City Council considered the benefits of the specific plan and balanced those benefits against the project's unavoidable effects. A Statement of Overriding Considerations was adopted for the specific plan. Additionally, mitigation measures were identified in EIR 85-2 and recommended for implementation. This proposal has incorporated those measures related to public services into either the submitted plans or will be included in the conditions of approval, where applicable, for the subject project. Sources: Field Verification Attachment A Environmental Evaluation CUP 94-023; DR 94-030 Page 12 Submitted Plans Tustin City Code Certified EIR 85-2 East Tustin Specific Plan 'Mitigation/Monit0ring Required: MeaSures identified in certified EIR 85-2, such as that stating the project sponsor shall work closely with the Police Department, the Orange County Fire Department, Tustin Unified School District, and other governmental services to ensure adequate security, safety and services for the project have been incorporated into the project. All measures identified in the certified EIR 85-2, as applicable, have been incorporated into the project as submitted or will be incorporated as conditions of approval. . 15. ENERGY Items A and B - "Yes": The project will minimally increase the demand for and consumption of energy, since it is only a 2,900 square foot building which will not have a high energy demand. The project site is within the Specific Plan area for which certified EIR 85-2 identified impacts of the proposed development and the resultant negative effects to energy. The City Council considered the benefits of the specific plan and balanced those benefits against the project's unavoidable effects. A Statement of Overriding Considerations was adopted for the specific plan. Consequently, mitigation measures were identified in EIR 85-2. This proposal has incorporated those measures related to energy into either the submitted plans or will be included in the conditions of approval, where applicable, for the subject project. Sources: Field Verification Submitted Plans Tustin City COde Certified EIR 85-2 East Tustin Specific Plan Mitiqation/Monitorinq Required: Mitigation measures identified in certified EIR 85-2, require that building construction shall comply with the Energy Conservation Standards set forth in Title 24 of the California Administrative Code, and that energy conservation techniques be considered. Mitigation measures related to energy, as applicable, have been incorporated into the project as submitted or will be incorporated as conditions of approval. Attachment A Environmental Evaluation CUP 94-023; DR 94-030 Page 13 16. UTILITIES Items A throuqh F - "Yes": The project will ~ot significantly increase the demand for utilities due to its relatively small size and scale when compared to the surrounding existing developments within the Tustin Annex' The'project site is within the Specific Plan area for which the certified EIR 85-2' identified impacts to the project site related to the proposed development and the resultant negative effects to utilities. The City Council considered the benefits of the specific plan and balanced those benefits against the project's unavoidable effects on the use of utilities. A Statement of Overriding Considerations was adopted for the specific plan. Mitigation measures were identified in EIR 85-2 where feasible. This proposal has incorporated those measures related to utilities into either the submitted plans or will be include~ in the conditions of approval, where applicable, for the subject project. Sources: Field Verification Submitted Plans Tustin City Code Certified EIR 85-2 East Tustin Specific Plan Mitiqation/Monitorinq Required: Mitigation measures identified in certified EIR 85-2, require that water conservation methods as required by state law, Energy Conservation Standards and building construction techniques as set forth in Title 24 of the California Administrative Code, and other measures be implemented to 'mitigate potential effects on utilities. Applicable mitigation measures have been incorporated into the project as submitted or will be incorporated as conditions of approval. 17. HI/MAN HEALTH Items A and B - "No": The project site is within the Specific Plan area for which certified EIR 85-2 identified impacts to the project site related to the proposed development and the resultant negative effects to human health. %his project will not have significant effects on human health since it is a minor new development. Consequently, mitigation measures were identified in EIR 85-2. This proposal has incorporated those measures related to human health into either the submitted plans or will be included in the conditions of approval, where applicable, for the subject project. Attachment A Environmental Evaluation CUP 94-023; DR 94-030 Page 14 Sources: Field Verification Submitted Plans Tustin City Code Certified EIR 85-2 East Tustin Specific Plan Mitigation/Monitoring Required: Those measures identified in certified EIR 85-2, related to human health such as the prevention of construction generated dust, as applicable, have been incorporated into the project as submitted or will be incorporated as conditions of approval. 18. SOLID WASTE "Yes": The project site is within the Specific Plan area for which the certified EIR 85-2 identified impacts to the project site related to the proposed development and the resultant negative effects of solid waste. Consequently, mitigation measures were identified in EIR 85-2. This proposal has incorporated those measures related to solid waste into either the submitted plans or will be included in the conditions of approval, where applicable, for the subject project. Sources: Field Verification Submitted Plans Tustin City Code Certified EIR 85-2 East Tustin Specific Plan Mitigation/Monitoring Required: Those measures identified in certified EIR 85-2, related to the removal of solid waste, as applicable, have been incorporated into the project as submitted or will be incorporated as conditions of approval. 19. AESTHETICS "No": The proposed 2,900 square foot restaurant and drive- thru requires the processing of a Design Review application by the Community Development Department.~ The project is compatible to size, scale and appearance of existing developments within the Tustin Annex. The project is within the ETSP Area and the certified EIR 85-2 identified impacts to the project site related to the proposed development and the resultant negative effects to aesthetics. Consequently, mitigation measures were identified through design review in conjunction with EIR 85-2. Attachment A Environmental Evaluation CUP 94-023; DR 94-030 Page 15 This proposal has incorporated those measures related to aesthetics into either the submitted plans or will be included in the conditions of approval, where applicable, for the subject project. ' . Sources: Field Verification Submitted Plans Tustin City Code Certified EIR 85-2 East Tustin Specific Plan Mitiqation/Monitorinq Required: Those measures identified in certified EIR 85-2, such as those stating that architectural and site design reflect the Urban Design Guidelines section of the ETSP, as applicable, have been incorporated %nto the project as submitted or would be incorporated as conditions of approval. 20. RECREATION "No": The proposed project is within the Specific Plan area and the certified EIR 85-2 identified impacts to the project site related to the proposed development and the resultant negative effects to recreation. Since this project is a commercial development, there are no impacts' on recreation. Sources: Field Verification Submitted Plans Tustin City Code Certified EIR 85-2 East Tustin Specific Plan Mitiqation/Monitorinq Required: There are no mitigation measures required for this project. 21. CULTURAL RESOURCES Items A throuqh D -"No": This project is within the Specific Plan area and the certified EIR 85-2 identified impacts to the project site related to the proposed development and the resultant negative effects to cultural resources. This project is not within an area identified as an archaeological site. Consequently, mitigation measures were identified in EIR 85-2. This proposal has incorporated those measures related to cultural resources into either the submitted plans or will be included in the conditions of approval, where applicable, for nhe subject project. Attachment A' Environmental Evaluation CUP 94-023; DR 94-030 Page 16 Sources: Field Verification Submitted Plans Tustin City Code Certified EIR 85-2 East Tustin Specific Plan Mitiqation/Monitoring Required: measures required for this project. There are no mitigation 22. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE Items A, B, C and D - "No": The project in and of itself will not cause negative impacts to wildlife habitat nor achieve any short-term environmental goals, nor have impacts which are potentially individually limited but are cumulatively considerable and could potentially have an indirect adverse impact on human beings. The program EIR 85-2 addressed all of these concerns and this project is fully within the scope of that discussion. Source: Submitted plans Certified EIR 85-2 Mitiqation/Monitorinq Required: None PART IV - DETERMINATION FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 94-023 AND DESIGN REVIEW 94-030 On the basis of this initial evaluation: I find that the proposed project HAS utilized all feasible mitigation measures as identified in Final Environmental Impact Report 85-2 certified on March 17, 1986, and subsequently adopted supplements and addenda. The program EIR 85-2 for the East Tustin Specific Plan is adequate to serve as the program EIR- as significant impacts were identified and Corresponding mitigation measures were recommended to be incorporated into the approval process for individual projects. Therefore, no additional documentation is required. SP: mp\CUP94023. ENV A! WPA_ Traffic Engineering, Inc. TRAFFIC & TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERING November 10, 1994 Mr. Howard Burns McDonald's Corporation 4370 La Jolla Village Drive, Suite 800 San Diego, CA 9212i SUBJECT: McDONALD'S, TUSTIN Dear Mr. Burns: This letter report summarizes our review of the adequacy of the drive-through lane storage ['or the proposed McDonald's restaurant at Tustin Ranch Road and Bryan Avenue in the City of Tusfin. The review was based upon information provided by you and · previous studies by our firm. The proposed restaurant would be located in the northeasterly comer of a part/ally developed shopping center. A building area Of 2,871 square feet (SF) is proposed. The restaurant would have a drive-through lane with a "three window" operation. This operation provides separate windows for ordering, paying, and food pick-up. The drive- through lane has storage for nine vehicles from the pick-up window to the end of the separated lane. Several studies have been conducted by our firm of drive-through lane storage requirement~ at McDonald's restaurants. The following paragraphs summarize the findings from these studies. RRn T,an~,.qdorxe Dv~v~ · ,quit~ :2~2 · Fnlle?tnn. CA 021531 · (7141 871-2931 * FAX:(714] 871-43389 -2- Mt;Donald's, Imperial Highway, Norwalk Field studies were conducted on a Thursday, Friday, and Saturday from 11:00 AM to 2:00 PM and on Thursday and Friday from 4:00 PM to 6:00 PM. The number of vehicles in the drive-through queue were recorded by five minute intervals. The maximum number of vehicles observed was nine during' the noon period on Friday. At all other periods, the number of vehicles in the queue was a maximum of eight. McDonald'.s, Via De La Valle, Del Mar This restaurant was observed on a Tuesday, Wednesday, and :~riday ['rom 11:00 AM to ~:00 PM and from 4::00 PM to 6:00 PM. The maximum number of vehicles in the queue was 12, which occun:ed once on Friday at 11'.50 AM. On two occasions, 11 vehicles wcrc observed and on two other occasions, 10 vehicles were observed. It is also important to note that this restaurant i~ one o£ thc busiest McDonald's in southern California and has very good freeway exposure and access. Cam,parable McDonald's A survey was made of other McDonald's drive-through facilities in Orange County with-relafively high sales activity. The following vehicle storage .. provisions were found. Loc~lJorl · 5062 Oran§ethorpe, La Palma · 1100 N. StaTe College, Anaheim · 154I $. ]3rookhurst, Fullerton · 8~5 E. Imperial, Brea Drive.Through Storage 8 8 1 7 These data from studies of other McDonald's restaurants with drive-through facilities support the adequacy of the proposed plan. The only facility which had brief periods when a queue of' 10, 11, or It vehicles were observed, was thc Via De La Valle facility, which is unique. 11/15."94 08-$6 '~ ~35 8944 )~¢D SD 1~002 Ii' I 0 or I 1 vehicles do queue at the proposed facility, no blockage o£principai circulation routes within the center wotild occur. The site is located well away/'rom shopping center driveways so that any overflow of the drive-through lane. would not impact traffic movements in the center. Any congestion caused by the drive-through lane would only affect the l~fc]3onald's site. In summary, chis review indicates that the proposed drive-through lane for the McDonald's restaurant at T, sdn Ranch Road and Bryan Avenue Would have adequate vehicle storage provisions. This conclusion is based upon data and observations of similar operations throughout southern CaIifornia. The proposed f'acilitv is-also a "three window" operation, which has been shown to be the most efficient operation. Finally, any overflow of' the drive-through lane would not impact traffic operations within the shopping center. We trust that this review v4ll be of assistance to you and the City of Tustin. If you have any questions or require additional information, please contact us. Respectfully submitted, WPA TRAFFIC F-aNGINEERING, INC. Weston S. Pringle, P.E. Registered Pro£essional En~neer State of California Numbers C16828 & TR565 WSP:ca #94:1320 10 11 12 13 14 16 17 18 19 2O 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 RESOLUTION NO. 3329 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN, CONDITIONALLY APPROVING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 94-023 AND DESIGN REVIEW 94-030 TO ALLOW CONSTRUCTION OF A 2,871-SQUARE FOOT FAST-FOOD RESTAURANT WITH DRIVE-THRU SERVICE LOCATED AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF TUSTIN RANCH ROAD AND BRYAN AVENUE ON LOT 1 OF TRACT 14610. The Planning Commission of the City of Tustin does hereby resolve as follows: I . The Planning Commission findS and determines as follows: Ao That proper applications for conditional Use Permit 94-023 and Design Review 94-030 were filed on behalf of McDonald's Corporation requesting approval of a 2,871-square foot fast-food restaurant with drive-thru service at the southeast corner of Tustin Ranch Road and Bryan Avenue on Lot 1 of Tract 14610. m . That a public hearing was duly called, noticed and held on said applications on January 23, 1995 by the Planning Commission. C o Pursuant to Section 9272 of the Tustin MUnicipal Code-, the Commission finds that the location, size, architectural features and general appearance of Design Review 93-005 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. S . 'Size and spacing of windows, doors and other openings. . Towers, chimneys, roof structures, flagpoles, radio and television antennae. ATTACHMENT A 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2O 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Resolution No. 3329 Page 2 m o o Landscaping, parking area design and traffic circulation. . o 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 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 c~iteria as adopted by the City Council. That establishment, maintenance., and operation of drive-through service 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, evidenced by the following, findings: On-site traffic concerns have generally been mitigated through the separation of the drive-through aisle from the on-site parking. The potential for pedestrian/vehicle conflicts has been mitigated through the construction of two internally illuminated signs reading, "pedestrian crossing" at the crosswalk on the west side of the restaurant. Further, the textured brick pavers proposed for the crosswalk surface will visually and textually alert drivers to the crosswalk. 3.. Off-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 proposed speed of service, aided by the location and design of the 10 11 .12 13 15 16 17 18 19 2O 21 22 23 ~24 25 26 28 Resolution No. 3329 Page 3 E o menu order window, pay window, pick-up window, and length of drive-thru lane. The use will not create a noise nuisance as the proposed loudspeaker will be used infrequently and shall conform to the Tustin Noise Ordinance and shall be designed so as not to impact adjacent commercial properties. The fast food restaurant would be open from 6:00 a.m. to 11:00 p.m., Sunday through Thursday, 6:00 a.m. to 12 midnight, Friday and Saturday, compatible with other uses in the center. o The project, as conditioned, would provide adequate screening around the drive-thru aisle through the use of earthen berms and masonry walls to ensure that vehicle movements and headlights do not visually impact the adjacent streets or surrounding properties. o The project, as conditioned, would ensure that there would be continuous screening at the corner of Tustin Ranch Road and Bryan Avenue,. by relocating the pedestrian path approximately 15 feet to· the south. ~ · . The use would not create offensive odors as the proposed' operation does not utilize a char-broiler method for cooking. That the' establishment, maintenance and operation of the proposed use will not be injurious or detrimental to the property and improvements in the neighborhood of the subject property, nor to the general welfare of the City of Tustin as stated above. 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 or has been conditioned to be consistent with the Air Quality Sub-Element. 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 28 Resolution No. 3329 Page 4 II. The Planning Commission hereby approves Conditional Use Permit 94-023 and Design Review 94-030 allowing construction of a 2,871-square foot fast-food restaurant with drive-thru service at the southeast corner of Tustin Ranch Road and Bryan Avenue on Lot 1 of Tract 14610, subject to the conditions contained in Exhibit A, attached hereto. PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Tustin Planning Commission, held on the 23rd day of January, 1995. Secretary STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) coUNTy OF ORANGE ) CITY OF TUSTIN ) I, BARBARA REYES, the undersigned, hereby certify that I am the Recording Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Tustin, California; that Resolution No. 3329 was duly passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the Tustin Planning Commission, held on the 23rd day of January, 1995. BARBARA REYES~ Recording Secretary EXHIBIT A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 94-023 AND DESIGN REVIEW 94-030 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL RESOLUTION NO. 3329 GENERAL (1) 1.1 The proposed project shall substantially conform with the submitted plans for the project'date-stamped January 23, 1995, on file with the Community Development Department, as herein modified, or as modified by the Director of Community Development Department in accordance with this Exhibit. The Director may also approve minor modifications to the plans if such modifications are determined to be consistent with the approved plans. (1) 1.2 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 Design Review and Conditional Use Permit approval shall become null and void unless all building permits are issued within eighteen (18) months of the date of this Exhibit and substantial construction is underway. (1) 1.4 The applicant and property owner shall sign and return an Agreement to Conditions Imposed form prior to issuance of building permits. (1) 1.5 The applicant shall hold and defend the City of Tustin harmless for all claims and liabilities arising out of the City's approval of the entitlement Process for this project. SOURCE CODES (1) STANDARD CONDITION (5) RESPONSIBLE AGENCY (2) CEQA MITIGATION REQUIREMENTS (3) UNIFORM BUILDING CODE/S (6) LANDSCAPING GUIDELINES (4) DESIGN REVIEW (7) PC/CC POLICY *** EXCEPTIONS Exhibit A Conditional Use Permit 94-023 and Design Review 94-030 Conditions of Approval Resolution No. 3329 Page 2 PLAN SUBMITTAL 2.1 At building plan check the following shall be submitted: (3) A. Construction plans, structural calculations, and Title 24 energy calculations. Requirements of the Uniform Building Codes, State Handicap and Energy Requirements shall be complied with as approved by the Building Official. (2) B. Preliminary technical detail and plans for all (3) utility installations including cable TV, telephone, gas, water and electricity. Additionally, a note .on plans shall be included stating that no field changes shall be made without corrections submitted to and approved by the Building Official. (2) C. Final grading and specifications consistent with the (3) site'plan and landscaping plans, prepared by a registered civil engineer for approval of the Community Development Department and based on the Orange County Surveyor's bench mark datum. (2) D. A precise soils engineering report provided by a (3) soils engineer within the previous twelve (12) months as determined by the Building Official. (4) 212 Architectural plans submitted for plan check shall bear the approval of the project architect for the center. (2) 2.3 Prior to issuance of any building permits, all requirements of the TR/TDM Program for the Center shall be satisfied, subject to review and approval of the Public Works/Engineering Division. OPERATIONAL STANDARDS (5) 3.1 The hours of operation for the restaurant and drive-thru service shall be limited to 6:00 a.m. to 11:00 p.m., Sunday through Thursday, and 6:00 a.m. to 12 midnight, Friday and Saturday. (5) 3.2 Ail loading vehicles shall be parked in designated areas and loading shall be completed during non-peak hours. Exhibit A Conditional Use Permit 94-023 and Design Review 94-030 Conditions of Approval Resolution No. 3329 Page 3 (4) 3.3 The use of the trash compactor shall be. limited to those hours between 8:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m. (4) 3.4 No Loitering signs shall be installed on the subject property with details and locations of said signs to be approved by the Community Development Department prior to issuance of building permits. SITE AND BUILDING CONDITIONS (4) 4.1 Provide exact details for exterior doors and window types on construction plans. Door and windows shall be consistent with design for the center. (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 project 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 Ail exterior accent colors to be used shall be subject to review approval of the Community Development Department and shall be consistent with samples provided on the color board. 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 for all lighting fixtures. Note locations on site plan and building elevations. One footcandle of light throughout the parking lot and drive- thru aisle is required. Fixtures on building and in playland shall be of a decorative design. Freestanding fixtures in the parking area shall match existing : fixtures in the Center. (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-foot-high chain linked fence shall be installed around the site prior to building construction stages. Gated entrances shall be permitted along the perimeter of the site for construction vehicles. Exhibit A Conditional Use Permit 94-023 and Design Review 94-030 Conditions .of Approval Resolution No. 3329 Page 4 (1) 4.7 Exterior (4) indicate elevations of the building shall any 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 Ail roof access shall be provided from the inside of the building. (4) 4.9 No exterior downspouts shall be permitted; all roof drainage shall utilize 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 Roof 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 enclosing in the building or boxed behind a screen wall designed consistent with the main building. (4) 4.13 Note on plans that outdoor storage shall be prohibited. (4) 4.14 The pedestrian walkway and drive-thru crosswalk shall be relocated approximately 15 feet south of the proposed location, to be perpendicular to Tustin Ranch Road right- of-way in order to ensure adequate screening of the drive-thru lane at the intersection of Tustin Ranch Road and Bryan Avenue. The walkway shall be designed in compliance with ADA, handicap accessibility requirements. (4) 4.15 The decorative columns on the south and east elevations of the building should be increased in depth 6 to 12 inches, to be consistent with design details of buildings within the Center, subject to final approval by the Community Development Department. Exhibit A Conditional Use Permit 94-023 and Design Review 94-030 Conditions of Approval Resolution No. 3329 Page 5 NOISE (1) 5.1 Ail construction operations including engine warm up shall be subject to the provisions of the City of Tustin Noise Ordinance and shall take place 'only during the hours of 7:00 a.m. until 6:00 p.m., Monday through Friday 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 unless other construction noise standards are subsequently adopted by the City Council in which case said new standards shall be complied with. (4) 5.2 Intercom speaker boxes and equipment for drive-thru facilities shall be subject to the provisions of the City of Tustin Noise Ordinance and shall be located to the satisfaction of the Community Development Department staff so that no noise is directed toward adjoining businesses and properties. LANDSCAPING, GROUNDS AND HARDSCAPE ELEMENTS (1) 6.1 Submit at plan check complete detailed landscaping 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. Provide summary table applying indexing identification to plant materials in their actual location. The plant table shall list botanical and common 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 type, spacing and coverage. .Details for all equipment shall be provided. 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 Exhibit A Conditional Use Permit 94-023 and Design Review 94-030 Conditions of Approval Resolution No. 3329 Page 6 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) 6.2 The submitted landscaping plans at plan check shall reflect the following requirements: ae 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. · Ground Cover shall be planted between 8 to 12 inches on center. C · When 1 gallon plant sizes are used, the spacing may vary according to materials used. D · 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 plants. (5) 6.3 Ail landscaping should be kept below the window areas to maintain visibility. (4) 6.4 The landscaping and site plans shall be modified where applicable, to include the following items: A· A row of 5 gallon dwarf oleanders or other alternative shrub shall be provided at the southeast corner of the building, between the turf area and the service sidewalk. · Boston Ivy proposed along the screen wall along the outside of the drive aisle shall be eliminated and replaced with creeping fig or other alternative vines consistent with the City's Landscape and Irrigation Guidelines and, where possible, bougainvillea or other alternative vine, shall be planted as accent landscaping along the screen wall adjacent to the drive-thru lane. Exhibit A Conditional Use Permit 94-023 and Design Review 94-030 Conditions of Approval Resolution No. 3329 Page ? Ce De E~ Fo Pursuant to Section 3.8.3I of the ETSP, an opaque screen of not less than 30 inches nor more than 42 inches shall be provided to screen the parking area located .at the southwest corner of the subject site, adjacent to Tustin Ranch Road. The site plan indicates the 4 stalls are proposed to be at an elevation of 92 feet and the adjacent earthen berm is at an elevation of 93 feet. An additional opaque screen (wall or berm) shall be provided to reach an elevation of 94.5 feet adjacent to the west side of the four proposed parking spaces. The existing masonry wall located north of the drive-thru lane along the Bryan Avenue frontage shall be increased in height by 1.5 feet, from the easternmost edge of the drive-thru lane to the western terminus of the wall, in order to provide a solid screen 3.5 feet above the finished grade of the drive-thru aisle. The screen wall proposed around the northwest corner of the subject site shall be relocated to be closer to the curb of the drive-thru lane in order to avoid the removal of the existing olive trees at this intersection. In addition, the height of this wall shall be increased to provide 3.5 feet of vertical screening above the elevation of the drive-thru lane. An additional screen wall shall be provided along the west side of the drive-thru aisle adjacent to Tustin Ranch Road (approximately 110 feet in length from the southern end of the proposed corner screen wall to the southern terminus of the drive-thru lane, which is north of the required screening noted in Condition 6.4C.) to provide 3.5 feet of vertical screening above the elevation of the drive-thru lane. (1) 6.5 Ail landscaping shall be maintained in a healthy condition such that all plant materials are evenly cut, evenly edged, free of bare or brown spots, free of debris, weeds or dead vegetation. Exhibit A Conditional Use Permit 94-023 and Design Review 94-030 Conditions of Approval Resolution No. 3329 Page 8 SIGNS (4) 7.1 Business identification wall signs, including logos, shall comply with the following standards: a · Tenant identification shall be limited to a maximum of 240 square feet aggregate copy area allocated as desired among up to four building elevations. Any deviation in excess of that shall be approved by the Director of the Community Development Department. (4.) 7.2 Ail incidental signs for this project including entry, exit, yield and handicap signs, shall be designed consistent with such signage used elsewhere in the center, subject to review and approval by the Community Development and Public Works Departments. (4) 7.3 No sign component shall flash, blink or be otherwise animated. Such animation is strictly prohibited. (4) 7.4 Two internally illuminated "Pedestrian Crossing" signs shall be installed adjacent to the drive-thru: one on the north side of the building adjacent to the pick-up window and the other on the west side of the building, next to the textured pedestrian walkway. *** 7.5 Ail exterior illuminated signs shall be installed on a timer so that the illumination is turned off at the closing time of the establishment. (4) 7.6 The sign copy on the proposed tower signs shall have an opaque background, except for the "M" logo. WATER QUALITY MANAGEMENT PLAN (5) 8.1 Prior to issuance of building permits, 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 Exhibit A Conditional Use Permit 94-023 and Design Review 94-030 Conditions of Approval Resolution No. 3329 Page 9 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. FIRE DEPARTMENT (5) 9.1 Prior to installation, plans for an approved fire- suppression system for the protection of commercial-type cooking equipment shall be sUbmitted to the Fire Chief for approval. (5) 9.2 Prior to the issuance of any grading permit, street improvement plans with fire lanes shown shall be submitted to and approved by the Fire Chief. Indicate the locations of red curbing and signage. Provide a drawing of the proposed signage with the height, stroke and color of lettering and the contrasting background color. (5) 9.3 Prior to the issuance of any building permits, construction details for any emergency access gate shall be submitted to and approved by the Fire Chief. Contact the Orange County Fire Department at (714) 744-6623 for a copy of the "Guidelines for Fire Department Emergency Access." (5) 9.4 The following notes shall be provided on the site plan: no Fire Department Final Inspection Required. Schedule inspection 2 days in advance. Phone (714) 832-1011. Locations and classification of extinguisher to be determined by the fire inspector. C o Storage, dispensing or use of any flammable and combustible liquids, flammable and compressed gasses and other hazardous materials shall comply v;ith Uniform Fire Code Regulations. Exhibit A Conditional Use Permit 94-023 and Design Review 94-030 Conditions of Approval Resolution No. 3329 Page 10 De E, Building(s) not approved for high piled combustible storage. Materials in closely packed piles shall not exceed 15 feet in height, 122 feet on pallets or in racks and 6 feet for tires, plastics and some flammable liquids if high stock piling, comply with UFC, Art. 81 and NFPAS Std. 231, 231C and 231D. Plans of modifications to or new fire pro~ection, detector or alarm system(s) shall be approved by the Fire Department prior to installation. FEES (1) 10.1 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: A, 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. · 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. Ce School facilities fees to the Tustin Unified School District, subject to any agreement reached and executed between the District and applicant. D· Sewer and water connection fees to the Irvine Ranch Water District, and E. Major thoroughfare and bridge fees 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. Exhibit A Conditional Use Permit 94-023 and Design Review 94-030 Conditions of Approval Resolution No. 3329 Page 11 *** 10.2 Within forty-eight (48) hours of approval of (5) the subject project, the applicant shall deliver to the Community Development Department, a cashier's check payable to the COUNTY CLERK in the amount of $25.00 (twenty five dollars) pursuant to AB 3158, Chapter 1706, Statues of 1990, to enable the City to file the Notice of Determination required under Public Resources Code Section 21152 and 14 Cal. Code of Regulations 15075. If within such forty-eight (48) hour period that applicant has not delivered to the Community Development Department the above-noted check, the approval for the project granted herein shall be considered automatically null and void. January 31, 1995 Bill Huston City Manager 300 Centennial Way Tustin, CA 92680 Dear Bill, I am writing to you concerning the appeal of the conditional use permit granted to McDonald's by the City of Tustin planning commission. The permit was granted by a 3-2 vote with t~vo heavily dissenting. After our face to face conversation of 1-26-95, you indicated that the appeal fee was put in place really for developers since they tend to appeal often. You also indicated that it was not enacted to prevent citizens from using the process and interacting with their city government to whom they pay taxes, and also for who the government is worldng for and elected by. I was contacted by Rita Westfield who informed me that I could write to you (i.e. this letter) and you in xxwiting could give to me a waiver of the $825.00 appeal fee. ATTACHMENT B I am now asldng for your help and would appreciate a quick response as the appeal deadline is 2-6-95. I don't feel this waiver in any way can be detrimental to the city, on the contrary it would show good will by the City of Tustin to its residents. The City could send a message that it cares and wants the people who pay to run the city to be involved and have a voice in their community. The concerns of the appeal will be those indicated in the three news articles (see enclosed) also, some other concerns may be brought up such as city liability for granting the permit under a Nuisance Theory. See California Civil Code part 3 Nuisance Title 1, 2 & 3 Section 3479-3503, Govt. Code Article 6 Nuisances Sections 38771, 38773, 38773.5, 86 ALR 998, 2 ALRad 437, not limited to these sections, and Govt. Code Section 26528 abatement by district attorney, Also attached Nuisance cases against cities. The Nuisance involved could be argued as either private or public depending on the individual or individuals bringing it. I would urge you as the City Manager to allow the $825.00 fee waiver so that the city can take another good hard look at this project. All we are asldng is a chance for our elected officials to hear us out. We were given no notice prior to that mailed to us by the city concerning the planning commission meeting. I think it is only fair that we be heard in front of our City Council. I truly appreciate you time and effort in this matter. Please feel free to contact me at home (714) 730-6514 or work (714) 647-2123, My home address is 13512 Pecan Lane, Tustin, CA 92680 (Sycamore Glenn, Tustin Ranch). Sincerely, Cole Othmer cc: Tom Saltarelli 1 RESOLUTION NO. 95-20 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2O 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA, FINDING THAT FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (EIR) FOR THE EAST TUSTIN SPECIFIC PLAN (FINAL EIR 85-2, AS MODIFIED BY SUBSEQUENTLY ADOPTED SUPPLEMENTS AND ADDENDA) IS ADEQUATE TO SERVE AS THE PROGRAM EIR FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 94-023 AND DESIGN REVIEW 94-030 AND ALL FEASIBLE MITIGATION MEASURES HAVE BEEN INCORPORATED AS REQUIRED BY THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT. The Ci'ty Council of the City of Tustin does hereby resolve as follows- I. The City Council finds and determines as follows: A. That Conditional Use Permit 94-023 and Design Review 94-030 are considered "projects" pursuant to the terms of the California Environmental Quality Act; and · That the projects are covered by a previously- certified Final Environmental Impact Report for the East Tustin Specific Plan which serves as a Program EIR for the proposed project. II. The East Tustin Specific Plan Final Environmental Impact Report (85-2) previously certified on March 17, 1986, and modified by subsequently adopted supplements and addenda, was considered prior to approval of this project. The City Council hereby finds: this project is within the scope of the East Tustin Specific Plan previously approved; the effects of this project, relating to grading, drainage, circulation, public services and utilities, were examined in the Program EIR. Ail feasible mitigation measures and alternatives developed in the Program EIR are incorporated into this project. The Final EIR is, therefore, determined to be adequate to serve as a Program EIR for this project and satisfies all requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act. Based on EIR 85-2, the City Council has found that the project involves no potential for any adverse effect, either individually or cumulatively, on wildlife resources and therefore makes a De Minimis Impact Finding related to AB 3158, Chapter 1706, Statutes of 1990. 10 11 12 13 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 28 Resolution No. 95-20 Page 2 Applicable mitigation measures identified in the Final EIR have been incorporated into this project which mitigates any potential significant environmental effects thereof. The mitigation measures are identified as Conditions of Approval on Exhibit A of City Council Resolution No. 95-21 approving Conditional Use Permit 94-023 and Design Review 94-030. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Tustin at a regular meeting held on the 21st day of February, 1995. Mary E. Wynn, City Clerk THOMAS R. SALTARELLI MAYOR STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF ORANGE ) CITY OF TUSTIN ) SS 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 Resolution No. 95-20 was duly passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the Tustin City Council, held on the 21st day of February, 1995, by the following vote: COUNCILMEMBER AYES: COUNCILMEMBER NOES: COUNCILMEMBER ABSTAINED: COUNCILMEMBER ABSENT: Mary E. Wynn, City Clerk 1 RESOLUTION NO. 95-21 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2O 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 ~i A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN, CONDITIONALLY APPROVING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 94-023 AND DESIGN REVIEW 94-030 TO ALLOW CONSTRUCTION OF A' 2,871-SQUARE FOOT FAST-FOOD RESTAURANT WITH DRIVE-THRU SERVICE LOCATED AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF TUSTIN RANCH ROAD AND BRYAN AVENUE ON LOT 1 OF TRACT 14610. The City Council of the City of Tustin does hereby resolve as follows: I. The City Council finds and determines as follows: A. · That proper applications for conditional Use Permit 94-023 and Design Review 94-030 were filed on behalf of McDonald's Corporation requesting approval of a 2,871-square foot fast-food restaurant with drive-thru service at the southeast corner of Tustin Ranch Road and Bryan Avenue on Lot 1 of Tract 14610. · That a public hearing was duly called, noticed and held on said applications on January 23, 1995 by the Planning Commission, and on February 21, 1995 by the City Council. C · Pursuant to Section 9272 of the Tustin Municipal Code, the Council finds that the location, size, architectural features and general appearance of Design Review 93-005 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. · Size and spacing of windows, doors and other openings. ~ Towers, chimneys, roof structures, flagpoles, radio and television antennae. 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Resolution No. 95-21 Page 2 . Landscaping, parking area design and traffic circulation. D · 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 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. That establishment, maintenance, and operation of drive-through service 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, evidenced by the following findings: · On-site traffic concerns have generally been mitigated through the separation of the drive-through aisle from the on-site parking. The potential for pedestrian/vehicle conflicts has been mitigated through the construction of two internally illuminated signs reading, "pedestrian crossing" at the crosswalk on the west side of the restaurant. Further, the textured brick pavers proposed for the crosswalk surface will visually and textually alert drivers to the crosswalk. 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2O 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Resolution No. 95-21 Page 3 E · · Off-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 proposed speed of service, aided by the location and design of the menu order window, pay window, pick-up window, and 'length of drive-thru lane. , The use will not create a noise nuisance as the proposed loudspeaker will be used infrequently and shall conform to the Tustin Noise Ordinance and shall be designed so as not to impact adjacent commercial properties. · The fast food restaurant would be open from 6:00 a.m. to 11:00 p.m., Sunday through Thursday, 6:00 a.m. to 12 midnight, Friday and Saturday, compatible with other uses in the center. · The project, as conditioned, would provide adequate screening around the drive-thru aisle through the use of earthen berms and masonry walls to ensure that vehicle movements and headlights do not visually impact the adjacent streets or surrounding properties. · The project, as conditioned, would ensure that there would be continuous screening at the corner of Tustin Ranch Road and Bryan Avenue, by relocating the pedestrian path approximately 15 feet to the south. · The use would not create offensive odors as the proposed operation does not utilize a char-broiler method for cooking. That the establishment, maintenance and operation of the proposed use will not be injurious or detrimental to the property and improvements in the neighborhood of the subject property, nor to the general welfare of the City of Tustin as stated above. 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Resolution No. 95-21 Page 4 F · 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 or has been conditioned to be consistent with the Air Quality Sub-Element. II. The City Council hereby approves Conditional Use Permit 94-023 and Design Review 94-030 allowing construction of a 2,871-square foot fast-food restaurant with drive-thru service at the southeast corner of Tustin Ranch Road and Bryan Avenue on Lot 1 of Tract 14610, subject to the conditions contained in Exhibit A, attached hereto. PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Tustin City Council, held on the 21st day of February, 1995. Mary E. Wynn, City Clerk THOMAS R. SALTARELLI MAYOR STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF ORANGE ) CITY OF TUSTIN ) SS 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 Resolution No. 95-21 was duly passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the Tustin City Council, held on the 21st day of February, 1995, by the following vote: COUNCILMEMBER AYES: COUNCILMEMBER NOES: COUNCILMEMBER ABSTAINED: COUNCILMEMBER ABSENT: Mary E. Wynn, City Clerk 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 EXHIBIT A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 94-023 AND DESIGN REVIEW 94-030 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL RESOLUTION NO. 95-21 GENERAL (1) 1;1 The proposed project shall substantially conform with the submitted plans for the project date-stamped February 21, 1995, on file with the Community Development Department, as herein modified, or as modified by the Director of Community Development Department in accordance with this Exhibit. The Director may also approve minor modifications to the plans if such modifications are determined to be consistent with the approved plans. (1) 1.2 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 Design Review and Conditional Use Permit approval shall become null and void unless all building permits are issued within eighteen (18) months of the date of this Exhibit and substantial construction is underway. (1) 1.4 The applicant and property owner shall sign and return an Agreement to Conditions Imposed form prior to issuance of building permits. (1) 1.5 The applicant shall hold and defend the City of Tustin harmless for all claims and liabilities arising out of the City's approval of the entitlement process for this project. SOURCE CODES (1) STANDARD CONDITION (5) RESPONSIBLE AGENCY (2) CEQA MITIGATION REQUIREMENTS (3) UNIFORM BUILDING CODE/S (6) LANDSCAPING GUIDELINES (4) DESIGN REVIEW (7) PC/CC POLICY *** EXCEPTIONS PLAN SUBMITTAL 2.1 At building plan check the following shall be submitted: (3) A. Construction plans, structural calculations, and Title 24 energy calculations. Requirements of the Uniform Building Codes, State Handicap and Energy Requirements shall be complied with as approved by the Building official. (2) B. Preliminary. technical detail and plans for all (3) utility installations including cable TV, telephone, gas, water and electricity. Additionally, a note on plans shall be included stating that no field changes shall be made without corrections submitted to and approved by the Building official. (2) C. Final grading and specifications consistent with the (3) site plan and landscaping plans, prepared by a registered civil engineer for approval of the Community Development Department and based on the Orange County Surveyor's bench mark datum. (2) D. A precise soils engineering report provided by a (3) soils engineer within the previous twelve (12) months as determined by the Building Official. (4) 2.2 Architectural plans submitted for plan check shall bear the approval of the project architect for the center. (2) 2.3 Prior to issuance of any building permits, all requirements of the TR/TDM Program for the Center shall be satisfied, subject to review and approval of the Public Works/Engineering Division. OPERATIONAL STANDARDS (5) 3.1 The hours of operation for the restaurant and drive-thru service shall be limited to 6:00 a.m. to 11:00 p.m., Sunday through Thursday, and 6:00 a.m. to 12 midnight, Friday and Saturday. (5) 3,2 Ail loading vehicles shall be parked in designated areas and loading shall be completed during non-peak hours. (4) 3.3 The use of the trash compactor shall be limited to those hours between 8:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m. (4) 3.4 No Loitering signs shall be installed on the subject property with details and locations of said signs to be approved by the Community Development Department prior to issuance of building permits. Exhibit A Conditional Use Permit 94-023 and Design Review 94-030 Conditions of Approval Resolution No. 95-21 Page 3 (4) 3.5 The hours of operation of the outdoor Playland shall be limited to between 8:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m., Sunday through Thursday, and 8:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m., Friday and Saturday. (4) 3.6 Ail exterior building illumination on the west and north elevations of the restaurant shall be installed on a timer so that the illumination is turned off at the closing time of the establishment. (4) 3.7 Decorative type trash receptacles shall be permanently located on the site: adjacent to restaurant entrance/exits, in the playland and parking areas. The design and location shall be indicated on the construction plans and subject to review and approval of the Community Development Department. (4) 3.8 The hours of operation of the drive-thru facility shall be limited to between 8:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. and a physical barricade and sign shall be posted across the entrance to the drive-thru facility when it is not in operation. The specific design and location of the barricade and sign shall be subject to review and approval by the Community Development Department. SITE AND BUILDING CONDITIONS (4) 4.1 Provide exact details for exterior doors and window types on construction plans. Door and windows shall be consistent with design for the center. (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 project 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 Ail exterior accent colors to be used shall be subject to review approval of the Community Development Department and shall be consistent with samples provided on the color board. All exterior treatments shall be coordinated with regard to color, materials and detailing and clearly noted on submitted construction plans and elevations. Exhibit A Conditional Use Permit 94-023 and Design Review 94-030 Conditions of Approval Resolution No. 95-21 Page 4 (4) 4.4 Provide plans and details for all lighting fixtures. Note locations on site plan and building elevations. One footcandle of light throughout the site, parking lot, drive-thru aisle and adjacent to the building, is required. Fixtures on building and in playland shall be of a decorative design. Freestanding fixtures in the parking area shall match existing fixtures in the Center. (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-foot-high chain linked fence shall be installed around the site prior to building construction stages. Gated entrances shall be permitted along the perimeter of the site for construction vehicles. (1) 4.7 Exterior ( 4 ) indicate elevations of the building shall any 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 Ail roof access shall be provided from the inside of the building. (4) 4.9 No exterior downspouts shall be permitted; all roof drainage shall utilize 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 Roof scuppers shall be installed with a special lip device so that overflo~ drainage will not stain the walls. (4) 4.12 Indicate the location of all exterior mechanical equipment. Gas and electric meters shall either be enclosing in the building or boxed behind a screen wall designed consistent with the main building. (4) 4.13 Note on plans tha~ outdoor storage shall be prohibited. Exhibit A Conditional Use Permit 94-023 and Design~Review 94-030 Conditions of Approval Resolution No. 95-21 Page 5 (4) 4.14 The pedestrian walkway and drive-thru crosswalk shall be relocated approximately 15 feet south of the proposed location, to be perpendicular to Tustin Ranch Road right- of-way in order to ensure adequate screening of the drive-thru lane at the intersection of Tustin Ranch Road and Bryan Avenue. The walkway shall be designed in compliance with ADA, handicap accessibility requirements. (4) 4.15 The decorative columns on the south and east elevations of the building should be increased in depth 6 to 12 inches, to be consistent with design details of buildings within the Center, subject to final approval by the Community Development Department. (4) 4.16 The architectural design of the building shall be modified to eliminate the flat-roof and double-pitched roof elements and provide a full-pitched, hipped roof around the entire building. The tower element shall be modified and integrated into the overall roof design. (4) -4.17 The building and drive-thru facility shall be shifted ten to fifteen feet to the east in order to provide additional berming and landscaping along the Tustin Ranch Road frontage. NOISE (1) 5.1 Ail construction operations, including engine warm-up, 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 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. on Saturday. Construction activities may be permitted outside of these limitations if the Building Official determines that said activity is of urgent necessity, or finds that the activity will not adversely impact adjacent properties or the health, safety and welfare of the community. No Sunday or Holiday construction shall be permitted° (1) 5~2 Construction hours shall be clearly posted on the project site to the satisfaction of the Building Official. (4) 5.3 Intercom speaker boxes and equipment for drive-thru facilities shall be subject to the provisions of the City of Tustin Noise Ordinance and shall be located to the satisfaction of the Community Development Department Exhibit A Conditional Use Permit 94-023 and Design Review 94-030 Conditions of Approval Resolution No. 95-21 Page 6 staff so that no noise is directed toward adjoining businesses and properties. LANDSCAPING, GROUNDS AND HARDSCAPE ELEMENTS (1) 6.1 Submit at plan check complete detailed landscaping 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. Provide summary table applying indexing identification to plant materials in their actual location. The plant table shall list botanical and common 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 fromright-of-way and on-site by shrubs), pipe size, sprinkler type, spacing and coverage. Details for all equipment shall be provided. 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) 6.2 The submitted landscaping plans at plan check shall reflect the following requirements: ne 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. Ce When 1 gallon plant sizes are used, the spacing may vary according to materials used. Exhibit A Conditional Use Permit 94-023 and Design Review 94-030 Conditions of Approval Resolution No. 95-21 Page 7 De 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 plants. (5) 6.3 Ail landscaping should be kept below the window areas to maintain visibility. (4) 6.4 The landscaping and site plans shall be modified where applicable, to include the following items: ae A row of 5 gallon dwarf oleanders or other alternative shrub shall be provided at the southeast corner of the building, between the turf area and the service sidewalk. Be Boston Ivy proposed along the screen wall along the outside of the drive aisle shall be eliminated and replaced with creeping fig or other alternative vines consistent with the City's Landscape and Irrigation Guidelines and, where possible, bougainvillea or other alternative vine, shall be planted as accent landscaping along the screen wall adjacent to the drive-thru lane. Co Pursuant to Section 3.8.3I of the ETSP, an opaque screen of not less than 30 inches nor more than 42 inches shall be provided to screen the parking area located at the southwest corner of the subject site, adjacent to Tustin Ranch Road. The site plan indicates the 4 stalls are proposed to be at an elevation of 92 feet and the adjacent earthen berm is at an elevation of 93 feet. An additional opaque screen (wall or berm) shall be provided to reach an elevation of 94.5 feet adjacent to the west side of the four proposed parking spaces. n~ The existing masonry wall located north of the drive-thru lane along the Bryan Avenue frontage shall be relocated to be adjacent to the drive-thru aisle and increased in height, from the easternmost edge of the drive-thru lane to the western terminus of the wall, in order to provide a solid screen 4.5 feet above the finished grade of the drive-thru Exhibit A Conditional Use Permit 94-023 and Design Review 94-030 Conditions of Approval Resolution No. 95-21 Page 8 aisle. Ee The screen wall proposed around the northwest corner of the subject site shall be ~elocated to be closer to the curb of the drive-thru lane in order to avoid the removal of the existing olive trees at this intersection. In addition, the height of this wall shall be increased to provide 4.5 feet of vertical screening above the elevation of the drive-thru lane. Fe An additional screen wall shall be provided along the west side of the drive-thru aisle adjacent to Tustin Ranch Road (approximately 110 feet in length from the southern end of the proposed corner screen wall 5o the southern terminus of the drive-thru lane, which is north of the required screening noted in Condition 6.4C.) to provide 4.5 feet of vertical screening above the elevation of the drive-thru lane. G · A landscaped earthen berm shall be provided adjacent to the 4.5 foot screen wall on the north and west side of the drive-thru lane on the street side. The final design and landscaping of the berm shall be reviewed and approved by the Community Development Department. (1) 6.5 Ail landscaping shall be maintained in a healthy condition such that all plant materials are evenly cut, evenly edged, free of bare or brown spots, free of debris, weeds or dead vegetation. SIGNS (4) 7.1 Business identification wall signs, including logos, shall comply with the following standards: a . Tenant identification shall be limited to a maximum of 240 square feet aggregate copy area allocated as desired among up to four building elevations. Any deviation in excess of that shall be approved by the Director of the Community Development Department. Exhibit A Conditional Use Permit 94-023 and Design Review 94-030 Conditions of Approval Resolution No. 95-21 Page 9 (4) 7.2 Ail incidental signs for this project including entry, exit, yield and handicap signs, shall be designed consistent with such signage used elsewhere in the center, subject to review and approval by the Community Development and Public Works Departments. (4) 7.3 No sign component shall flash, blink or be otherwise animated. Such animation is strictly prohibited. (4) 7.4 Two internally illuminated "Pedestrian Crossing" signs shall be installed adjacent to the drive-thru: one on the north side of the building adjacent to the pick-up window and the other on the west side of the building, next to the textured pedestrian walkway. *** 7.5 Ail exterior illuminated signs shall be installed on a timer so that the illumination is turned off at the closing time of the establishment. (4) 7.6 The sign copy on the proposed toWer signs shall have an opaque background, except for the "M" logo. WATER QUALITY MANAGEMENT PLAN (5) 8.1 Prior to issuance of building permits, 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. FIRE DEPARTMENT (5) 9.1 Prior to installation, plans for an approved fire- suppression system for the protection of commercial-type cooking equipment shall be submitted to the Fire Chief for approval. Exhibit A Conditional Use Permit 94-023 and Design Review 94-030 Conditions of Approval Resolution No. 95-21 Page 10 (5) 9.2 Prior to the issuance of any grading permit,' street improvement plans with fire lanes shown shall be submitted to and approved by the Fire Chief. Indicate the locations of red curbing and signage. Provide a drawing of the proposed signage with the height, stroke and color of lettering and the contrasting background color. (5) 9.3 Prior to the issuance of any building permits, construction details for any emergency access gate shall be submitted to and approved by the Fire Chief. Contact the Orange County Fire Department at (714) 744-6623 for a copy of the "Guidelines for Fire Department Emergency Access." (5) 9.4 The following notes shall be provided on the site plan: ae Fire Department Final Inspection Required. Schedule inspection 2 days in advance. Phone (714) 832-1011. Be Locations and classification of extinguisher to be determined by the fire inspector. Co Storage, dispensing or use of any flammable and combustible liquids, flammable and compressed gasses and other hazardous materials shall comply with Uniform Fire Code Regulations. m. Building(s) not approved for high piled combustible storage. Materials in closely packed piles shall not exceed 15 feet in height, 122 feet on pallets or in racks and 6 feet for tires, plastics and some flammable liquids if high stock piling, comply with UFC, Art. 81 and NFPAS 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. FEES (1) 10.1 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: A. All applicable plan check and permit fees to the Exhibit A Conditional Use Permit 94-023 and Design Review 94-030 Conditions of Approval Resolution No. 95-21 Page 11 Community Development Department, based on the most current schedule, as may be amended prior to permit issuance. · 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. Ce School facilities fees to the Tustin Unified School District, subject to any agreement reached and executed between the District and applicant. D · Sewer and water connection fees to the Irvine Ranch Water District, and E· Major thoroughfare and bridge fees 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. *** 10.2 Within forty-eight (48) hours of approval of the subject project, the applicant shall deliver to the Community Development Department, a cashier's check payable to the COUNTY CLERK in the amount of $25.00 (twenty five dollars) pursuant to AB 3158, Chapter 1706, Statues of 1990, to enable the City to file the Notice of Determination required under Public Resources Code Section 21152 and 14 Cal. Code of Regulations 15075. If within such forty-eight (48) hour period that applicant has not delivered to the Community Development Department the above-noted check, the approval for the project granted herein shall be considered automatically null and void. In addition, should the Department of Fish and Game reject the Certificate of Fee Exemption filed with the Notice of Determination and require payment of fees, the applicant shall deliver to the Community Development Department, within forty-eight (48) hour of notification, a cashier's check payable to the COUNTY CLERK in the amount of $1,250 (one thousand, two hundred fifty dollars) pursuant to AB 3158, Chapter 1706, Statues of 1990. If this fee is imposed, the subject project shall not be operative, vested or final unless and until the fee is paid. Gerry Aust . _ .61 Holt Avenue Santa ~, gA 92705 i r~ CL, "..- : : Febr~ary 9, 1995 Mayor Tom Saltarelli 300 Centennial Way Tustin,. CA 92680 Dear Mayor Saltarelli: I have been reading that McDonalds would like to build a new site in the Tustin Ranch area. If I'm not mistaken, Scott Frisbie is the person responsible for this franchise. As principal of three different school sites in the Tustin Unified School District, I have had the opportunity to do business with Mr. Frisbie many times. He has been more than willing to work with the schools, and has been more than generous in providing certificates and discount prices for special events at the schools. In my opinion Scott Frisbie and the McDonald organization would be a wonderful addition to our community. I, personally, would look forward to possibly having this particular franchise as a business parmer for Utt Middle School. I hope when the City Council is considering this request, that you will consider all the positives Mr. Frisbie and McDonalds can provide for the students of Tustin. Thank you for your consideration. Gerald Aust C.E. Utt Middle School Principal Tustin City Council 300 Centennial Way Tustin, CA 92680 Attn.: Tom Saltarelli I am an instructional aide for Arroyo Elementary school and an active member of the PTA. This letter is to express my support for the Frisbie family who are requesting permission to build a new restaurant in the Tustin Market Place Annex complex. The Frisbie family have been active supporters of many activities in the city of Tustin and the surrounding areas for years. They have always supported youth sport activities and the Tustin Unified School district. They have provided numerous services for Arroyo elementary school providing drinks, ice and other items for fund-raisers. Additionally they have provided gift certificates to Veeh Elementary school, Arroyo Elementary School and Hewes Middle school to be awarded to students for various successes in their academic career. They have also opened their store for school field trips so that today's young students can see how an American business works. The Frisbie family has also been a responsible business owner in the city of Tustin on First street. They have provided a service with their restaurant meeting the needs of most families while having minimal impact on the surrounding area. They maintain a high level of excellence in both the appearance of their business and in maintaining the surrounding area. I believe that the City of Tustin is lucky to have a responsible business owner like the Frisbie family seeking to expand their business in the city of Tustin. Sincerely, - Leni Herman EDWARD T. LAUGLE GLENDA G. LAUGLE 2141 SONBRIA TUSTIN, CA 92680 -- RECEIVED -- FEB I 3 COMMUNi~'Y DEVLEO~E February 8, 1995 City of Tustin Planning Commission · Civic Center '""' 300'cente~niai 'way Tustin, CA 92680 Gentlemen: We purchased our home in the Almeria development of Tustin Ranch in September of 1992. The value of our home, according to the recent Orange County Assessor property valuation, has decreased in that time period by 23.6 percent. Now the City of Tustin is considering doing two things that will decrease our property value even more: 1. Develop what we were led to believe was a high school site on the corner of Tustin Ranch Road and Irvine Boulevard into a huge apartment complex, and 2. Allow a McDonald's franchise to open at the corner of Bryan and Tustin Ranch Road. I don't know what we can say or do to convince you to reject these proposals. We are often left with no choices in governmental decisions that affect our lives and I would hope that the City of Tustin will assume the position of being responsible to its present citizens. How would you feel if you lived here? Sincerely, Ed~wa~~gle Glenda G. Laugle '~ ..