Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
17 P.C. ACT AGENDA 02-21-95
ACTION A G E N DA NO. 17 2-21-95 TUSTIN PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING FEBRUARY 13, 1995 CALL TO ORDER: 7:02 p.m., City Council Chambers PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE/INVOCATION ROLL CALL: PUBLIC CONCERNS: Present: Baker, Kasalek, Mitzman and Weil Absent: Lunn (Limited to 3 minutes per person for items not on the agenda.) At this time member-s of the public may address the Commission regarding any items not on the agenda and within the subject matter jurisdiction of the Commission (NO action can be taken off-agenda items unless authorized by law). IF YOU WISH TO ADDRESS THE COMMISSION ON ANY MATTER, PLEASE FILL OUT ONE OF THE CARDS LOCATED ON THE SPEAKER'S TABLE SO THAT YOUR REMARKS ON THE TAPE RECORDING OF THE MEETING CAN BE ATTRIBUTED TO YOU. WHEN YOU START TO ADDRESS THE COMMISSION, PLEASE STATE YOUR FULL NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD. IF YOU REQUIRE SPECIAL ACCOMMODATIONS, PLEASE CONTACT THE PLANNING COMMISSION RECORDING SECRETARY AT (714) 573-3105. CONSENT CALENDAR: (ALLMATTERS LISTED UNDER CONSENT CALENDAR ARE CONSIDERED ROUTINE AND WILL BE ENACTED BY ONE MOTION. THERE WILL BE NO SEPARATE DISCUSSION OF THESE ITEMS PRIOR TO THE TIME OF THE VOTING ON THE MOTION UNLESS MEMBERS OF THE COMMISSION, STAFF OR PUBLIC REQUEST SPECIFIC ITEMS TO 5E DISCUSSED AND/OR REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT CALENDAR FOR SEPARATE ACTION.) 1. Minutes of the January 23, 1995 Planning Commission Meeting. Planning Commission Action Agenda February 13, 1995 Page 2~ Commissioner Kasalek moved, Mitzman seconded to approve the consent calendar with the following correction: Page 7, Paragraph 6, should read, "Commissioner Well asked Mt. Burns if the illuminated sign could be turned off at closing time instead of one half hour after closing time." Motion carried 4-0. PUBLIC HEARINGS: IF YOU CHALLENGE AN ITEM CONSIDERED AT A PUBLIC HEARING IN COURT, YOU MAY BE LIMITED TO RAISING ONLY THOSE ISSUES YOU OR SOMEONE ELSE RAISED AT THE PUBLIC HEARING DESCRIBED IN THIS AGENDA, OR IN WRITTEN CORRESPONDENCE DELIVERED TO THE CITY OF TUSTIN AT, OR PRIOR TO, THE PUBLIC HEARING. Continued Hearing - Amendment to Vestinq Tentative Tract Map 14188 and Design Review 94-033 APPLICANT/ OWNER LOCATION: ZONING: ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: REQUEST: STANDARD PACIFIC 1565 W. MacARTHUR BLVD. COSTA MESA, CA 92626 ATTN: PEGGY ROBERTS TRACT 14188, WEST SIDE OF TOWNSHIP DRIVE AT RAWLINGS WAY PLANNED COMMUNITY RESIDENTIAL - (LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL) - EAST TUSTIN SPECIFIC PLAN THIS PROJECT IS COVERED BY A PREVIOUSLY CERTIFIED 'EIR (85-2) FOR THE EAST TUSTIN SPECIFIC PLAN. NO ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTATION IS REQUIRED. AUTHORIZATION TO ADD THREE ADDITIONAL PRODUCTION UNITS TO THE BUILDOUT OF THE EXISTING RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT Recommendation- Pleasure of the Commission. Presentation: Daniel Fox, Senior Planner Commissioner Weil moved, Kasalek seconded, to approve Design Review 94-033 by adopting Resolution~No. 3324 as revised. Exhibit A, page 3, condition 3.8 shall read, "The construction of Lots 1, 5 and 6 shall occur prior to or concurrently with the construction of Phase I of the buildout of the subject project. No certificate of occupancy shall be issued for any dwelling within the next phase of new development unless certificates of occupancy have been issued for Lots 1, 5 and 6." Page 4, Condition 4.3, third sentence, shall read, "A representative group of four existing homeowners selected by ballot of a majority of existing homeowners (51%), with one vote Planning Commission Action Agenda February 13, 1995 Page 3 per property shall review and co~ent to the City on the final design details prior to issuance of permits for said improvements." Motion carried 4-0. Commissioner Well moved, Kasalek seconded, to recommend to the City Council approval of amendment to Vesting Tentative Tract Map 14188 by adopting Resolution No. 3325 as submitted. Motion. carried 4-0. 3. Conditional Use Permit 94-016 and Design Review 94-025 APPLICANT: LAND OWNER: LOCATION: ZONING: ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: REQUEST: FANCHER DEVELOPMENT SERVICES, INC. 1342 BELL AVENUE TUSTIN, CA 92680 THADDEUS J. MORIARTY, JR. AND JAMES G. WHITE 1447 GALAXY DRIVE NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 14042 RED HILL AVENUE RETAIL COMMERCIAL (C-l) ANEGATIVE DECLARATION.HAS BEEN PREVIOUSLY PREPARED FOR THIS PROJECT IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROVISIONS OF THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT. 1. APPROVAL OF A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A FAST FOOD RESTAURANT WITH A DRIVE-THROUGH LANE; 2. APPROVAL OF A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A FREESTANDING FREEWAY SIGN; AND 3. APPROVAL OF THE PROPOSED ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN AND SITE MODIFICATIONS FOR A 1,989 SQUARE FOOT FAST FOOD RESTAURANT. Recommendation -It is recommended that the Planning Commission take the following actions: i · Recertify the Negative Declaration as adequate for the project by adopting Resolution No. 3332; 2. Adopt Resolution No. 3333 approving Conditional Use Permit 94- 016 and Design Review 94-030 for a drive-thru restaurant and denying a freeway pole sign, as submitted or revised. · Presentation: Daniel Fox, Senior Planner Commissioner Well moved, Kasalek seconded, to recertify the Negative Declaration as adequate for the project by adopting Resolution No. 3332 as submitted. Motion carried 4-0. Planning Commission Action Agenda February 13, 1995 Page 4 Commissioner Well moved, Kasalek seconded, to approve Conditional Use Permit 94-016 and Design Review 94-030 for a drive-thru restaurant revised as follows: Resolution No. 3333 title shall have the words, "and denying a freeway pole sign on the property", deleted. Resolution pages 3, 4 and 5 shall have items G and H deleted. Resolution Page 5, Section II, shall delete the words, "and denies the freeway pole sign". Exhibit A, page one, Condition 1.1, insert a sentence two to read, "The Director may approve modifications to the plans to raise the building height and fascia consistent with the proposed architecture and/or that of the adjacent Auto Spa architecture. Sentence three shall remain. Exhibit A, page 3, Condition 3.5 shall change "68 seats" to read, "71 seats". Exhibit A, page 4, Condition 4.4, sentence four, shall read, '~Freestanding fixtures in the parking area may be mounted on concrete bases and shall be decorative fixtures subject to approval of the Community Development Department." Motion carried 4-0. 4. Zone Change 94-006 APPLICANT LOCATION: ZONING: ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: CALIFORNIA PACIFIC HOMES 5 CIVIC PLAZA, SUITE 100 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 ATTN: WILLIAM L. MOORHOUS . EAST TUSTIN SPECIFIC PLAN EAST TUSTIN SPECIFIC PLAN, PLANNED COMMUNITY RESIDENTIAL THIS PROJECT IS COVERED BY A PREVIOUSLY CERTIFIED EIR (85-2) FOR THE EAST TUSTIN SPECIFIC PLAN. NO ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTATION IS REQUIRED. REQUEST: TO MODIFY SUBSECTION "a" OF SECTION 3.6.3.C3 OF THE' EAST TUSTIN SPECIFIC PLAN ENTITLED "PROJECTIONS INTO REQUIRED SETBACKS" RELATED TO THE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF PATIO COVER AND TRELLIS STRUCTURES WITHIN PATIO HOME DEVELOPMENTS. Recommendation - It is recommended that the Planning Commission take the following actions: qe Approve the Environmental Determination for the project by adopting Resolution No. '3.330 and; · Recommend to the City Council approval of Zone Change 94-006 by adopting Resolution No. 3331, as submitted or revised. Presentation: Daniel Fox, Senior Planner Planning Commission Action Agenda February 13, 1995 · Page 5 Commissioner Kasalek moved, Weil seconded, to approve Environmental Determination for the project by adopting Resolution No. 3330 as submitted. Motion carried 4-0. Commissioner Kasalek moved, Well seconded, to recommend to the City Council approval of Zone Change 94-006 by adopting Resolution No. 3331 as submitted. Motion carried 4-0. 5. Conditional Use Permit 93-011 and Variance 93-002 PROPERTY OWNER/ APPLI CANT: LOCATION: ZONING: ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: REQUEST: CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY 1451 IRVINE BOULEVARD TUSTIN, CA 92680-3844 ATTENTION: MS. MARIE MURILLO 1451 IRVINE BOULEVARD PROFESSIONAL (PR) DISTRICT A NEGATIVE DECLARATION HAS BEEN PREPARED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROVISIONS OF THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA). 1. A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO AUTHORIZE AN EXISTING MOTIVATIONAL SCHOOL TO OCCUPY AN ENTIRE OFFICE COMPLEX. 2. A VARIANCE TO REDUCE THE REQUIRED NUMBER OF PARKING SPACES FROM 150 SPACES TO 111 SPACES. Recommendation -Pleasure of the Commission. Presentation: Scott Reekstin, Assistant Planner Commissioner Well moved, Mitzman seconded, to certify the final negative declaration as adequate for Conditional Use Permit 93-011 and Variance 93-002 by adopting Resolution No. 3334 as submitted. Motion carried 4-0. Commissioner Well moved, Mitzman seconded, to approve Conditional Use Permit 93-011, by adopting Resolution No. 3335 as submitted. Motion carried 4-0. Commissioner Weil moved, Mitzman seconded, to approve Variance 93- 002, by adopting Resolution 3336 as submitted.. Motion carried 4-0. REGULAR BUSINESS: None Planning Commission Action Agenda February 13, 1995- Page 6 STAFF CONCERNS: Report on Actions taken at February 6, 1995 City Council Meeting Staff reported on the subject agenda. COMMISSION CONCERNS: Commissioner Kasalek Asked if something could be done about the signal lights between Nisson and E1 Camino on Red Hill not being synchronized since traffic is getting caught at the intersection. Staff stated that the City controls the signal at E1 Camino and Red Hill as well as the signal at Nisson and Red Hill but that Caltrans controls the two signals at the ramps on Red Hill. Caltrans has not permitted jurisdiction to place controls on their signals and there is a delay in the sequence when the programs switch. The problem is being addressed. Commissioner Mitzman - Asked the status of the Mercury Savings Building. Staff stated that currently the project is in plan check. -" Asked to have a regularly scheduled reminder On the Brown Act provisions. Staff noted that a presentation had been made by Deputy City Attorney Lois Bobak and that staff asked for a written synopsis to be presented to the Commission. Lois Bobak will follow up on the status of this report. Wished to have it placed on record that he will not be participating in the discussions concerning the East Tustin Specific Plan changes nor the proposed high school. · Proposed to agendize for the next regularly scheduled Planning Commission meeting discussion on formation of an ad hoc builder/City committee. Planning Commission Action Agenda February 13, 1995 Page 7 Commissioner Weil Noted that Commissioner Lunn, absent from this meeting, had asked'her to forward information that the convenience store at Newport and Sycamore still has debris in front of it and asked staff to investigate. Staff will. follow up. Commissioner Baker Inquired about the buildings at Nisson and Browning which ~the City owns. Staff :stated that one property has been sold and is under renovation. Reported that he had attended the Trends 2000 exposition at the Anaheim Marriott today and was pleased with the exhibit of Orange County. He also wished everyone a Happy Valentines Day. ADJOURNMENT: Commissioner Well moved, Kasalek seconded, to adjourn the meeting at 8:57 p.m. Motion'carried 4-0. The next regularly.scheduled meeting of the Planning Commission is on February 27, 1995 with an East Tustin Specific Plan Amendments Workshop, 5:30 p.m. and subsequently adjourning to the regular meeting of the Planning Commission at 7:00 p.m. in the City Council Chambers at 300 Centennial Way, -Tustin. AGENDA TUSTIN'PLANNING COF~MISSION REGULAR MEETING FEBRUARY 13~ 1995 CALL TO-ORDER= 7:00 p.m., City Council Chambers PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE/INVOCATION ROLL CALL: Baker, Kasalek, Lunn, Mitzman and Weil · PUBLIC CONCERNS: (Limited to 3 minutes per person for items not on the agenda.) At this time members of the public may address the.Commission regarding any items not on the agenda and within the subject matter jurisdiction of the Commission (NO action can be taken off-agenda items unless authorized by law). IF YOU WISH TO ADDRESS THE COMMISSION ON ANY MATTER, PLEASE FILL OUT ONE OF THE CARDS LOCATED ON THE SPEAKER'S TABLE SO THAT YOUR REMARKS ON THE TAPE RECORDING OF THE MEETING CAN BE ATTRIBUTED TO YOU. WHEN YOU START TO ADDRESS THE COMMISSION, PLEASE STATE YOUR FULL NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD. IF YOU REQUIRE SPECIAL ACCOMMODATIONS, PLEASE CONTACT THE PLANNING COMMISSION RECORDING SECRETARY AT (714) 573-3105. CONSENT CALENDAR: (ALL MATTERS LISTED UNDER CONSENT CALENDAR ARE CONSIDERED ROUTINE AND WILL BE ENACTED BY ONE MOTION. THERE WILL BE NO SEPARATE DISCUSSION OF THESE ITEMS PRIOR TO THE TIME OF THE VOTING ON THE MOTION UNLESS MEMBERS OF THE COMMISSION, STAFF OR PUBLIC REQUEST SPECIFIC ITEMS TO BE DISCUSSED AND/OR REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT CALENDAR FOR SEPARATE ACTION.) 1. Minutes of the January 23, 1995 Planninq Commission Meeting. Planning Commission Agenda February 13, 1995 Page 2 PUBLIC HEARINGS: IF YOU CHALLENGE AN ITEM CONSIDERED AT A PUBLIC HEARING IN COURT, YOU MAY BE LIMITED TO RAISING ONLY THOSE ISSUES YOU OR SOMEONE ELSE RAISED AT THE PUBLIC HEARING DESCRIBED IN THIS AGENDA, OR IN WRITTEN CORRESPONDENCE DELIVERED TO THE CITY OF TUSTIN AT, OR PRIOR TO, THE PUBLIC HEARING. Continued Hearing - Amendment to Vesting Tentative Tract Map 14188 and Design Review 94-033 APPLI CANT / OWNER LOCATION: ZONING: ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: REQUEST: STANDARD PACIFIC 1565 W. MacARTHUR BLVD. COSTA MESA, CA 92626 ATTN: PEGGY ROBERTS TRACT 14188, WEST SIDE OF TOWNSHIP DRIVE AT RAWLINGS WAY. ~ PLANNED COMMUNITY RESIDENTIAL - (LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL) - EAST TUSTIN SPECIFIC PLAN THIS PROJECT IS COVERED BY A PREVIOUSLY CERTIFIED EIR (85-2) FOR THE EAST TUSTIN SPECIFIC PLAN. NO ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTATION IS REQUIRED. AUTHORIZATION TO ADD THREE ADDITIONAL PRODUCTION UNITS TO THE BUILDOUT OF THE EXISTING RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT Recommendation- Pleasure of the Commission. Presentation: Daniel Fox, Senior Planner 3. Conditional Use Permit 94-016 and Design Review 94-025 APPLICANT: LAND OWNER: LOCATION: ZONING: ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: FANCHER DEVELOPMENT SERVICES, INC. 1342 BELL AVENUE''. TUSTIN, CA 92680 THADDEUS J. MORIARTY, JR. AND JAMES G. WHITE 1447 GALAXY DRIVE NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 14042 RED HILL AVENUE RETAIL COMMERCIAL (C-I) A NEGATIVE DECLARATION HAS BEEN PREVIOUSLY PREPARED FOR THIS PROJECT IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROVISIONS OF THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT. Planning Commission Agenda February 13, 1995 Page 3 REQUEST: 1. APPROVAL OF A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A FAST FOOD RESTAURANT WITH A DRIVE-THROUGH LANE; 2. APPROVAL OF A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A FREESTANDING FREEWAY SIGN; AND 3. APPROVAL OF THE PROPOSED ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN AND SITE MODIFICATIONS FOR A 1,989 SQUARE FOOT FAST FOOD RESTAURANT. Re¢ommen4ation -It is recommended that the Planning Commission take the following actions: · Recertify the Negative Declaration as adequate for the project by adopting Resolution No. 3332; · Adopt Resolution No. 3333 approving Conditional Use Permit 94- 016 and. Design Review 94-030 for a drive-thru restaurant and denying a freeway pole sign, as submitted or revised. Presentation: Daniel Fox, Senior Planner 4. Zone Change 94-006 A~PLICANT LOCATION: ZONING: ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: CALIFORNIA PACIFIC HOMES 5 CIVIC PLAZA, SUITE 100 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 ATTN: WILLIAM L. MOORHOUS EAST TUSTIN SPECIFIC PLAN EAST TUSTIN SPECIFIC PLAN, PLANNED COMMUNITY RESIDENTIAL THIS PROJECT IS COVERED BY A PREVIOUSLY CERTIFIED EIR (85-2) FOR THE EAST TUSTIN SPECIFIC PLAN. NO ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTATION IS REQUIRED. REQUEST: TO MODIFY SUBSECTION "a" OF SECTION 3.6.3.C3 OF THE EAST TUSTIN SPECIFIC PLAN ENTITLED "PROJECTIONS INTO REQUIRED SETBACKS" RELATED TO THE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF PATIO COVER AND TRELLIS STRUCTURES WITHIN PATIO HOME DEVELOPMENTS. Recommendation - It is recommended that the Planning Commission take the following actions: · Approve the Environmental Determination for the project by adopting Resolution No. 3330 and; · Recommend to the City Council approval of Zone Change 94-006 by adopting Resolution No. 3331, as submitted or revised. Presentation: Daniel Fox, Senior Planner Planning Commission Agenda February 13, 1995 Page 4'~ 5. Conditional Use Permit 93-011 and Variance 93-002 PROPERTY OWNER/ APPLI CANT: LOCATION: ZONING: ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY 1451 IRVINE BOULEVARD TUSTIN, CA 92680-3844 ATTENTION: MS. MARIE MURILLO 1451 IRVINE BOULEVARD PROFESSIONAL (PR) DISTRICT A NEGATIVE DECLARATION HAS BEEN PREPARED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROVISIONS OF THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA). REQUEST: 1. A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO AUTHORIZE AN EXISTING MOTIVATIONAL SCHOOL TO OCCUPY AN ENTIRE OFFICE COMPLEX. 2. A VARIANCE TO REDUCE THE REQUIRED NUMBER OF PARKING SPACES FROM 150 SPACES TO 111 SPACES. Recommendation -Pleasure of the Commission. Presentation: Scott Reekstin, Assistant Planner REGULAR BUSINESS: None STAFF CONCERNS: · Report on Actions taken at February 6, 1995 City Council Meeting COMMISSION CONCERNS: ADJOURNMENT: East Tustin Specific Plan Amendments Workshop, 5:30 p.m. and subsequently to a"regular meeting of the Planning Commission on February 27, 1995 at 7:00 p.m. in the City Council Chambers at 300 centennial Way, Tustin. ITEM NO. 1 MINUTES TUSTIN PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING JANUARY 23, 1995 CALL TO ORDER: 7:01 p.m., City Council Chambers PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE/INVOCATION ROLL CALL: PresEnt: Baker, Kasalek, Lunn, Mitzman and Weil PUBLIC CONCERNS: (Limited to 3 minutes per person for items not on the agenda·) At this time members of the public may address the Commission regarding any items not on the agenda and within the subject matter jurisdiction of the Commission (NO action can be taken off-agenda items unless authorized by law). IF YOU WISH TO ADDRESS THE COMMISSION ON ANY MATTER, PLEASE FILL OUT ONE OF THE CARDS LOCATED ON THE SPEAKER'S TABLE SO THAT YOUR REMARKS ON THE TAPE RECORDING OF THE MEETING CAN BE ATTRIBUTED TO YOU. WHEN YOU START TO ADDRESS THE COMMISSION, PLEASE STATE YOUR FULL NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD. IF YOU REQUIRE SPECIAL ACCOMMODATIONS, PLEASE CONTACT THE PLANNING COMMISSION RECORDING SECRETARY AT (714) 573-3105. CONSENT CALENDAR: (ALLMATTERS LISTED UNDER CONSENT CALENDAR ARE CONSIDERED ROUTINE AND WILL BE ENACTED BY ONE MOTION. THERE WILL BE NO SEPARATE DISCUSSION OF THESE ITEMS PRIOR TO THE TIME OF THE VOTING ON THE MOTION UNLESS MEMBERS OF THE COMMISSION, STAFF OR PUBLIC REQUEST SPECIFIC ITEMS TO BE DISCUSSED AND/OR REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT CALENDAR FOR SEPARATE ACTION.) · Minutes of the January 9, 1995 Planning Commission Meetinq. Commissioner Weil moved, Kasalek seconded to approve the consent calendar. Motion carried 5-0. Planning Commission Action Agenda January 23, 1995 Page 2 PUBLIC HEARINGS: IF YOU CHALLENGE AN ITEM CONSIDERED AT A PUBLIC HEARING IN COURT, YOU MAY BE LIMITED TO RAISING ONLY THOSE ISSUES YOU OR SOMEONE ELSE RAISED AT THE PUBLIC HEARING DESCRIBED IN THIS AGENDA, OR IN WRITTEN CORRESPONDENCE DELIVERED TO THE CITY OF TUSTIN AT, OR PRIOR TO, THE PUBLIC HEARING. 2. Conditional Use Permit 94-023 and Design Review 94-030 APPLICANT: AGENT: PROPERTY OWNER: LOCATION: ZONING: ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: REQUEST: MC DONALD'S CORPORATION 17901 VON KARMAN #303 IRVINE, CA. 92714 GOVERNMENT SOLUTIONS 2809 BROAD STREET NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 THE IRVINE COMPANY P.O. BOX I NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92658 SOUTHEAST CORNER OF TUSTIN RANCH ROAD/BRYAN AVENUE (LOT 1 OF TRACT 14610) MIXED USE, LAND USE DESIGNATION EAST TUSTIN SPECIFIC PLAN THIS PROJECT IS COVERED BY A PREVIOUSLY CERTIFIED EIR (85-2) FOR THE EAST TUSTIN SPECIFIC PLAN. NO ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTATION IS REQUIRED. APPROVAL OF THE ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN OF A FAST-FOOD RESTAURANT WITH DRIVE-THRU SERVICE Recommendation - It is recommended that the Planning Commission take the following actions: i · Approve the Environmental Determination for the project by adopting Resolution No. 3328; and · Approve Conditional Use Permit 94-023 and Design Review 94-030 by adopting Resolution No. 3329, as submitted or revised. Presentation: Sara J. Pashalides, Associate Planner The Public Hearing opened at 7:15 p.m. Planning Commission Action Agenda January 23, 1995 Page 3 Howard Burns, San Diego region representative of McDonalds, introduced himself and the other members of his group. Ooncerning the hours of operation, he asked that if a competitor were allowed into that area that they be allowed to return to the Commission to amend their hours of operation to match the competitors, otherwise they are in agreement with the all of the conditions. He stated that he had meetings with three of the Homeowners Associations surrounding the site, there had been light attendance but he had received no calls with additional questions. He stated that they cater to kids and families and since he is the person responsible for site selection he chose this site because it was nicely contained with plenty of room which would be safer for the children. James H. Frisbie, franchise owner operator, stated he has been a McDonalds operator for 27 years. His business is a family partnership with his children who have made this their career. They have one store on First Street and look forward to operating a second store in Tustin. Pamela Gelband, 13515 Holly Drive, Tustin, stated she was a resident of Sycamore Glen the Association directly across the street from the McDonalds proposed location. She is concerned that none of the Planning Commissioners had any questions. She stated that no one told them that McDonalds was to make a presentation at their Homeowners Association and out of 248 home owners only two had attended the meeting. She feels that if McDonalds was so concerned they should have made sure that home owners were contacted other than the obligatory notification in the mail. She is concerned with the closeness of McDonalds to the homes across the street, with odors, noise in the playground, lights and general disregard of consideration to those residents. She does not like the "barn with a silo construction" design and the vehicle lights that may escape the barrier. She is also concerned with the impact to her property value. Jane Anderson, 2473 Via Corrella, President of Sevilla Homeowners Association, stated that McDonalds did meet with them. She wanted some adjustments made concerning the hours of speaker use at the ordering windows when employees would not be in attendance such as 6:00 a.m. and after a certain time in the evening. She was concerned about the landscape screening and maintenance since the homeowners in her association all have good views of the site. She requested restricted hours on the use of the trash compactor. Planning Commission Action Agenda January 23, 1995 Page 4 Shari Sluder, 13522 Pecan Lane. Stated that she has been a Tustin resident for 20 years, secure in the knowledge that the City would protect her quality of life and home until now. She is not happy with the McDonalds location since her home is only a few feet away from the proposed site. She is concerned about the traffic and noise and requests some kind of consideration for those living along Tustin Ranch Road. She stated that when she goes through Jack-In-The-Box they provide her with a milk bone for her dog and noted that McDonalds might consider this. Wes Vaughan, 2400 Calle Alcorisa, on the Board of the Sevilla Homeowners Association, attended the meeting with McDonalds. He shares all the concerns of the previous speakers. He feels that the appropriate type of vehicle light screening should be a berm, and that 3.5 foot barrier is not high enough to shield a residential area from vehicle headlights. Cole Othmer, 13512 Pecan Lane, Sycamore Glen Development, asked the Commission to take the considerations of the people over those of McDonalds for he believes it not so much a family oriented matter as it is a question of profit. His house is for sale, it faces the corner of Bryan and Tustin Ranch Road and he feels he will be taking a property loss because of this. He feels the City Ordinance does not permit retail hours after 10:00 p.m. He stated that he has complained about K-Mart numerous times because of their early morning equipment use and now he fears he will hear all the noises from McDonalds too. Staff clarified for the Commission that there was no limitation on the hours of retail operation in the City of Tustin. Cole Othmer, asked what the Noise Ordinance applied to. Staff stated the Noise Ordinance established certain decibel levels from a variety of noise sources that can and cannot occur between certain time periods and those are also broken down for noise generated for residential land uses and those generated on commercial properties. Generally there is a decrease in the decibels that can occur on a commercial property after 10:00 p.m. A drive-thru operation with a speaker system would be measured at a different criteria between 10:00 and 11:00 p.m. than it would up to that time. Cole Othmer, asked the Commission if they had ever heard a Harley Davidson with no mufflers and that certainly this would be over the decibel level. He feels it is ridiculous to mix residential and commercial uses. Planning Commission Action Agenda January 23, 1995 Page 5 Martin Gelband, 13515 Holly Drive, former President of the Sycamore Glen Association. Stated that from his home he can clearly hear pages 'from the Auto Center and Home Depot and that the Noise Ordinance is not enforced. He feels it would be naive to say that there would be no noise generated from a McDonalds the size of the one on First Street with an even larger play area. He suggested that home owners should have been surveyed before the recommendation to approve this project. He feels that the City has too many fast food restaurants now. He stated that there was a high instance of traffic accidents on that corner and this project will not help the situation. He feels that the presentation given to the Homeowner Associations by McDonalds was not as well done as the large presentation with all of the groups present given by K- Mart when that project was considered and where there was also a representative from the City in attendance. Catherine J. Malley, 2186 Aspen Street, resident of Sycamore Glen. Concern about the type of patron that frequents fast food restaurants. She stated that she personally drove through the Tustin Market Place on several weekend nights between 9:00 and 10:00 p.m. observing the activity at the various fast food restaurants and was alarmed at the crowd of unsupervised teenagers. She feels that people who frequent the K-Mart location do not fit the profile of residents of Tustin Ranch. She feels that an unwanted element would be attracted to her area by this McDonalds being open in the evening and asked if McDonalds had any policy on restaurant supervision when there is a teenage presence in the evening hours. Lou Escobar, 13606 Evergreen Way, resident of Sycamore Glen, shares the concerns of the previous speakers but also is concerned about the trash and traffic situations. He referred to a fatal accident last October where the street was closed for seven hours. He is aware of trash from all the fast food facilities and feels there will be more traffic congestion created. He feels McDonalds should use the vacant pad at the Tustin Market Place and suggested that the reason they did not choose that location was that there was too much competition. William Stracker, 13062 Cortina, stated that he was not against McDonalds but that in regard to the Tustin Specific Plan he thought that this area was to be used for a sit-down style restaurant. He does not think the rocket silos are appropriate to the K-Mart area. He feels that the vehicle headlight glare could be very dangerous from the drive-thru area when they focus down east bound Bryan. He feels that a wall should be on top of a berm from a trash and safety aspect. He is concerned with the noise that could be generated. Planning Commission Action Agenda January 23, 1995 Page 6 Tom McClain, 13082 Cortina, president of the Almeria Homeowners Association, stated that they were not notified. He wanted to voice his personal objection to the project. He feels the staff report justifies the Conditional Use Permit and would prefer to see a sit-down type restaurant on this site as opposed to another fast food restaurant. Pamela Gelband, was impressed with the turn out from the residents this evening. She stated that when the officials were elected to the City of Tustin they promised better than this and if the elected officials cannot serve the City as promised than at the next election the residents will just have to get someone who will. Howard Burns, addressed some of the issues previously discussed. With regard to the Almeria Homeowners Association not being notified, he stated that the requirement was to notify property owners within 300 feet of the project and that they tried to go to every homeowners group and that everyone in Sycamore Glen was notified. They did meet with the homeowners and as for a large presentation, they were not a K-Mart. He stated that the towers were under the height requirement. Regarding the traffic situation, he stated that it will not be made better by McDonalds presence, however, the Specific Plan allows for a 12,000 square foot building and they are only taking up 2,871 square feet. He feels that a sit-down style restaurant would bring in even more traffic, odors and other issues. He stated that the center is currently maintained by the Irvine Company. The loudspeaker system in their service format is not being used at all. He agrees with the conditions on the hours of operation. As for the berm as opposed to the wall, he stated that McDonalds would prefer the berm but there is not enough land area to get the berm high enough. The wall is 3.5~feet high measured from the inside so that on the outside it is somewhat higher to make sure that headlights on an average car or truck would not escape. He stated that if staff would like to put a condition on the trash compactor they are willing to cooperate with that. As for the issue of teenagers, he feels that McDonalds should not be judged by how other fast food firms run their operation but on how they runs theirs. Commissioner Mitzman asked if McDonalds would take a second look at moving to another pad in this project. Howard Burns, appreciates the request and stated that initially they did try to purchase the pad between the two driveways but their operation does not fit that pad. He stated it would have been cheaper to use the other pad but that parking is maxed out per the Specific Plan at this pad and he does not want to spend the money to amend the EIR. He further noted that in his review of it the Specific Plan does not state as to what particular use was anticipated other than that the pads were all parked for retail uses. Planning Commission Action Agenda January 23, 1995 Page 7 Staff stated that Mr. Burns is referring to the concept plan for this shopping center not the Specific Plan. The applicant at the time assumed certain square footages on the pads and the basic parking and buildout was assumed to be retail from a planning perspective at that time. Through the approval process the Irvine Company represented to many of the Homeowners Associations, the Planning Commission and City Council that they felt a sit-down type restaurant would be a good use for the pad but there were no limitations put on the proposal. The ETSP identifies a whole laundry list of permitted uses both outright and by conditional use permit. The parking in the ground now is all needed to satisfy the requirements of the existing Costco and K-Mart developments. The pads were designed that the pads plus the parking would be needed to make the center whole; one way to make the situation work is to build less to meet the parking requirement. Commissioner Mitzman asked if lot lines couldn't be moved around. Staff stated this was a possibility but would have to be applied for by the property owner. Howard Burns stated that K-Mart and Costco owned their own pieces of property and that just to find the right person to talk to.would be easier said than done. Commissioner Kasalek asked that aside from what K-Mart and Costco owned was there space available to adjust the lot lines. Staff reviewed the concept plan in the staff report stating that to accommodate the drive-thru on pad A, the project had to be moved to the corner. Commissioner Weil asked Mr. Burns if the illuminated sign could be turned off at closing time instead of one half hour before closing. Howard Burns agreed to turn off the sign at closing. The Public Hearing closed at 8:17 p.m. Commissioner Mitzman stated he was the only Tustin Ranch resident on the Planning Commission. He feels there are enough fast food restaurants within the Tustin Market Place and if there was to be another one this is not the location for it. His opinion is that it is way too close to a residential area. He stated that he has talked to many friends and neighbors and the majority of those he spoke to did not want this. He feels that if this was approved it would be a major dis-service to Tustin Ranch. If the City must wait for a better use for this pad he thinks it should. Commissioner Weil stated that all of the permits require that the landscaping be maintained in a healthy manner and asked what the problem was that caused the dead palm trees by K-Mart. Planning Commission Action Agenda January 23, 1995 Page 8 Staff stated that there were quite a lot of problems with the palm trees in that center because of over watering and K-Mart-is having a problem with.the original landscaper. It is staffs understanding that K-Mart, Costco and the Irvine Company are currently trying to settle~who will pay for the replacement. Code enforcement has been active and it is being tracked. The Irvine Company has asked for a grace period of two weeks since they are working with K-Mart on this problem. Commissioner Weil asked if construction would be allowed on weekends to construct this McDonalds. Staff stated that currently it was the Building Official's position not to authorize Saturday work. Commissioner Weil asked to have some restriction on the hours for the use of the trash compactor. She stated that this piece of land has always been zoned commercial and if one purchases a house across from it this matter should have been considered. As for the traffic, she feels this is the cleanest on site traffic circulation she has seen in a long time and can't see that it will appreciably increase the traffic on Bryan and Tustin Ranch Road. She would like to see the illumination of the signs turned off at closing. She feels that each restaurant has its own personality and a sit- down style restaurant would not guarantee the element of people that the residents are looking for. She feels that Mr. Frisbie runs a:good operation and she thinks confidence should be given to him. Commissioner Kasalek is concerned about adding to the noise problem with this project but feels that this is a better use than s oRe. Commissioner Lunn asked if there were any complaints with the McDonalds operation on First Street. The Public Hearing was re-opened at 8:35 p.m. James H. Frisbie stated that the hours of operation of the store on First Street were identical to this project. He shares the concern about a loudspeaker system but at the First Street store there is an apartment building directly behind the store and there has never been a complaint. The Auto Center and Home Depot loud speakers were designed to project as far as they can for paging but that their drive-thru speakers are only designed for a 6-8 foot range and even if they were used they would be aimed at Costco. Cole Othmer, stated that he was not concerned with noise from the employees at McDonalds but with the crowd which would come to the facility. When Costco is closed, McDonalds will be open to 11:00 p.m. and people who purchase food can make any kind of noise in the parking lot which McDonalds could not police. Planning Commission Action Agenda January 23, 1995 Page 9 Martin Gelband suggested that the corner opposite Boston Chicken in the new shopping center on Jamboree and Irvine Boulevard would be a perfect place for this McDonalds. As far as purchasing his home across from a commercial center, he feels that an auto use or laundromat is a lot better than a fast food restaurant. Pamela Gelband stated that in listening to the questions from the Commission she hears only one, Mr. Mitzman, who is sympathetic to their concerns. She asked how the residents could feel comfortable that this project will be managed when the noise and landscaping problems go on constantly at K-Mart and Costco. She does not feel that turning the lights off at midnight is going to help. As far as not~. having any complaints on the First Street operation, she asked how does she know that the complaints are being taken care of. Jennifer Short, 24104 Via Corella, Sevilla Town Homes, stated she had come as a spectator because of the notice she received but now feels she must speak up. She does not feel that this type of operation will enhance the neighborhood; that she moved to this area because it was a classy area. She feels that to equate the McDonalds on First Street is ridiculous since the people behind ~ that store are tenants and can move while she is a homeowner paying high property taxes. Jane Anderson stated that when she purchased her home in Sevilla the developer said a hotel and possibly some shops would go into that area but not fast food restaurants, Costco or K-Mart. The Public Hearing closed at 8:50 p.m. Commissioner Baker stated his primary concern was noise and the loudspeaker. He feels the landscaping should mitigate the K-Mart situation and asked staff if a wall 3.5 feet tall would block the headlights of 99% of the vehicles that will go through the drive- thru. He asked what could be done to assure neighbors that conditions will be adhered to if this project were approved. Staff stated "yes", the vehicle lights will be blocked. One condition relocates the pedestrian access through the wall area to cut off the angle so that the vehicle is already turned facing K- Mart before it gets to that opening. City Council is currently looking at the Noise Ordinance and will be making revisions to allow the Police Department, Building Official and Code Enforcement more authority to enforce the Ordinance where appropriate. Commissioner Kasalek asked about the illumination as compared to K- Mart Staff stated that the sign size is significantly smaller. One option would be to require an opaque background on the red so the yellow arches just appear to be illuminated. Planning Commission Action Agenda January 23, 1995 Page 10 Commissioner Mitzman believes the Commission is missing the point. Tustin Ranch residents are clearly speaking out and do.not want' this McDonalds in their back yard. Commissioner Kasalek stated that she feels she is listening to the residents and has some genuine concerns and at this point is not prepared to approve the project as it is. Commissioner Lunn believes that McDonalds is a good neighbor, that some commercial use will be put on that pad and the residents could do a lot worse. She asked if there was a way to police the problem of teenagers hanging around and making un-necessary noise with radios etc. Staff stated that "No Loitering" signs could be posted in order to allow the Police Department to enforce the provisions of the code if there was a problem. In order for the Police to remove anyone from the property is must be properly posted. Commissioner Weil agrees with Commissioner Lunn and feels that this project is a good one and the request can be supported by the conditions in the staff report. Commissioner Weil moved, Lunn seconded, to approve the Environmental Determination for the project by adopting Resolution No. 3328 as submitted. Motion carried 3-2. Commissioners Kasalek and Mitzman opposed. Commissioner Weil moved, Lunn seconded, to approve Conditional Use Permit 94-023 and Design Review 94-030 by adopting Resolution No. 3329 revised as follows: .Exhibit A, page 3, Add Condition 3.3 to read, "The use of the trash compactor shall be limited to those hours between 8:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m.". Add Condition 3.4 to read, "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, page 9, Condition 7.5 shall be revised to read, "All exterior illuminated signs shall be installed on a timer so that the illumination is turned off at the closing of the establishment". Add Condition 7.6 to read, "The sign copy on the proposed tower signs shall have an opaque background, except for the "M" logo". Motion carried 3-2. Commissioners Kasalek and Mitzman opposed. 3. Code Amendment 95-001 APPLICANT: LOCATION: ZONING: ENVIRONMENTAL CITY OF TUSTIN COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT 300 CENTENNIAL WAY TUSTIN, CA 92680 CITYWIDE CITYWIDE Planning Commission Action Agenda January 23, 1995 Page 11 STATUS: REQUEST: IT HAS BEEN DETERMINED THAT THIS PROJECT WOULD NOT HAVE A SIGNIFICANT EFFECT ON THE ENVIRONMENT AND A NEGATIVE DECLARATION HAS BEEN PREPARED. AN AMENDMENT TO THE TUSTIN ZONING CODE TO ADD PROVISIONS RELATED TO REAPPLICATION OF DISCRETIONARY LAND USE APPROVALS AND REQUESTS FOR MODIFICATION OF CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL. Recommendation - It is recommended that the Planning Commission take the following actions: · Approve the Environmental Determination for the project by adopting Resolution No. 3326; and · Recommend to the City Council approval of Code Amendment 95- 001 by adopting Resolution No. 3327, as submitted or revised. Presentation: Daniel Fox, Senior Planner Commissioner Mitzman feels that a one year time period is too long to reapply and asked what the point of one year was. He would like to see it to be six months since Tustin has a reputation for being business friendly. Lois Bobak, Deputy City Attorney, stated that it was a fairly standard period of time in other City Codes. Staff invests so much time in reviewing a project, preparing a staff report and making recommendations that to require them to do that on anything less than an annual basis would not be feasible. The proposal does not state that an application cannot be resubmitted for the property, just not the very same application. Commissioner Kasalek moved, Weil seconded, to approve the Environmental Determination for the project by adopting Resolution No. 3326 as submitted. Motion carried 5-0. Commissioner Kasalek moved, Well seconded, to recommend to the City Council approval of Code Amendment 95-001 by adopting Resolution No. 3327 as submitted. Motion carried 5-0. · Amendment to Vesting Tentative Tract Map 14188 and Design Review 94-033 APPLICANT/ OWNER LOCATION: ZONING: ENVIRONMENTAL STANDARD PACIFIC 1565 W. MacARTHUR BLVD. COSTA MESA, CA 92626 ATTN: PEGGY ROBERTS TRACT 14188, WEST SIDE OF TOWNSHIP DRIVE AT RAWLINGS WAY PLANNED COMMUNITY RESIDENTIAL - (LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL) - EAST TUSTIN SPECIFIC PLAN Planning Commission Action Agenda January 23, 1995 Page 12 STATUS: REQUEST: THIS PROJECT IS COVERED BY A PREVIOUSLY CERTIFIED EIR (85-2) FOR THE EAST TUSTIN SPECIFIC PLAN. NO ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTATION IS REQUIRED. AUTHORIZATION TO ADD THREE ADDITIONAL PRODUCTION UNITS TO THE BUILDOUT OF THE EXISTING RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT Recommendation -It is recommended that the Planning Commission take the following actions: · Approve Design Review 94-033 by adopting Resolution No. 3324, as submitted or revised; and · Recommend to the City Council approval of Amendment to Vesting Tentative Tract Map 14188 by adopting Resolution No. 3325, as submitted or revised. Presentation: Daniel Fox, Senior Planner Staff recommended continuing this item to the next meeting in order to further investigate design options to accommodate the closure of Lampert and to allow the City Attorney's office to further input on the CC&R' issues and questions raised by some of the homeowners at the last meeting. Commissioner Mitzman asked if the applicant and homeowner group were aware of the additional continuation and were they in concurrence with it. Staff stated that the residents were provided with a letter and have met with Standard Pacific prior to this meeting. The Public Hearing opened at 9:23 p.m. David Foell, representative of Standard Pacific, stated they had been informed that it was staffs opinion that this item should be continued and they were in agreement. He stated that they are currently involved in building a consensus with the homeowners to address the concerns. John Cochrane, 2415 Kiser, representing San Rafael, stated that the statements made by the representative of Standard Pacific were accurate and that they are working to present two proposals to the Commission for consideration. The Public Hearing closed at 9:26 p.m. Commissioner Mitzman moved, Weil seconded, to continue this item to the next regularly scheduled meeting of February 13, 1995. Motion carried 5-0. Planning Commission Action Agenda January 23, 1995 Page 13 REGULAR BUSINESS: 5. Use Interpretation 95-001 APPLICANT: LOCATION: ZONING: ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: REQUEST: THE BASEBALL ACADEMY 20 SANDSTONE IRVINE, CA 92714 632 EL CAMINO REAL, SUITE C CENTRAL COMMERCIAL (C-2P) DISTRICT THIS PROJECT HAS BEEN DETERMINED TO BE CATEGORICALLY EXEMPT (CLASS 3) PURSUANT TO SECTION 15303 OF THE CALIFORNIA EQUALITY ACT (CEQA) TO DETERMINE THAT A BASEBALL ACADEMY FOR HITTING INSTRUCTION IS AN OUTRIGHT PERMITTED USE WITHIN THE CENTRAL COMMERCIAL (C-2P) DISTRICT Recommendation -It is recommended that the Planning Commission determine by Minute Motion that a baseball academy for hitting instruction is an outright permitted use within the Central CommerCial (C-2) District. Presentation: Daniel Fox, Senior Planner Commissioner Weil asked if it were an indoor facility. Staff stated "yes". Ira Green, the applicant, stated that he has been a baseball coach for many years and currently coaches at Tustin High School. He noted that this will be the only baseball teaching facility in Tustin. Commissioner Baker asked how he planned to operate. Ira Green stated he will be working with small groups, one instructor for every four students, using video tape capabilities, hand operated pitching machines and two batting cages. Commissioner Kasalek moved, Weil seconded, to determine by Minute Motion that a baseball academy for hitting instruction is an outright permitted use within the Central Commercial (C-2) District. Motion carried 5-0. 6. Status Reports Recommendation - Receive and file. Commissioner Well moved, Kasalek seconded, to receive and file these reports. Motion carried 5-0. Planning Commission Action Agenda January 23, 1995 Page 14 STAFF CONCERNS: 7. Report on Actions taken at January 16, 1995 City Council Meeting Staff reported on the subject agenda. COMMISSION CONCERNS: Commissioner Kasalek Questioned the wording in the Zoning Code which states that bowling alley use in the C-2 District is listed as an outright permitted use and also required to have a Conditional Use Permit. Staff stated there was an error in the Code. It should state Conditional Use Permit since the other commercial districts identify this as a conditionally permitted use. All the use determinations made over the years will be identified in the upgraded Zoning Code. Commissioner Mitzman Asked if the City had an Ordinance to prohibit people from removing trash from the trash cans in residential neighborhoods and if so, how was it enforced. Staff stated that it is mentioned in the Code and also in the City's'agreement with Great Western, the City trash hauler. The trash is the property of the trash hauler but it was difficult to enforce unauthorized removal. Information on enforcement would be provided to the Commission at next meeting at the request of Commissioner Mitzman. Commissioner Lunn Thanked Doug Anderson, City Traffic Engineer, for help with the lights and the freeway fence problem which had been a concern of hers. Noted that the Cosmopolitan was coming down and asked if there was a projected date for completion of the project. Staff stated that the rough grade plans were in plan check now. The project has changed ownership and is now being completed by Shea Homes. Rick Zimmer, Redevelopment Program Manager, is currently working with Shea Homes on a development agreement for the project. Asked if any tapes would be available from the Planners Institute Conference. Planning COmmission Action Agenda January 23, 1995 Page 15 Staff noted that the Commissioners were always welcome to use the materials in the Community Development Department library and that a list of past Planning Institute tapes would be made available as well as obtaining the current series of available tapes from the upcoming Planning Institute program. Commissioner Weil Thanked staff for the new City telephone directory and asked for a further explanation of the League of Cities Annual Planners Institute. Staff gave a summary of what the Annual Institute program would cover this year. Commissioner Baker Attended a small business workshop at the Irvine Chamber of Commerce on Business Retention and Attraction given by State level representatives, which he found very interesting. Another workshop will be held in Brea in a few days and he has asked the Tustin Chamber of Commerce to attend. Dave Gottlieb of the Tustin Redevelopment Staff, has obtained a manual containing lists of public agencies. ADJOURNMENT: Commissioner Lunn moved, Well seconded, to adjourn the meeting at 9:48 p.m. Motion carried 5-0. The next regular meeting of the Planning Commission is on February 13, 1995 at 7:00 p.m. in the City Council Chambers at 300 Centennial Way, Tustin. A. L. Baker Chairperson Barbara Reyes Recording Secretary ITEM NO. 2 \ aport to the Planning Commission DATE: SUBJECT: APPLICANT/ · OWNER LOCATION: ZONING: ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: REQUEST: FEBRUARY 13, 1995 AMENDMENT TO VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 14188 AND DESIGN REVIEW 94-033 STANDARD PACIFIC 1565 W. MacARTHUR BLVD. COSTA MESA, CA 92626 ATTN: PEGGY ROBERTS TRACT 14188, WEST SIDE OF TOWNSHIP DRIVE AT RAWLINGS WAY PLANNED COMMUNITY RESIDENTIAL - (LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL) - EAST TUSTIN SPECIFIC PLAN THIS PROJECT IS COVERED BY A PREVIOUSLY CERTIFIED EIR (85-2) FOR THE EAST TUSTIN SPECIFIC PLAN. NO ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTATION IS REQUIRED. AUTHORIZATION TO ADD THREE ADDITIONAL PRODUCTION UNITS TO THE BUILDOUT OF THE EXISTING RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT RECOMMENDATION Pleasure of the Commission. BACKGROUND This item was continued'from the January 9, 1995 and January 23, 1995 Planning Commission meetings to allow staff and the applicant to respond to the direction provided by the Commission related to: I , Potential closure of Lambert and the feasibility of installing a landscape median instead of an actual cul-de-sac; and 2. Issues concerning CC&R's related to closure of Lambert. Planning Commission Report Amendment to VTT 14188 and DR 94-033 February 13, 1995 Page 2 This report is intended to respond to the direction of the Commission related to the subject project. Please refer to the January 9, 1995 Planning Commission Report for a more detailed discussion on other aspects of the proposed project (Attachment A). Prior to development, the Planning Commission must recommend approval of the Amendment to Vesting Tentative Map to the City Council and approve the Design Review for the project pursuant to the provisions of the East Tustin Specific Plan (ETSP). Located in Sector 8 of the ETSP, the site is bordered by Township Drive to the east, Lot 4 of Tract 12870 to the south, Lot 26 of Tract 13627 to the north and unincorporated residential properties to the west. A public hearing notice identifying the time, date and loCation of the public hearing on this project was published in the Tustin News for the January 9, 1995 Planning Commission meeting. Property owners in the existing tract, and within 300 feet of the entire tract boundary were notified of the hearing by mail and notices were posted on the site, at City Hall and the Police Department. Since this item was continued to a date certain, no additional notification was required. The applicant was informed of the availability of a staff report on this project. DISCUSSION 1. Closure of Lambert Since the January 23, 1995 Planning Commission meeting, the applicant has continued to work with the residents to develop a design solution related to Lambert. The applicant at this time is proposing to install decorate pavement treatments across Lambert adjacent to Lot 10, provide upgraded landscape elements and project monumentation to create a visual distinction between the ~xisting development and the proposed development. In addition, the applicant would also be providing additional upgraded landscaping and project monumentation signs at the San Rafel project entrance at Township Drive and Bennett. There is currently existing a decorative pavement, treatment at the project entrance. Based upon our contact with resident, Elaine Nermon, John Cochrane and Jack Jung, the residents have apparently indicated their agreement with. the proposed concept with the stipulation that they have the ability to comment on and Planning Commission Report Amendment to VTT 14188 and DR 94-033 February 13, 1995 Page 3 approve the final details related to these improvements. Conditions of approval have been included in the draft resolutions to require the Homeowner's Association to review and comment to City staff on the final design details prior to issuance of permits for the improvements. The final details should be in substantial conformance in scale and magnitude as those improvements identified in the proposed plans. In addition, a condition has also been included requiring the installation of the street, landscaping, and monument improvements prior to issuance of certificates of occupancy for the first phase of any proposed development which includes the 'buildout of the three home sites on Bennett within the existing portion of the project. . CC&R's Related to Closure of Lambert & Department of Real Estate's White Report Review The City Attorney has had an opportunity to review the "White Report" issued by the California Department of Real Estate for the project. The City Attorney believes that the Report does not provide any basis for the City to deny the modifications of the discretionary approvals regarding unit size proposed by the applicant (Attachment B). The City Attorney has also pointed out the even if the Report was defective, the only remedy would be for an interested party to force an amendment to the Report with the' Department of Real Estate. The City Attorney could not site any provision of City Code, including the Subdivision Map Act, which would permit the City from denying a requested modification based on allegedly inaccurate information in a White Report. CONCLUSION Should~_.the Planning Commission wish to approve the project, it would be appropriate to take the following actions: ApproVe Design Review 94-033 by adopting Resolution No. 3324, as submitted or revised; and . Recommend to the City Council approval of Amendment to Vesting Tentative Tract Map 14188 by adopting Resolution No. 3325, as submitted or revised. Planning Commission Report Amendment to VTT 14188 and DR 94-033 February 13, 1995 Page 4 Staff would be prepared to respond to any other direction provided by the Commission at the meeting. ~iCP Senior Planner CAS :DF: br;mp/TT 14188. C02 Attachments: Location Map Site Plan/Elevations Attachment A - January 9, 1995 Planning Commission Report Attachment B - City Attorney Correspondence LOCATION MAP .Y'NARD ~ DR. ~ f NO SCALE 'l m 0 Z 3> IT! Z ITl --I 0 Z TUSTIN RANCH TRACT 14188 TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA STANDARD PACIFIC O~ O~ANGE COUNTY ENTRANCE STUDIES , g CHENEY STREET TUSTIN RANCH SALES TRAILER TRACT 14188 TUSTIN. CALIFORNIA STANDARD PACIFIC OF ORANGE COUNTY CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT PLAN lllil:i I I I 65L0~ T-r7 :Il: I:,,H il'iii, 6820' It t 50)-0~ 4LO4 II, ii I Z , _EM NO. 5 .eport to the lanning Commission DATE: SUBJECT: APPLICANT/ OWNER LOCATION: ZONING: ENVIRONMENTAL ,STATUS: REQUEST: JANUARY 9, 1995 AMENDMENT TO VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 14188 AND DESIGN REVIEW 94-033 STANDARD PACIFIC 1565 W. MacARTHUR BLVD. COSTA MESA, CA 92626 ATTN: PEGGY ROBERTS TRACT 14188, WEST SIDE OF TOWNSHIP DRIVE AT RAWLINGS WAY PLANNED COMMUNITY RESIDENTIAL - (LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL) - EAST TUSTIN SPECIFIC PLAN THIS PROJECT IS COVERED BY A PREVIOUSLY CERTIFIED EIR (85-2) FOR THE EAST TUSTIN SPECIFIC PLAN. NO ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTATION IS REQUIRED. AUTHORIZATION TO ADD THREE ADDITIONAL PRODUCTION UNITS TO THE BUILDOUT OF THE EXISTING RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the Planning Commission take the following actions: i , Approve the Environmental Determination for the project by adopting Resolution No. 3323; . Approve Design Review 94-033 by adopting Resolution No. 3324, as submitted or revised; and . Recommend to the City Council approval of Amendment to Vesting Tentative Tract Map 14188 by adopting Resolution No. 3325,. as submitted or revised. ATTACHMENT A Planning Commission Report Amendment to VTT 14188 and DR 94-033 ,January 9, 1995 Page 2 BACKGROUND In June of 1990, the City Council approved Vesting Tentative Tract Map 14188 which authorized the subdivision of an approximate 19- acre site to accommodate 57 single-family detached residential dwellings. Subsequent to that approval, the developer recorded the Final Map and commenced construction of the development. To date, 16 of the 57 dwellings (28% of the project) have been completed. The applicant is requesting approval for three new residential product types which will be added to the buildout of the project. The total number of dwelling units for this project will not be increased. Prior tO. development, the Planning Commission must recommend approval of the Amendment to Vesting Tentative Map to the City Council and approve the Design Review for the project pursuant to the provisions of the East Tustin Specific Plan (ETSP). Located in Sector 8 of the ETSP, the site is bordered by Township Drive'to the east, Lot 4 of Tract 12870 to the south, Lot 26 of Tract 13627 to the north and unincorporated residential properties to the west. A public hearing notice identifying the time, date and location of the public hearing on this project was published in the Tusti~ News. Property owners in the existing tract, and within 300 feet of the entire tract boundary were notified of the hearing by mail and notices were posted on the site, at City Hall and the Police Department. The applicant was informed of the availability of a staff report on this project. PROJECT DESCRIPTION/SITE PLAN The applicant-is proposing to add three new product types which will be'~Used in the buildout of the existing development. No modifications to the previously approved street' system or lot configuration of the development is proposed as part of this project. The original approved plans for the subject development included seven (7) different floor plans ranging in size from approximately 3,450 square feet to 4,170 square feet. Of the seven floor plans, three (3) were single-story and located along the western boundary of the development adjacent to the residential units in unincorporated territory as a requirement of the ETSP. Planning Commission Report Amendment to VTT 14188 and DR 94-033 January 9, 1995 Page 3 To date, homes on Bennett, Kiser and on the south end of Lambert have been completed in the south westerly portion of the development. A total of 16 units in the project have been completed which represents 28% of the entire project. Of the remaining 41 units left to be built in the development, the applicant is intending to construct 11 (19% of entire project) of the original production units. Plans 1, 2 and 3 are proposed to be located on Lots 6, and 10 through 17 as originally approved. In addition Plans 7 and 5 will be located on Lots 1 and 5 respectively, also as originally approved. This would ensure that the single-story homes are located along the wester~ boundary consistent with the provisions of the ETSP, and that the three vacant lots within the completed portion of the project (original model complex on Bennett) would be completed with the previously approved product. ~' The applicant is intending to construct 30 of the new Plans 8, 9 and 10 (53% of the entire project) on Stanley, Cheney and Suddaby (Lots 18 - 47). A new· model complex consisting of a temporary sales trailer, parking lot and landscaping is proposed on Lot 33 (corner of Township Drive and Cheney) within the remaining buildout area. The minimum front yard setback within the Low Density Residential designation is 20 feet, as measured from the front property line to the building architecture. Lot 11 is plotted with a 12 foot front yard setback. When the original development was considered, the applicant requested a Variance (VAR 90-008) to reduce the' front yard setback on Lots 8, 11, and 14 from 20 feet to 12 feet. Variance 90-008 was denied by the Planning Commission and conditions were included in the original approval to require that the front yard setbacks on those lots comply with the minimum 20 foot requirements. A condition of approval has been included in the Design Review Resolution to require that the front yard setback on Lot 11 be modified to comply~ with the minimum 20 foot setback requirement of the ETSP. As an option, the applicant would have the ability to apply for another Variance to reduce the minimum front yard setback on Lot 11. However, the applicant has not made such an application to date. The proposed modifications meet or exceed all other development standards required by the ETSP, except as noted above. 'Please refer t© Attachment A for a complete statistical summary of the project. Planning Commission Report Amendment to VTT 14188 and DR 94-033 January 9, 1995 Page 4 ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN The architectural design of the originally approved project was a contemporary interpretation of the Spanish Colonial and Monterey styles. The original seven different floor plans ranged in size from 3,450 square feet with 4 bedrooms and 2.5 baths to 4,170 square feet with 5 bedrooms and 5.5 baths ~See Attachment B). The building masses are broken up with multiple hip and gable roofs, projecting gables, balconies and low garden walls. Additional features include skylights, clestory windows, wrought iron gates and decorative masonry veneers. The proposed additional plans (Plans 8., 9 and 10) range in size from 3,275 square feet with 5 bedrooms and 3.5 baths to 3,540 square feet with 5 bedrooms and 4.5 baths (See Attachment C). The proposed elevations include similar architectural features such as roof eave details, window trim, shutters consistent with the originally approved plans. Each plan includes two alternate elevations to provide a wide variety of architectural character within the development as was originally provided. The applicant is proposing to use the same finish colors that have been used on the existing units to also provide consistency and compatibility between the existing portion of the development and the new buildout portion. Material sample boards will be available for review at the January 9, 1995 Planning Commission meeting. PUBLIC CONCERNS Prior to making a°formal application to the City for the proposed changes, the applicant informed the Home Owners Association and residents of the desired modifications. In response to those discussions, the residents identified several concerns with the project related to aesthetics, safety, noise and property values. A~ letter explaining these concerns signed by all 16 existing residents was sent to the City (Attachment D). Major concerns identified include: 1. The sales trailer should not be located within the existinq portion of the development. AS previously mentioned, the applicant is proposing to establish a new temporary sales trailer and parking facility on Lot 33 within the future buildout area. Planning Commission Report Amendment to'VTT 14188 and DR 94-033 January 9, 1995 Page 5 2. Construction should commence at the north end of the . development. The applicant has proposed a phasing schedule which identifies that Phase I would be on Stanley, immediately north of the existing development. In addition, Lots 1, 5 and 6 would be part of Phase I. Conditions have been included to reinforce the need to build Lots 1, 5 and 6 with the first phase of development. Phase 2 would be located on the northerly end of the development on Suddaby and Phase 3 would be on Cheney. The Phasing schedule is intended to build adjacent to and within the existing development first thereby minimizing long term construction impacts with the construction of Phases 2 and 3 on the existing development. The builder and the City should investiqate alternate sources for water to the construction site to improve water pressure. The Irvine Ranch Wa~er District (IRWD) is responsible for providing water service to Tustin Ranch. IRWD has had some water pressure problems in the recent months within Tustin Ranch. However, IRWD does not believe that it is related to construction activity. Residents are encouraged to directly contact IRWD to report any water pressure problems that they may be experiencing. Construction Hours should be strictly enforced. Conditions of approval have been imposed that would require compliance with permitted construction hours and noise requirements. The Police Department and the Building Official are responsible for enforcing these requirements. Lambert should be permanently closed from the new development. One outstanding issue is related to the physical connection on Lambert between the existing portion of the project already completed and the anticipated buildout area between Kiser and Stanley. The residents believe that a street closure between Kiser and Stanley would satisfy their safety and noise concerns and would preserve future property values by defining the difference between the development phases of the subdivision. The applicant has considered the resident's request and evaluated a physical separation between Kiser and Stanley.. However, they are not prepared to make such changes which Planning Commission Report Amendment to VTT 14188 and DR 94-033 January 9, 1995 Page 6 . . would .require alterations to the existing site plan, street improvements and lot configurations, as well as, impact occupied Lots 8, 9 and 52 (Attachment E) . There are no specific City requirements that would necessitate the closure of Lambert and the separation of this development between Kiser and Stanley. There are situations existing in other portions of East Tustin, such as the Almeria Development south of Irvine Boulevard, where two separate developments with different product types are connected by an internal local circulation system. Should the Planning Commission wish to consider the closure of Lambert between Kiser and Stanley, staff'has prepared a possible design solution (Attachment F) and would-be prepared at the meeting to provide alternative conditions of approval related to this issue.. The developer should select a different name for this new project~_ Although this item is not within the purview of the Planning Commission, the residents were concerned with the proposed "San Rafel II" marketing name for the project and believed that it should be a separate project. The applicant has committed to the residents that a new marketing name will be created for the buildoUt portion of the project. Lots 1, 5, and 6 should be developed with the oriqina! approved plans. As previously mentioned,' the applicant does intend to construct Lots 1, 5 and 6 with the originally approved plans. ENVIRONM~__NTAL ANALYSIS Based upon review of Amendment to Vesting Tentati.ve Tract Map 14188, as well as, Environmental Impact Report 85-2, it's supplements and addendum, it has been determined that environmental issues relating to this project, have previously been addressed and the initial study for the project is attached to this report. Also, appropriate mitigating measures identified in EIR 85-2 are included as conditions of approval for the project. With this information in mind, it is recommended that the Commission make the finding that requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act-have been met and that no further environmental review is required. Planning Commission Report Amendment to VTT 14188 and DR 94-033 January 9, 1995 Page 7 CONCLUSION Given the analysis conducted by the Community Development Department and in consideration of comments from other agencies and the public, it is concluded that the proposed project meets the requirements of the East Tustin Specific Plan, the Subdivision Map Act, as adopted, and the California Environmental Quality Act. With the inclusion of conditions of approval listed in Resolution No.'s 3323, 3324, and 3325, it is recommended that the Planning Commission recommend to the City Council approval of Amendment to Vesting Tentative Tract Map 14188 and approve Design Review 94-033. Daniel Fox AICP Senior Planner CAS:DF :br;mp/TT14188 Attachments: Location Map Attachment A (Statistical Summary) Attachment B (Previously Approved Plans) Attachment C (Proposed Site Plan/Elevations Attachment D (Resident's Concerns) Attachment E (Closure of Lambert) Attachment F (Closure of Lambert, Design Solution) Initial Study Resolution Nos. 3323, 3324 and 3325 ATTACHMENT A - Statistical Summary Amendment to Vesting Tentative Tract Map 14188 and DR 94-033 Requirement Proposed Gross Site Area Residential (Lots 1-57) Private Streets (Lots A) Landscape (Lots B, C, D) N/A N/A N/A N/A 19.162 acres 15.41 acres 3.17 acres .57 acres Total Units N/A 57 units Density 4 du/ac (gross) 2.97'5 du/ac (gross) Lot Coverage 50% 22% Building Setbacks Front Yard 20 feet minimum 20 feet minimum Side Yard 5 feet -5 feet Rear Yard 15 feet minimum 30 feet minimum (adjacent to existing County residential area) 28 feet minimum 30 feet Height 35 feet maximum 23 feet (single story) 29.5 feet (two story) Resident Parking 114 garages (2 garages per unit) 171 garages (3 garages per unit) Guest Parking Uni~ Floor Plans Plan 1 Plan. 2 Plan 3 Plan 4 Plan 5 Plan 6 Plan 7 Plan 8 Plan 9 Plan 10 114 on-street spaces (2 per unit) 122 on-street spaces). Sq. Ft. 3,448 4,077 4,056 3,600 3,736 4,000 4,167 3,275 3,340 3,540 Plan Type Quantity Percentaqe 4 br/2.5 ba 4 7 4 br/3.5 ba 4 7 4 br/4 ba 4 7 5 br/4.5 ba 3 5 5 br/3 ba 4 7 5 br/4.5 ba 3 5 5 br/5.5 ba 5 8 5 br/3.5 ba 10 18 4 bt~4 ba 10 18 5 br/4.5 ba 10 18 · LAW OFFICES OF ROURKE, WOODRUFF & SPRADLIN A p~C)F[SSlONAL COR~)I:~TION MEMORANDUM -- RECEIVED -- FEB 0 2 COMMUNITY DEVLEOPI~[ TO: Dan Fox Senior Planner FROM' City Attorney DATE: RE: January 27, 1995 Standard Pacific White Report We have had an opportunity to review the January 14, 1994 White Report issued by the California Department of Real Estate for the Standard Pacific's San Rafael project (Tract No. 14188, Phase 3). We do not believe that the Report provides any basis for the City's denial of the m6dification of the discretionary approvals regarding unit sizes currently being sought by Standard Pacific. Under state law, a subdivider of real proPerty must obtain what is commonly referred to as a '"White Report" from the Department of Real Estate before selling subdivided lots. The Report must contain specific information regarding the subdivision, including a general description of the use to which the property will be put. While owners of a subdivision with a White Report must notify the Department of Real Estate of "material" changes in a subdivision, the regulations established by the Department do not include construction details such as square footage in the definition of "material" changes. There is reference in the regulations to "any change in the configuration of the subdivision interest being offered for sale ..." that might apply to this situation, but it is not clear. The White Report prepared for the San Rafael project states that "This subdivision is part of a total project which, if developed as proposed, will consist of a total of 6 phases and 57 lots." -No other detail on the development is provided. Furthermore, the Report expressly states that 'q-here is no assurance that the total project or master community will be completed as proposed." Thus, it does not appear to this office that there is any basis to conclude that the White Report created any reasonable expectations regarding building square footages or other specifics about the product sold. Even assuming that the Report was defective, the only apparent remedy would be for an interested party to force an amendment to the Report. We have found no authority, including the Subdivision Map Act, which would permit the City to deny Standard Pacific's current design modification request on the basis of allegedly inaccurate information in a White Report. ATTACHMENT B Dan Fox Senior Planner January 27, 1995 Page 2 please feel free to contact the undersigned should you have any further questions regarding this matter. LOIS E. JEFFRE~ /,/b" u ..OIS'BOBAK cc: William Huston, City Manager Christine Shingleton, Assistant City Manager 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 RESOLUTION NO. 3324 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN, CONDITIONALLY APPROVING DESIGN REVIEW 94-033 TO ADD THREE ADDITIONAL PRODUCT TYPES TO THE BUILDOUT OF THE PREVIOUSLY APPROVED DEVELOPMENT ON TRACT 14188. The Planning Commission of the City of Tustin does hereby resolve as follows: I. The Planning Commission finds and determines as follows: ae That a proper application, Design Review 94-033 was submitted by Standard Pacific requesting approval to add three additional product types to the buildout of the previously approved development of Tract 14188. Be That the said application was considered by the Planning .Commission on January 9, 1995, January 23, 1995 and February 13, 1995. Co Pursuant to Section 9272 of the Tustin Municipal Code, the Commission finds that the location, size, architectural features and general appearanCe of the proposed development 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. · Landscaping, parking area design and traffic circulation. · Location, height and standards of exterior illumination. 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Resolution No. 3324 Page 2 · Location and appearance of equipment located outside of an enclosed structure. 10. Physical relationship of proposed structures to existing structures in the neighborhood. 11. Appearance and design relationship of proposed structure to existing structures and possible feature structures in the neighborhood and public thoroughfares. 12. Development Guidelines and criteria as adopted by the City Council. II. The Planning Commission hereby conditionally approves Design Review 94-033 authorizing the addition of three new product types to the buildout of the existing development of Tract 14188, subject to the conditions contained in Exhibit A, attached hereto. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Planning Commission of the City of Tustin, at a regular meeting on the 13th day of February, 1995. A L. BAKER Chairperson BARBARA REYES Recording 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. 3324 was duly passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the Tustin Planning Commission, held on the 13th day of February, 1995. BARBARA REYES Recording Secretary EXHIBIT A RESOLUTION NO. 3324 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL DESIGN REVIEW 94-033 GENERAL (1) 1.1 The proposed project shall substantially conform with the submitted plans date stamped February 13, 1995 on file with the Community Development Department as herein modified or as modified by the Director of Community Development in accordance with this Exhibit. The DireCtor of Community Development may also approve subsequent minor modifications to plans ~uring plan check if such modifications are to be consistent with provisions of the East Tustin Specific Plan. (1) 1.2 Unless otherwise specified, the conditions contained in the 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 approval shall become null and void unless all building permits are issued within eighteen (18) months of the date of this Exhibit. (1) 1.4 The applicant shall sign and return an Agreement to Conditions Imposed form prior to issuance of building permits. (1) 1.5 The applicant and property owner shall hold harmless and defend the City of Tustin 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 REQUIREMENT (2) CEQA MITIGATION ' (6) LANDSCAPING GUIDELINES (3) UNIFORM BUILDING'CODE/S (7) PC/CC POLICY (4) DESIGN REVIEW *** EXCEPTION Exhibit A- cOnditions of Approval DR 94-033 Resolution No. 3324 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) (3) Be Preliminary technical detail and plans for all utility installations including cable TV, telephone, gas waster 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) (3) Ce Final grading and specification consistent with the site plan and landscaping plans and prepared by a registered civil engineer for approval by the Community Development Department. (2) (3) De Final street improvement plans consistent with the site plan and landscaping plans and prepared by a registered civil engineer for approval by the Community Development Department. (2) (3) E · Model complex plans identifying all temporary fencing, landscaping, elevations, parking facilities and other temporary model complex facilities. (2) F. A detailed acoustical noise stUdy prepared by a qualified acoustical expert shall be subject to review and approval by the Community DeVelopment Department to insure that interior noise levels do not exceed a maximum of 45 dBa's and that the exterior noise levels shall not exceed a maximum of 65 dBa's. (1) 2.2 Submitted construction drawings shall be in conformance with all development standards as applicable in the East Tustin Specific Plan. Conceptual approval of locations of structures shall not constitute final approval. Any administrative adjustments are subject to review and approval by the Director of Community Development. Exhibit A, Conditions of Approval DR 94-033 Resolution No. 3324 Page 3 SITE AND BUILDING CONDITIONS (1) 3.1 Provide exact details of all exterior door and window (4) types, including but not limited to such information as frame color and glass tint. (1) 3.2 Ail exterior colors to be used shall be subject to review (4) and approval of the Director of the Community Development Department. All exterior treatments shall be coordinated with regard to color, materials and detailing and noted on submitted construction plans and elevations shall indicate all colors and materials to be used. (1) 3.3 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) 3.4 Exterior elevations of the buildings shall indicate any (4) fixtures or equipment to be located on the roof of the building, equipment heights and type of screening. (1) 3.5 The model complex sales trailer shall be painted to be compatible with the proposed color scheme for the subject product types. Final colors shall be noted on the plans and shall be subject to final approval of the Community Development Department. (1) 3.6 The front yard setback on Lot il shall comply with the requirements of the East Tustin Specific Plan which requires a minimum 20 foOt front yard setback. *** 3.7 Construction traffic shall be prohibited from accessing the development from Bennett, except for such construction traffic directly related to the buildout of Lots 1, 5 and 6. *** 3..8 The cOnstruction of Lots 1, 5 and 6 shall occur prior to or concUrrently with the construction of Phase I of the buildout of the subject project. No certificate of occupancy shall be issued for any dwelling within Phase I unless certificates of occupancy have been issued for Lots 1, 5 and 6. *** 3.9 The construction of the decorative pavement treatments, upgraded landscape elements and project monumentation signs as required below shall be completed prior to issuance of any certificate of occupancy for the dwellings on Lots 1, 5 o__r 6. ~ Exhibit A- Conditions of Approval DR 94-033 Resolution No. 3324 Page 4 LANDSCAPING, GROUNDS AND HARDSCAPE ELEMENTS (1) 4.1 Submit at plan check complete detailed landscaping and irrigation plans for the project, including the model complex, consistent with adopted City of Tustin Landscaping and Irrigation Guidelines. Provide summary table identifying plant materials. The plant table shall list botanical and common names, sizes, spacing, location and quantity of the plant materials proposed. Show planting and beaming details, soil preparation , staking, etc. The irrigation plan shall show location and control of backflow prevention devices, pipe size, sprinkler type, spacing and coverage. Details for all equipment must be provided. Show all property lines on the landscaping and irrigation plan, public right-of-way areas, sidewalk~ widths, parkway areas, and wall locations. The Community Development Department may request minor substitutions of plant materials or request additional sizing or quantity materials during plan check. Note on landscaping plan that coverage of landscaping and irrigation materials is subject to field inspection at project completion by the Department of Community Development. (1) 4.2 A complete, detailed project sign program including design, location, sizes, colors and materials shall be approved by the Irvine Company then submitted for review and approval by the Community Development Department. The sign program shall include temporary project identification, model complex, addressing and street signs. All signs shall .be in accordance with the City's Security Code. *** 4.3 A decorative pavement treatment shall be provided across. Lambert in the vicinity of Lot 10. Upgraded landscape treatments and project monumentation signs shall be provided outside of~ the travel way on Lambert in the vicinity of Lot 10 and at the intersection of Township Drive and Bennett. The Homeowner's Association shall review and comment to the City on the final design details prior to issuance of permits for said improvements. The final details should be in substantial conformance in scale and magnitude as those improvements conceptually identified and approved as part of this Exhibit. Exhibit A- Conditions of Approval DR 94-033 Resolution No. 3324 Page 5 NOISE (1) 5.1 Prior to the issuance of any building permits: (2) (3) A final acoustical analysis report describing the acoustical design features of the structures required to satisfy the exterior and interior noise standards shall be submitted to the Tustin Community Development Department for approval along with satisfactory evidence which indicates that the sound attenuation measures specified in the.approved acoustical report(s) have been incorporated into the design of the project. The acoustical analysis shall be prepared by an expert or authority in the field of acoustics. Ail residential lots and dwellings shall be .sound attenuated against present and projected noises, which shall be the sum of all noise impacting the project, so as not to exceed an exterior standard 65 dBa CNEL in outdoor areas and an interior standard of 45 dba CNEL in all habitable rooms is required. Evidence prepared under the supervision of an acoustical consultant that these standards will be satisfied in a manner consistent with applicable zoning regulations shall be provided. (1) 5.2 Prior to issuance of any Certificates of Use or (3) Occupancy, field testing in accordance with the Title 25 regulations may be required by the Building Official .to Verify compliance with STC and IIC design standards. (1) 5.3 All construction operations, incl6ding 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 unless the Building Official determines that said aCtiVity will be in substantial conformance with the Noise Ordinance and the public health and safety will not be impaired subject to application being made at the time the permit for the work is awarded or during progress of the work. No Sunday or Holiday construction shall be permitted. (1) 5.4 Construction hours shall be clearly posted on the project site to the satisfaction of the Building Official. · Exhibit A- Conditions of Approval DR 94-033 Resolution No. 3324 Page 6 FEES (1) 6.1 Prior to issuance of any building permits, payment shall (3) be made of all required fees as may be in effect at the (6) time of permit issuance, including but not limited to: ae Major thoroughfare and bridge fees in the amount of $2,501 per unit to the Tustin Public Works Department, or as may be amended prior to permit issuance. Be Water and sewer connection fees to the Irvine Ranch Water District. Ce Street improvement, grading and landscaping plan checks and permit fees to the Community Development Department based on most current schedule, as may be amended prior to permit issuance. De Ail applicable Building plan check and permit fees to the Community Development Department based on the most current schedule, as may be amended prior to permit issuance. E e New development fees in the amount of $350 per unit to the Community Development Department, or as may be amended prior to permit issuance. School facilities fee to the Tustin Unified School District subject to any agreement reached and executed between the District and the Irvine Company. Ge 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-ofive dollars) pursuant to AB 3185, Chapter 1706-, Statutes of 1990, enable the City to file the Notice of Determination required under Public ReSources code Section 21151 and 14 Cal. Code of Regulations 15094. If within such forty-eight (48) hour period that the 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 Exhibit A- Conditions of Approval DR 94-033 Resolution No. 3324 Page 7 the Notice of Determination and require payment of fees, the applicant shall deliver to the Community Development Department, within forty-eight (48) hours of notification, a cashier's check payable to the COUNTY CLERK in the amount of $850 (eight hundred fifty dollars) pursuant to AB 3158, Chapter 1706, Statutes of 1990. If this fee is imposed, the subject project shall not be operative, vested or final unless and until the fee is paid. DF:bt 10 11 12 13 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 28 RESOLUTION NO. 3325 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN, RECOMMENDING TO THE TUSTIN CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF AMENDMENT TO VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 14188. The Planning Commission of the City of Tustin does hereby resolve as follows: I. The Planning Commission finds and determines as follows: ae That Amendment to Vesting Tentative Tract Map 14188 was submitted to the Planning Commission by Standard Pacific for consideration; and Be That a public hearing was duly called, noticed and held for said Amendment by the Planning Commission On January 9, 1995 and continued to January 23, 1995 and February 13, 1995. Ce That an Environmental Impact Report (EIR 85-2 for the East Tustin Specific Plan) has been certified in conformance with the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act for the subject project area. De That the .proposed subdivision is in conformance with the Tustin Area General Plan, adopted East Tustin Specific Plan, Development Agreement and Subdivision Map Act as it pertains to the development of single family detached dwellings. Ee The .7182 acres of parkland required for this development was previously dedicated with recordation of Tract 12870. Fe That the~City has reviewed the status of the School Facilities Agreements between the Irvine Company and the Tustin Unified School District. The East Tustin Specific Plan, EIR 85-2 with subsequently adopted supplements' and addenda, the impact of Amendment to Vesting Tentative Tract 14188 on School District facilities, and reviewed changes in State law, and finds and determines that the impacts on School District facilities by approval of this map are adequately addressed. Ge That the site is physically suitable for the type of development proposed. He That the site is physically suitable for the proposed density of development. 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Resolution No. 3325. Page 2 I · That the design of the subdivision or the proposed improvements are not likely to cause substantial environmental damage or substantially and avoidably injure fish or wildlife in their habitat. J · That the design of the subdivision or the type of improvements proposed will not conflict with easement acquired by the public at large, for access through or use of the property within the proposed subdivision. K· That the design of the subdivision or the types of improvement proposed are not likely to cause serious public health problems. II. The Planning Commission hereby recommends to the City Council approval of Amendment to Vesting Tentative Tract Map 14188 to add three additional product types to the buildout of the previously approved develOpment, subject to the Conditions contained the Planning Commission Resolution No. 3324. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Planning Commission of the City .of Tustin, at a regular meeting on the 13th day of February, 1995. A.L. BAKER Chairperson BARBARA REYES Recording 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. 3325 was duly passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the Tustin Planning Commission, held on the 13th day of February, 1995. BARBARA REYES Recording Secretary EM NO. 3 aport to the Planning Commission DATE: FEBRUARY 13, 1995 SUBJECT: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 94-016 AND DESIGN REVIEW 94-025 APPLICANT: FANCHER DEVELOPMENT SERVICES, INC. 1342 BELL AVENUE TUSTIN, 'CA 92680 LAND OWNER: THADDEUS J. MORIARTY, JR. 1447 GALAXY DRIVE NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 AND JAMES G. WHITE LOCATION: 14042 RED HILL AVENUE ZONING: RETAIL COMMERCIAL (C-1). ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: REQUEST: A NEGATIVE DECLARATION HAS BEEN PREVIOUSLY PREPARED FOR THIS PROJECT IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROVISIONS OF THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT. I · APPROVAL OF A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A FAST FOOD RESTAURANT WI~ A DRIVE-THROUGH LANE; · APPROVAL OF A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A FREESTANDING FREEWAY SIGN; AND · APPROVAL OF THE PROPOSED ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN AND SITE MODIFICATIONS FOR A 1,989 SQUARE FOOT FAST FOOD RESTAURANT. RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the Planning Commission take the following actions: i , , Recertify the Negative Declaration as adequate for the project by adopting Resolution No. 3332; Adopt Resolution No. 3333 approving Conditional Use Permit 94- 016 and Design Review 94-030 for a drive-thru restaurant and denying a freeway pole sign, as submitted or revised. Planning Commission Report CUP 94-016 and DR 94-025 February 13, 1995 Page 2 BACKGROUND On November 28, 1994, the Planning Commission considered a request to change the zoning designation on the subject property from the Retail Commercial (C-I) District to the Commercial General (CG) District. At that time, the Planning Commission tabled consideration of a conditional use permit and design review for the subject project pending final City Council action on the Zone Change based upon the advise of the City Attorney's Office. On December 5, 1994, the City Council approved Zone Change 94-005, subject to several conditions which have been satisfied. The proposed project includes a request for a conditional use permit to: 1) authorize a drive-thru restaurant pursuant to Tustin City Code Section 9235c(m); and 2) permit a freestanding freeway sign to provide identification for the proposed restaurant pursuant to Section 940463. A Design Review to authorize construction of a 1,989 gross square foot restaurant and site improvements is also requested. The project site, an approximately 0.46 acre parcel, is located on the northeast corner of Red Hill Avenue and Nisson Road. The site was at one time occupied with a service station and a restaurant which was later converted to an auto leasing use. The physical improvements on the property have remained. However, the site has been vacant for several years. Surrounding uses to the site include the Santa Ana (I-5) Freeway to the north, a carwash to the east, apartments and a gasoline service station across Nisson Road to the south and a furniture store across Red Hill Avenue to the west. A public hearing notice identifying the time, date and location of the public hearing on this project was published in the Tustin News. Property owners within 300 feet of the subject property were notified Of'the hearing by mail. Notices were posted on the site, at City Hall and at the Tustin Police Department. The applicant and property owner were informed of the availability of the staff report on this project. DISCUSSION Project Description The applicant proposes to construct a 1,989 square foot Taco Bell fast food restaurant with a drive-thru lane at the northeast corner of Nisson Road and Red Hill Avenue. The building would be located Planning Commission Report CUP 94-016 and DR 94-025 February 13, 1995 Page 3 approximately 36 feet from the future curb and gutter on Red Hill Avenue and 75 feet from the existing curb and gutter on Nisson Road. The front of the restaurant would face Nisson Road, and the 12-foot wide drive-thru lane would wrap around the nOrtherly portion of the site, with the drive-thru window parallel to Red Hill Avenue. Access to the site is proposed by the applicant from one driveway on Nisson Road located approximately 80-feet from the intersection of Nisson Road and Red Hill Avenue, and one driveway on Red Hill Avenue located approximately ll0-feet south of the I-5 Freeway southbound on-ramp. The drive-thru lane would accommodate stacking for seven vehicles behind the pickup window, including stacking for four vehicles behind the menu/speaker board. Additional queuing for a maximum of five cars would occur in the 27-foot wide drive-aisle on the east side of the restaurant, directly behind the drive-thru lane. Although parking for the restaurant would be accessed by the 27- foot wide drive-aisle, negative effects caused by vehicles queuing in the 27-foot wide drive-aisle would be mitigated to a great degree by marking the three parking spaces on the east side of the drive aisle closest to the drive-thru lane as employee parking only. Four vehicles could also queue in the 30-foot wide drive aisle south of the restaurant structure. In all, 17 vehicles could stack on-site without impacting the traffic flow on Red Hill Avenue or Nisson Road. The Engineering Division has expressed no concern regarding the queuing for the drive-thru lane. Pursuant to the Tustin City Code, one parking space is required for every 300 square feet of kitchen, storage or preparation area, as well as, one parking space for every 3 seats.· A total of 1,000 square feet of kitchen, storage and preparation area is included in the structure and 68 seats are proposed to be provided inside the restaurant. Therefore, 26 parking spaces are required. Parking for the project is accommodated on-site with 26 standard parking spaces and one handicap parking space. The loading area for the proposed restaurant would be located in the 27-foot wide drive aisle at the'northeast corner of the project near the trash enclosure. The three employee parking spaces which would be impacted by parking a delivery vehicle in this location would not be as impacted by the loading zone as regular customer parking, since the turn-over rate for these spaces would be minimal. It is recommended that the Planning Commission adopt a condition of approval requiring the three spaces located at the northeast corner of the site be marked "employee parking" to reduce potential conflict with vehicles stacking for the drive-thru lane and trucks unloading in the loading zone during non-peak hours. Planning Commission Report CUP 94-016 and DR 94-025 February 13, 1995 Page 4 As previously mentioned, access to the site is proposed by the applicant from one driveway on Nisson Road located approximately 40-feet north of Nisson Road, and one driveway on Red Hill Avenue located approximately ll0-feet south of the I-5 Freeway southbound on-ramp. As such, any ingress/egress movements at this driveway will impede northbound Red Hill Avenue traffic, reduce roadway capacity in this area, and will create a traffic safety problem. Due to the location of the proposed Red Hill Avenue driveway and short spacing between signalized intersections, use of the driveway will result in delay and cause conflicts which increase traffic hazards and risks to public safety. This access will compound the driving task along this link of Red Hill 'Avenue by requiring the driver to observe ingress and egress traffic at several points simultaneously while maintaining control of the vehicle while monitoring traffic ahead, behind and in adjacent lanes. The attached Initial Study and information related to Zone Change 94-005 previously by the Planning Commission and City Council contains lengthy discussion related to traffic impacts associated with Zone Change 94-005 and the subject project. As a result of previous deliberations by the Planning Commission and City Council, conditions of approval were adopted in approving Zone Change 94-005 requiring the applicant to enter into an Agreement with the City for the dedication of a street right-of-way and the construction of street improvements along the Red Hill Avenue frontage of the project site to 81.00 feet easterly of the street centerline along with corner cut-offs at Nisson Road and the southbound on-ramp the I-5 Freeway. The Property Owner, Developer and the City have executed this Agreement. As part of the Agreement, the Property Owner would be required to dedicate the necessary right-of-way along the Red Hill Avenue frontage and the Developer would be required to construct the ultimate street improvements within the dedication area as part of this project prior to issuance of Certificate of Occupancy with the costs of the construction of the required st'reet improvements to be paid by the City to the Developer. Widening the roadway as proposed will enhance the vehicular operations on Red Hill Avenue and improve traffic flow at the Red Hill Avenue/Nisson Road and Red Hill Avenue/I-5 Freeway southbound on-ramp intersections, thereby reducing increased traffic congestion caused by the proposed use of the driveway on Red Hill. The dedication of right-of-way and the City's commitment to provide construction of the public improvements on Red Hill Avenue would constitute the applicant's rough proportionate responsibility as the individual or cumulative significant impacts causing risks to Planning Commission Report CUP 94-016 and DR 94'025 February 13, 1995 Page 5 public safety that would otherwise result from the proposed project would be reduced to an acceptable level. The applicant also proposes to construct a freeway pole sign which would be 24 feet in height and 50 square feet~in area. The pole sign is proposed to be located in the northwest corner of the site 10 feet from the future property line on Red Hill Avenue. The sign face would be internally illuminated plastic in the colors of the Taco Bell Logo with the words "Drive Thru". The sign would be mounted on steel pole painted to match the sign. In addition to the proposed freeway pole sign, the applicant is also proposing: a six foot high, 20 square foot freestanding monument sign to be located on the southwest corner of the site; several freestanding directional signs approximately 4 feet in height and 4 square feet in area located throughout the site to designate the driVe-thru lane; and three wall mounted business identification signs approximately 25 square feet in area and located on the I-5 Freeway, Red Hill Avenue and Nisson Road elevations. In order to provide greater architectural consistency, staff recommends a condition of approval requiring that all directional and menu signs be modified to have a decorative base with architectural detailing and enhancements, such as an architectural column (rather than merely a pole), consistent with the architectural character of the building. Architecture/Landscapinq The proposed architecture for the project was designed to emulate the carwash structure to the east of the proposed project. The color palette for the proposed structure matches the carwash structure. The clay, S-tile roof and stucco-like finishes also match'other structures in the neighborhood. The rectangular building would be roofed with mission clay tiles of a peach-buff blend to match the carwash. A wood trim stepped parapet would be utilized to provide a cornice to screen the mechanical equipment located on ~the center of the roof. A wood trim fascia would be located at the eave, and would be painted the same color as the stucco body of the building. Clay tiled gables faced with an elliptical arch that breaks the line of the eave would decorate each elevation. The arches on the front and east elevations would provide focus-for the main entry doors. Shorter arches with decorative pilasters would highlight the windows in the dining room, and identical arches with pilasters would decorate the Planning Commission Report CUP 94-016 and DR 94-025 February 13, 1995 Page 6 sides and rear of the building. Ail trim elements would be painted to match the trim elements of the carwash building to the east. The landscape palette for the proposed project also emulates the landscape treatment of the carwash to the east. Lush, Mediterranean-style landscape materials such as Queen Palms, Mimosa Trees, and Giant Bird of Paradises are proposed. As Heavenly Bamboo and Yellow Butterfly Iris are not shrubs which fit this Mediterranean theme, a condition 'of approval requiring the elimination of both shrubs is recommended, along with standard conditions of approval requiring the applicant to submit complete landscape plans consistent with the City's Landscape and Irrigation Guidelines. A pedestrian crosswalk from Red Hill Avenue to the front door of the restaurant would cross the exit of the drive-thru lane. The applicant has proposed striping the pedestrian crosswalk to signal the possibility of pedestrians in the crosswalk. A standard design review condition for pedestrian crosswalks in such areas requires that the crosswalk be finished with a special material such as raised concrete pavers to provide a different texture than asphalt pavement. Such a treatment would warn drivers that a pedestrian area has been entered. The applicant has indicated that a raised surface would cause vehicles waiting to exit the drive-thru lane to accelerate through the pedestrian crosswalk, or to roll backwards if stopped on Crosswalk. Therefore, staff recommends a condition of approval requiring that the crosswalk be of a special paved surface that is not raised, to be approved by the Community Development Department during the plan check process. Conditional Use Permit Drive-Thru In determining whether to approve the conditional use permit, the Commission must determine whether the establishment, maintenance or operation of the use applied for will, under the circumstances of the particular case, be detrimental to the health, safety, morals, comfort and general' welfare of the persons residing or working in the neighborhood of such proposed use or whether it would be injurious or detrimental to property and improvements in the neighborhood or the general welfare of the City. Hours of operation for the proposed drive-thru lane would be 24 hours a day. The planned hours of operation for the dining room are from 6:00 a.m. to midnight. The proposed restaurant is located adjacent to the I-5 Freeway and the applicant believes that 24~hour Planning Commission Report CUP 94-016 and DR 94-025 February 13, 1995 Page 7 operation of the drive-thru would provide a service for those traveling the I-5 Freeway and such service employees as police and emergency personnel since the proposed restaurant would be the only drive-thru open all night in this vicinity. Surrounding freeway oriented business which operates on a 24 hour basis include the Shell Station on the northwest corner of Red Hill Avenue and E1 Camino Real, the Mobil Station on the northeast corner of Red Hill Avenue and E1 Camino Real, Taylor's Restaurant located at 1542 E1 Camino Real, the Circle K located at 14090 Red Hill Avenue and the Chevron Station located at the southeast corner of Nisson Road and Red Hill Avenue across Nisson Road from the proposed project. As the proposed project is located adjacent to the freeway on-ramp and surrounded by other uses such as Al's Woodcraft, Tustin Auto Spa and gasoline service stations which are also freeway oriented businesses, the proposed use is appropriate for the neighborhood. Based on the City's review of the project, it is concluded that the proposed drive-thru service would not be detrimental to the health, safety and general welfare of the persons working in the area of, and/or using the proposed use. Queuing of the drive- through lane would be accommodated on-site in the 27-foot drive, aisle and the 30-foot drive aisle; off-site traffic concerns would be mitigated by the Property Owner's and Developer's execution of an Agreement with the City for the dedication of required right-of-way and the construction of street improvements and an exclusive right-turn lane for the I-5 Freeway on-ramp; and the architecture has been designed to be compatible with other structures in the vicinity as previously discussed. Freeway Pole Si~cFn Another element of the conditional use permit request includes a freeway pole sign. Section 940463 of the Sign Code requires a conditional use permit for freestanding freeway signs for businesses that provide service to freeway motorists. Section 940463 establishes several development Criteria which must be complied ~with in order to be eligible to apply for a conditional use permit as follows: ~ Type of Business - Only businesses offering eating facilities, lodging accommodations or automobile services are permitted to have a freeway sign. Location of Business - Only those permitted businesses that are located directly adjacent to the freeway right-of-way, or separated from the right-of-way by a frontage road may request a freeway sign. Planning Commission Report CUP 94-016 and DR 94-025 February 13, 1995 Page 8 Location of Siqn - The sign may be located in such a manner as to be oriented towards and visible from the closest freeway lanes. In any event, the freeway sign shall maintain a minimum twenty-five (25) foot setback from a non-freeway property line or maintain a minimum of fifty (50) feet from another freestanding sign located on an adjacent property. Heiqht and Size - The sign shall be no higher or larger than necessary to provide identification to freeway motorist. In any event, the freeway sign shall not exceed twenty-four (24) feet in height and fifty (50) square feet in size. The proposed pole sign would satisfy the minimum development criteria to be eligible to apply for a conditional use permit with the exception of the location from a non-freeway property line which requires that freeway pole signs be located a minimum of 25 feet from a non-freeway property line. The pole sign is proposed to be located t0 feet from the ultimate property line of Red Hill Avenue which would be inconsistent with this criteria. However, in addition to these development criteria, granting of a conditional use permit is still a discretionary action of the Commission. In order to approve the conditional use permit, the Commission must also determine whether the establishment, maintenance or operation of the use applied for will, under the circumstances of the particular case, be detrimental to the health, safety, morals, comfort, and general welfare of the persons residing or working in the neighborhood of such proposed use or whether it would be injurious or detrimental to property and improvements in the neighborhood or the general welfare of the City. It is recommended that the Planning Commission deny the request for the freeway pole sign as it could be determined that the establishment, maintenance or operation of the freeway pole sign will, under the circumstances of the particular case, be detrimenta~ to the health, safety, morals, comfort and general welfare of the persons residing or working in the neighborhood of such proposed use or whether it would be injurious or detrimental to property and improvements in the neighborhood or the general welfare of the City as suggested by the following: Approving a freeway pole sign would set a precedent for all properties adjacent to the freeway to have a freeway sign, including those properties which do not comply with the development criteria. Other restaurants adjacent to the freeway such as the Sizzler and Jack-in-the-Box on Newpor~ Avenue, north of the I-5 Freeway do not have a freeway pole sign. A primary objective of the Sign Code, as stated in Planning Commission Report CUP 94-016 and DR 94-025 February 13, 1995 Page 9 Section 9401, is to reduce sign clutter within the City. If the proposed pole sign were approved, other restaurants without freeway signage might request a conditional use permit for a pole sign to compete with the proposed drive-thru restaurant, thus increasing sign clutter along the freeway which would be detrimental to the general welfare of persons, property and improvements in the neighborhood. There are numerous nonconforming freeway pole signs in the immediate vicinity of the I-5 Freeway and Red Hill Avenue (i.e Chevron, Al's Woodcraft, Mobil, Shell, Taylor's) which create a proliferation of sign clutter in the area contrary to the objective of the Sign Code as stated in Section 9401. The proposed freeway pole sign would reinforce the existence of these' nonconforming freeway signs thereby continuing to promote sign clutter within ~the community which would be detrimental to the general welfare of persons, property and improvements in the neighborhood. Caltrans provides blue, food service signs along I-5 Freeway which may be available for restaurants to include business identification. Such a sign would provide more adequate business identification as it would alter a driver in either the northbound or southbound direction well before the Red Hill Avenue off-ramp that the restaurant was available which would provide a greater benefit to the general welfare of persons, property and improvements in the neighborhood. The combination of the monument, directional and business identification signs also proposed for the project would provide adequate opportunity for business identification at this prominent intersection and would provide a greater benefit to the general welfare of persons, property and improvements in the neighborhood. Should t~e Planning Commission wish to instead .grant a conditional use permit for the pole sign, staff would recommend several conditions of approval related to the pole sign and would be prepared to offer an alternate Resolution. A condition of approval would need to be included to require that the pole sign be set back a minimum of 25 feet from the ultimate property line along Red Hill Avenue pursuant to Section 940463(c). In addition, a condition of approval would need to be included to require that the design of the sign pole structure be modified to include architectural detailing and enhancements, such as a built up column or monolith elements, consistent with the architectural character of the building. ~ Such a treatment would be more consistent with the Planning Commission Report CUP 94-016 and DR 94-025 February 13, 1995 Page 10 architecture of the project, and would provide a more contemporary and integral style of signage for the location. ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS A Negative Declaration/Initial Study was prepared for the project, a copy of which is attached to this report, and was previously certified as adequate for Zone Change 94-005. Based upon review of Conditional Use Permit 94-016 and Design Review 94-025, it has been determined that the environmental impacts relating to this project will be reduced to an acceptable level with the inclusion and implementation of 'the identified mitigation measures. These mitigation 'measures have been included as conditions of approval. Therefore, it would be appropriate to recertify the Negative Declaration as ~.dequate for the project pursuant to the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act. CONCLUSION Given the analysis conducted by the Community Development Department, and in consideration of comments from other agencies and the public, it is concluded that the proposed project would not have a negative impact on persons or property in the vicinity and the proposed use would be appropriate for the property. It is therefore recommended that the Planning Commission approve Conditional Use Permit 94-016 and Design Review 94-025 for a drive- thru restaurant and deny the freeway pole sign by adopting Resolution No. 3333, as submitted or revised. Daniel Fox, AICP Senior Planner CAS: DF: br :'CUP94016 . DF Attachments: Location Map Site Plan/Elevations Negative' Declaration/Initial Study Resolution Nos. 3332 and 3333 LOCATION MAP iP&l R3 ,'3 700 100 C1 10,000 100 ' . 00' R3 1500. 1500 I .~, - , MIICHELL R2 · eI R3 2000 .. M R4. 4'000' · NO SCALE !Il .., , SOUTH BOUND`. SITE .. ROAD .. .o . II ,., ON--RAMP~ ., -. I1' ITl Z Z tn :,l,. 0 Z l! ; · · .. / / / / / / / t' iil~ REDHILL AVENUE , I I PROPOSED TACO BEll M-?O-II l'J SITE PLAN m · ~lt IqO 0~' ~lO~, ! '~ ~-I __ __. ~_~ .i' i q:' 'Ii :t m~ [ / / ': il :r{l :I [ '":"~' "~: ' ' [I ,!;,:: m ,.,," .;. - . r : ~' ':::: , :i :: :u~i.:: [ ~. '::- ' :' :- :[' :I i,. I';: l~!l~. I l,"i -I , - ,'!." .._ .~" ~ ! ! - ' '"; r itt ~: ~.~ :. i!:] . 'i.-~.'t I. ti ~. '~ -. ':" __..___...______________.______...____.__.__.__.___._. __..__________,--.----------..-'------------. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT 300 Centennial Way, Tustin, CA 92680 (714) 573-3105 INITIAL STUDY L BACKGROUND NameofProponent I~.~_ ~ ~a~/~O~ .~~. ~d~¥{(~,I}~V- Address and Phone Number of Proponent Date Check List Submitted Agency Requiting Check List ' ' ' Name of Proposal, if applicable ENVIRONMENTAL I]~{PACTS I. Earth. Will the proposal result in: a. Unstable earth conditions or in changes in geologic substructures? b. Disruptions, displacements, compaction or overcovering of the soil? c. Change in topogr, aphy or ground surface relief features9 do The destruction, coveting 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? Changes in deposition or erosion of beach sands, or changes in siltation, deposition or erosion which may modify the channel of a fiver or stream or the bed of the ocean or any bay, inlet or lake? YES MAYBE NO' [--I [" I 1 g. Exposure of people or property to geologic hazards such as earthquakes, landslides, mud slides, ground failure, or similar hazards? . Air. Will the proposal result in: a. Substantial air emission or deterioration of ambient air quality? b. The creation of objectionable odors? c. Alteration of air movement, moisture, or temperatures, or any change in climate, either locally or regionally? 3. Water. Will the proposal result in: bo Changes in currents, or the course of direction of water movements, in either marine or fresh water? Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the rate and amount of surface runoff?. c. Alterations to the course or flow of flood waters? d. Change in the amount 'of surface water in any water body? e. Discharge into surface waters, or in any alteration of surface water quality, including but not limited to temperature, dissolved oxygen or turbidity? f. Alteration of the 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. Exr)oSure of people cr property to water related hazards such as flo'oding or tidal waveS? 4. Plant Life. Will the proposal result in: a. bo Change in the diversity of species, or number of any species of plants (including trees, shrubs, grass, crops, and aquatic plants)? Reduction of the numbers of any unique, rare or endangered species of plants? YES MAYBE NO c. Introduction of new species of plants into an area, or in a barrier to the normal replenishment of existing species? d. Reduction in acreage of any agricultural crop? 5. Animal Life. Will the proposal result in: ao bo 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)? 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 ban-ier 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 levels? 7. ~jght and Glare. Will the proposal produce new light or glare? 8. Land Use. Will the proposal result in a substantial alteration of the present or planned land use of an area? 9. Natural Resources. Will the proposal result in: a. Increase in the rate or use of any natural resources? b. Substantial depletion of any nonreneWable natural resource? 10..Risk of uPset:'. Will thc 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? 3 11. Population. Will the proposal alter the location, distribution, density, or growth rate of the human population of an area? 12. Housing. Will the proposal affect existing housing, or create a demand for additional housing? 13. Transportation/Circulation. Will the proposal result in: a. Generation of substantial additional vehicular movement? b. Effects on existing parking facilities, or demand for new parking? c. Substantial impact upon existing transportation systems? d. Alterations to present patterns of circulation or movement of people and/or goods? e. Alterations to waterborne, rail or air traffic? f. Increase in traffic hazards to motor vehicles, bicyclists or pedestrians? 14. Public SerVices. Will the proposal have an effect upon, or result in a need for new or altered governmental services in any of the following areas: a. Fire protection? b. Police protection? c. Schools? d. Parks or other recreational facilities? e. Maintenance of public facilities, including roads? f. Other governmental services? 15. Energy~. Will the proposal result in: a. Use of substantial amounts of fuel or energy? b. Substantial increase in demand ~upon existing sources of energy, or require the development of new sources of energy? YES MAYBE NO 16. Utilities. Will the proposal result in a need for new systems, or substantial alterations to the following utilities: a. Power or natural gas? b. Communications systems? c. Water? d. Sewer or septic tanks? e. Storm water drainage? f. Solid waste and disposal? 17. Human Health Will the proposal result in: a. Creation of any health hazard or potential health hazard (exclUding mental health)? b. Exposure of people to potential-health hazards? 18..Solid Waste. Will the proposal create additional solid waste requiring disposal by the City? 19. Aesthetics. Will the proposal resUlt in 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: a. The alteration of or the destruction of a prehistoric or historic archaeological site? b. 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? d. Will the proposal restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the potential impact area? YES MAYBE NO YES MAYBE NO 22. Mandatory Findings of Significance. ao Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? b. Does the project have the potential to achieve short-term, to the disadvantage of long-term, environmental goals? (A short-term impact on the environment is one which occurs in a relatively brief, definitive period of time while long-term impacts will endure well into the future). 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? me DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION SEE ATTACHMENT A IV. DETERMINATION On the basis of this initial evaluation: I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described in Attachment A attached hereto have been added to the project. A NEGATIVE DECLARATION WILL BE PREPARED. I find the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRO~NTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. Signature Title ~IITSTUD. P~5 3702.A DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 94-016, DESIGN REVIEW 94-025 AND ZONE CHANGE 94-005 NOVEMBER 8, 1994 PROJECT DESCRIPTION The proposed project is a request for: 1) a zone change from Retail Commercial (C,i) District to Commercial General (CG) District; 2) a conditional use permit to authorize a drive-through restaurant pursuant to Tustin City Code Section 9235c(m); 3) a conditional use permit, pursuant to Section 940463, allowing a freestanding freeway sign to provide identification for the proposed restaurant; and 4) a design review to authorize construction of a 1989 gross square foot restaurant and site improvements. The project site, an approximately 0.46 acre parcel, is located on the northeast corner of Red Hill Avenue and Nisson Road (see location map). The site was at one time developed.with a service station and a restaurant; the restaurant was later converted to an auto leasing use. The site has more recently been vacated for a number~of years. The project site has recently undergone remedial action for the underground storage tanks that provided gasoline for the service station. The remediation was monitored by the Orange County Health Care Agency, Environmental Health Division - Hazardous Materials Mitigation Section which has determined that no further action related to the underground tanks is required. Surrounding uses to the site include the I-5 (Santa Ana) Freeway to the north, a carwash to the east, apartments and a gasoline service station across Nisson Road to the south and a furniture store across Red Hill Avenue to the west. I · Earth - B "Yes"; A, C through G "NO" -The subject site is currently developed with a former gasoline service station (which has been vacated) and is relatively flat in its topographical features. The proposed modifications to the site would involve demolition of the existing two story structure and minor grading activity to prepare the site for the proposed use. Sources: Field Observations, Submitted Development Plans, City of Tustin Community Development Department. Mitigation/Monitoring: The following mitigation measures would be required to be satisfied prior to issuance of any building permits for the project: A· The applicant would be required to submit a soils report to the Building Division completed within twelve (12) months prior at Building Permit Plan Check. B· The applicant would be required to submit grading plans identifying the scope of work at Building Permit Plan Check. All work shall be done in conformance with the Discussion of Environmental Evaluation Conditional Use Permit 94-016, Design Review 94-025 and Zone Change 94-005 November 8, 1994 Page 2 Uniform Building Code, Grading Code and Grading Manual as required by the Building .Official. · Air - A "Maybe"; B and C "Mo" - The proposed project requires the demolition of an existing structure on the site and construction of a new structure which may result in short term pollutants such as dust particles which will be emitted into the air. The proposed project would not result in substantial air emission or deterioration of ambient airquality, creation of objectionable odors or alteration of air movements, moisture or temperatures, or any change in climate either locally or regionally. Sources: ..Submitted Development Plans, City of TuStin Community Development Department, Orange County Fire Department,and S6Uth Coast Air Quality Management District. Mitigation/Monitoring: The site will be required to'comply with grading plan approvals with regard to dust control, which requires the applicant to apply water to the site as specified in the Grading Code and Grading Manual. This will be mOnitored by the Building Division when construction commences. The South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) will also be required to be notified of the demolition of the existing structure on the subject site prior to demolition permit issuance. Any asbestos in the existing structure will be required to be removed by a licensed demolition contractor, and.asbestos removal will be regulated by the SCAQMD. · Water - B and E "Maybe"; A, C, D and F throuqh I "No" - As proposed, the surface areas of the project will drain into the existing storm drain system. However, it is not anticipated that this project will substantially contribute to the drainage flow. This project is required to develop and maintain compliance with an approved Water Quality Management Plan as administered by the City of Tustin and the Regional Water Quality Control Board. Should the water be deposited into the sanitary sewer system for treatment, it shall be in compliance with the Orange County Sanitation District requirements. The subject .site is not located near any standing or moving bodies of water. Source: Field Observations, City of Tustin Community Development Department, City of Tustin Public Works Discussion of Environmental Evaluation Conditional Use Permit 94-016, Design Review 94-025 and Zone Change 94-005 November 8, 1994 Page 3 · · Department, Orange County Sanitation District, Regional Water Quality Control Board. Mitigation/Monitoring: 'The following mitigation measures would be required to be Satisfied prior to issuance of any building permits for the project: a~ 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. Be The applicant shall obtain coverage under the NPDES Statewide Industrial Stormwater Permit for General Construction Activities from the State Water Resources Control Board. Evidence that this has been obtained shall be submitted to the Building official of the City of Tustin. Plant Life - A through D - "No" - The project site' is free from any unique, rare or endangered species of plant-life. The proposed project would introduce landscape and specimen trees on to the site in conformance with the requirements of the City of Tustin's Landscape and Irrigation Guidelines. All landscaping will be designed, installed, and maintained in accordance with the .City's Landscape and Irrigation Guidelines. '~ Source: Field Observations, Proposed Development Plans Mitigation/Monitoring: None Required. Animal Life - A through D - "No" - The subject site is located within an urban area and is developed with a former service station. The site is not inhabited by any known species of animals. Establishment of the proposed project would have no impacts on animal pDpulations, diversity of species or migratory patterns. Discussion of Environmental Evaluation Conditional Use Permit 94-016, Design Review 94-025 and Zone Change 94-005 November 8, 1994 Page 4 · · Source: Field Observations Mitigation/Monitoring: None Required. Noise - A "Yes" B - "No" - The proposed project would add new noise sources into the area as the property is presently developed with an unoccupied former service station. The development of the project will result in short term construction noise impacts which will require compliance with the City's Noise Ordinance. Given the existing noise levels of 70 to 75 dBa in the area generated by vehicles on the I-5 (Santa Ana) Freeway and the surrounding street system (Red Hill Avenue and Nisson Road), the proposed project is not expected to impact the ambient noise levels in the area. All noise sources will be required to conform to the City's Noise Ordinance, which applies to commercial zones at a standard level of 60 dBA, 24 hours.per day. Source: Community Development Department, Field Observations Mitigation/Monitoring: All development related noise generated shall be in accordance with the City of Tustin Noise Ordinance which, in part, limits noise generation to a maximum of 60 dBa and restricts construction hours, which would be enforced by the Community Development Department and Police Department. In addition, outside public address speakers, telephone bells, buzzers, and similar devices which are audible on adjoining properties are Prohibited. Light and Glare - "Maybe', - The project site is currently vacant. The proposed project will be required to provide adequate lighting which would add new lighting into the area to serve its operations during business hours. All new exterior lighting would comply with the City of Tustin Security Ordinance. Source: Community Development Division, Field Observations Proposed Development Plans. ' Mitigation/Monitoring: The applicant shall provide details of all proposed lighting fixtures and a photometric study showing the location and anticipated distribution pattern of light of all proposed fixtures. All new light fixtures shall be consistent with the architecture of the building. Wall mounted fixtures shall be 'directed at a 90~ degree angle directly toward the ground. All lighting shall be developed Discussion of Environmental Evaluation Conditional Use Permit 94-016, Design Review 94-025 and Zone Change 94-005 November 8, 1994 Page 5 to provide a minimum of one (1) footcandle of light coverage, in accordance with the City's Security Code. · · Land Use - "Maybe" - The proposed prOject will result in a minor alteration of present or planned land use on the site. The subject site is currently zoned Retail Commercial (C-I) which permits restaurants and other commercial and retail uses. Although there is currently no use on the site, a freeway oriented restaurant and gasoline service station were previously operated at the subject site. The request to change the zoning district to Commercial General (CG) would continue to allow retail and commercial uses such as a take- out restaurant use and would allow a drive-through facility subject to. the conditions of a use permit. The 'proposed restaurant and drive-through would be a freeway oriented. The proposed zone change would give the subject parcel the same zoning as the other parcel on the block which is located to the east. Consolidation of these two properties into one zoning designation would make a more cohesive zoning boundary for the block of properties bounded by Nisson Road to the east and south, Red Hill Avenue to the west and the I-5 Freeway to the north. Source: Proposed Development Plans, General Plan, City of Tustin Community Development Department. Mitigation/Monitoring: The proposed development wi.ll be required to comply with all requirements of the Tustin City Code, which requires a conditional use permit for a drive- through restaurant. Site developments meeting the requirements of the Tustin City Code for the subject site, including dedication of a portion of the property for Red Hill Avenue street widening as required by the Engineering Division, will be required as a condition of approval. Natural Resources - A and B "No" - The proposed project would result in the construction use of materials that are non- renewable. However, the usage will be minimal given the scale of the project. The applicant should consult with the various utility companies which would provide service to the development to incorporate energy conserving systems and design features into the project. The Community Development Department shall review plans to assure all buildings comply with standards in Title 24 of the Uniform Building Code. Discussion of Environmental Evaluation Conditional Use Permit 94-016, Design Review 94-025 and Zone Change 94-005 November 8, 1994 Page 6 Source: Proposed Development Plans, City of .Tustin Community Development and Public Works Departments Mitigation/Monitoring: Compliance with all provisions of Title 24 shall be required prior to demolition and building permit issuance as applicable. 10. Risk of Upset - A and B "No" - The proposed project would not result in a significant risk of upset (i.e. explosion, hazardous materials spill etc.) All mechanical and electrical equipment associated with the facility would comply with Uniform Building and Fire Codes. Source: Proposed Development Plans, City of Tustin Community Development Department. Mit'igati°n/Monitoring: Ail construction shall be in accordance with applicable Uniform Building and Fire Codes. Such compliance shall be verified during the plan check. process prior to the issuance of any building permits. All hazardous materials shall be handled and disposed of in accordance with all Orange. County Health Care Agency - EnvirOnmental Health Division, and Orange County Fire Department requirements. 11. Population - "No" - The proposed project is on a developed property and is surrounded by commercial development. The proposed development would not result in any direct increase in population in that no additional dwelling units would be created. This small scale project would be designed to meet the needs of the existing residents and businesses of the cOmmunity. The project would have no impact on the location, growth, distribution or density of the population in the surrounding area. Source: City of Tustin Community Development Department Mitigation/Monitoring: None Required. 12. Housinq - "No" - The proposed project is on a developed property and would not result in any direct increase in population in that no additional dwelling units would be created. This small scale project would be designed to meet the needs of the existing residents and businesses of the community. The project would have no impact on the location, Discussion of Environmental Evaluation Conditional Use Permit 94-016, Design Review 94-025 and Zone Change 94-005 November 8, 1994 Page 7 growth, distribution or density of the population in the surrounding area. Source: city of Tustin Community Development Department Mitigation/Monitoring: None Required. 13. Transportation/Circulation - B "Yes"; D and F "Maybe"; A, C and E "No" - The development plans submitted to the City by the applicant for the proposed project reflected the ultimate right-of-way configuration of Red Hill Avenue and Nisson Road. The site plan review and traffic analysis performed for this project w~re also based upon the ultimate configUration of the site. As the site is currently vacant, any new development would generate incremental traffic impacts, which when considered cumulatively, .will impact the City's circulation system in this area. The City's roadway system, as identified in the Orange County MPAH (Master Plan of Arterial Highways) and the City's General Plan Circulation Element, is designed to accommodate traffic associated with the ultimate build-out of the City of which this site is a part. Red Hill Avenue is classified as a major arterial in the City's General Plan and in the Orange County MPAH. At its current Configuration of six lanes, Red Hill Avenue, in the vicinity of this project, currently carries 37,600 vehicles per day of which 20,600 are in the northbound direction adjacent to this project's street frontage between Nisson Road and the I-5 Freeway southbound on-ramp. Nisson Road is classified as a local roadway in the City's General Plan Circulation Element. Nisson Road adjacent to the proposed project site currently carries 2,700 vehicles per day, and has capacity to.accommodate 10,000 vehicles per day. The critical operational time period for nOrthbound Red Hill Avenue traffic in this area is a four-hour time period each day from 3:00 P.M. to 7:00 P.M. during the weekdays when this section of the roadway carries approximately 7,500 vehicles. In the P.M. peak-hour, 2,230 vehicles currently travel this section of northbound Red Hill Avenue per hour. Based upon current traffic timing for this area of Red Hill Avenue, the City Engineering Division has determined the roadway has a service capacity of approximately 2,380 vehicles per hour. Since the existing traffic volume during the P.M. peak-hour is 2230 vehicles per hour, this indicates an existing highly congested condition and a poor traffic level of service (94% Discussion of Environmental Evaluation Conditional Use Permit 94-016, Design Review 94-025 and Zone Change 94-005 November 8, 1994 Page 8 volume to capacity ratio), which has been verified by field observations. As such, any increase in traffic during this period will further deteriorate the roadway level of service at this location. Based upon the traffic generation comparison, submitted by the applicant, the proposed use will generate approximately 110 vehicle trips in the A.M. peak-hour and 75 vehicle trips in the P.M. peak-hour. The impact of the proposed project P.M. peak hour traffic increases the volume to capacity ratio in the northbound Red Hill Avenue direction' to 97%, further deteriorating the roadway level of service. Since the proposed project is directly adjacent to this section of Red Hill Avenue, the project traffic will ~ Substantially impact the existing traffic conditions on Red Hill Avenue. The current right-of-way on Red Hill' Avenue from the street centerline varies from approximately 54 feet to 60 feet along the property frontage. The ultimate right-of-way for Red Hill Avenue in this vicinity is proposed to be located approximately 81 feet from the centerline of Red Hill Avenue along the property frontage. As a Major Arterial Highway, Red Hill Avenue would include a physical roadway median, three through travel lanes in each direction, left-turn lanes, bicycle lanes, sidewalks on both sides of the street, and an exclusive freeway right-turn access lane on the east side of Red Hill Avenue between Nisson Road and the I-5 Freeway southbound on-ramp. Access to the site is proposed by the applicant from one driveway on Nisson Road and one driveway on Red Hill Avenue located approximately 40-feet north of Nisson Road and approximately ll0-feet south of the I-5 (Santa Ana) freeway southbound on-ramp. As such, any ingress/egress movements at this driveway will impede northbound Red Hill Avenue traffic, reduce roadway capacity in this area, and will create a traffic safety problem. Due to the location o'f the proposed Red Hill Avenue driveway and short spacing betWeen signalized intersections, use of this driveway will result in delay and cause conflicts which increase traffic hazards and risks to public safety. This access will compOund the driving task along this link of Red Hill Avenue by requiring the driver to observe ingress and egress traffic at several points simultaneously while maintaining control of the vehicle while monitoring traffic ahead, behind and in adjacent lanes. ~Utilization of the proposed Red Hill Avenue driveway will adversely impact traffic movements onto the I-5 Freeway Discussion of Environmental Evaluation Conditional Use Permit 94-016, Design Review 94-025 and Zone Change 94-005 November 8, 1994 Page 9 southbound on-ramp. Project traffic exiting the site at this location will need to cross the exclusive right-turn lane for the I-5 Freeway, which will inhibit traffic movements onto the Freeway. At times when the I-5 Freeway on-ramp lane and the travel lanes on Red Hill Avenue are stacked, vehicles exiting this site will be forced to wait for traffic to clear and will cause traffic to be stacked-up on site. This overlapping maneuver area created by the Red Hill Avenue driveway causes public safety risks for the project traffic as well as for the traffic on Red Hill Avenue as many vehicles will attempt to weave into and across the traffic flow steam on Red Hill Avenue to turn onto the I-5 Freeway northbound on-ramp, or to travel straight on Red Hill Avenue. Traffic entering the project site at the Red Hill Avenue driveway will also reduce the traffic flow on Red Hill Avenue by reducing speed to safely enter the project site. According to the Institute of Transportation Engineers (I.T.E.), it has been determined that the speed at which a vehicle is able to leave the through lane on an arterial roadway and safely enter a driveway has a significant effect on the safety and operational efficiency of a roadway. Due to the volumes of traffic on Red Hill Avenue in this area, the signalized intersections of Red Hill Avenue/Nisson Road, Red Hill Avenue/I-5 Freeway southbound on-ramp, Red Hill Avenue/I-5 Freeway northbound off-ramp, and Red Hill Avenue/E1 Camino Real are precisely coordinated to effectively and efficiently move traffic through this area. These operational characteristics will be inhibited by utilization of the proposed project driveway as vehicles traveling northbound on Red Hill Avenue will need to contend with an additional access onto this already congested roadway link'. This will have the effect of further degrading the existing traffic level of service in this area. When the initial service station and restaurant were approved on this site in February 1969, traffic volume on Red Hill Avenue was approximately 16,300 vehicles per day. Red Hill Avenue then functioned as a four-lane arterial with two through lanes in each direction along the subject property. The February 1969 approval included two forty-foot driVeways on Red Hill Avenue due to the minimal disruption of traffic progression and lack of traffic congestion at that time. When the I-5 Freeway was improved in the late 1980's and early 1990's, Caltrans purchased the rights to one of the project driveways (closest to the I-5 Freeway southbound on ramp) on Discussion of Environmental Evaluation Conditional Use Permit 94-016, Design Review 94-025 and Zone Change 94-005 November 8, 1994 Page 10 Red Hill Avenue, and replaced the other Red Hill Avenue driveway, which is consistent with Caltrans' policy for replacing infrastructure that is disrupted by Caltrans' projects. As traffic volumes increased throughout the years and the subject site was no longer occupied, the City waited for a development project prior to requesting closure of the remaining driveway on Red Hill Avenue. If the proposed Red Hill Avenue driveway were not available for use, traffic operations and vehicular movements in this area would be substantially enhanced and traffic safety hazards associated with this site's access would be eliminated. However, the threat to public safety associated with the subject driveway will be minimized with. the additional Red Hill Avenue right-of-way and construction of ultimate improvements. As previously stated, without the additional right-of-way on Red Hill Avenue, the incremental increases in traffic generated and the location of the driveway proposed by the applicant for the proposed project would have negative impacts on Red Hill Avenue.. The proposed roadway widening will enhance the vehicular operations on Red Hill Avenue and improve traffic flow at the Red Hill Avenue/Nisson Road and Red Hill Avenue/I-5 Freeway southbound on-ramp intersections, thereby reducing traffic congestion. The dedication of right- of-way and the City's commitment to provide construction of the public improvements on Red Hill Avenue would constitute the applicant's rough proportionate responsibility as the individual or cumulative significant impacts Causing risks to public safety that would otherwise result from the proposed project would be reduced to an acceptable level. The current value of the public improvements on Red Hill Avenue is .estimated to be $132,000.00 along the proposed project frontage. These cost estimates include the relocation of traffic signals and equipment; relocation of utilities; construction of concrete curb and gutter, concrete sidewalk, asphalt pavement, concrete commercial driveway approach; installation of signing and striping; normal construction contingencies; design engineering and construction contract administration. It is estimated that right-of-way acquisition costs for the proposed dedication area along Red Hill Avenue is approximately $107,000.00. It should be noted that the total value of the City's improvements exceeds the estimated value of the required right-of-way. In addition, once the City improvements are constructed, the property owner could Discussion of Environmental Evaluation Conditional Use Permit 94-016, Design Review 94-025 and Zone Change 94-005 November 8, 1994 Page 11 potentially realize an increase in the value of the subject property. Source: City of Tustin Public Works Department, submitted Project Traffic Generation Comparison, proposed Development Plans. Mitigation/Monitoring: The following mitigation measures would be required to be satisfied prior to issuance of any building permits for the project: ae The applicant shall be required to enter into a Development Agreement with the City for the dedication of a street right-of-way and the construction of street improvements along the Red Hill Avenue frontage of the project site to 81.00 feet easterly of the street centerline along with corner cut-offs at Nisson Road and the southbound on-ramp to the I-5 Freeway. Said dedication shall be made as a condition of rezoning said property. The diagonal lines for the cut-offs shall align with the BC/EC (beginning of curb return/end of curb return) of the future curb returns. Be The applicant shall be required to construct an exclusive freeway right turn access lane on the east side of Red Hill Avenue between Nisson Road and the I-5 .Freeway southbound on-ramp prior to issuance of Certificate of Occupancy. The costs for the construction of the required street improvements will be paid by the City through the execution of a reimbursement agreement with the applicant. Ce A separate 24" by 36" street improvement plan, as prepared by a California Registered Civil Engineer, would be required for all construction within the public right- of-way. In addition, a separate 24" by 36" reproducible construction traffic control plan, as prepared by a California Registered Traffic Engineer or Civil Engineer experienced in this type of plan preparation would be required. 14. Public Services - A and B "Maybe", C throuqh F "No" - Since the project site is vacant, any development would require the services of the Fire and Police Departments. The City of Tustin Police Department has identified the need for visibility into the site for security measures and the need to reduce the opportunities for graffiti and vandalism. The Discussion of Environmental Evaluation Conditional Use Permit 94-016, Design Review 94-025 and Zone Change 94-005 November 8, 1994 ~' Page 12 applicant has proposed to provide large windows on the public facades of the building, and landscape planting areas adjacent to exposed wall areas to reduce the opportunities for graffiti and vandalism. The services of the Orange County Fire Department would also be required in the establishment of the service station operation and in responding to potential calls for fire extinguishing. It is not expected that the project would create significant demands for additional service on schools, parks, maintenance of public faciiities or other governmental service. Source: Orange County Fire Department, City of Tustin Police Department, Community Development and Public Works Departments Mitigation/Monitoring: The project landscape and grading shall be designed to provide security surveillance into the project. Adequate lighting and window and door hardware shall be provided in conformance with the City's Security Ordinance to deter vandalism and theft. The development plans shall be verified for compliance at Building Permit plan check. 15. Energy - A and B - "No" - The proposed project would not result in any "significant" change in the current use of energy given the scale of new development but will require the renewal of services since the site is vacant. Electrical and Gas capacities required for the project are existing and have been designed to accommodate commercial projects on this parcel and are therefore adequate to serve the proposed project. The applicant shall comply with Title 24 in regard to energy conservation. 'This shall be verified for compliance at Building.~Permit plan check. Source: Public Works Department, proposed Development Plans. Mitigation/Monitoring: None ReqUired. 16. Utilities - A throuqh F - "No" - The project site is located within an existing commercial area with all utilities available to the site. Sanitary sewer, storm drain and water capacities required for the project are existing and have been designed to accommodate commercial projects on this parcel, such as the previous service station facility and previous restaurant facility, and are therefore adequate to serve the Discussion of Environmental Evaluation Conditional Use Permit 94-016, Design Review 94-025 and Zone Change 94-005 November 8, 1994 Page 13 proposed project. The proposed project would not require the need for additional utilities to serve the site. Source: City of Tustin Public Works Department Mitigation/Monitoring: None Required. 17. Human Health - A and B - "No" - The proposed use as a drive- through restaurant facility would not create conditions that negatively affect human health. Source: Proposed Development Plans, City of Tustin Community Development Department, Orange County Fire Department, Orange County Health Department. Mitigation/Monitoring: The following mitigation measures would be required to be satisfied prior to issuance of any building permits for the project: 18. Solid Waste - "Yes" - Demolition of the existing structure on the site would create solid waste that must be disposed of prior to construction. The applicant is required to contract with the City's contract hauler for demolition and construction debris. Furthermore, since the site is currently vacant, any new project would generate additional solid waste requiring disposal by the City. The applicant proposes to provide a trash receptacle of sufficient capacity to accommodate the proposed restaurant with drive-through service. Pursuant to the City of Tustin Municipal Code, the applicant is required to contract for trash removal services with the City's contracted hauler. The solid waste product is transported by the hauler to the Material Recovery Facility (MRF). Once at the MRF, the waste is manually and mechanically separated and the recyclable materials are recovered. This program has been implemented by the City in effort to meet the States requirements identified in the Source Reduction and Recycling Element related to the 25 and 50 percent diversion requirements. , Hazardous wastes such as waste oil shall be disposed of in accordance with the requirements of the Orange County Health Care Agency - Environmental Health Division, and the Orange County Fire Department. Discussion of Environmental Evaluation Conditional Use Permit 94-016, Design Review 94-025 and Zone Change 94-005 November 8, 1994 Page 14 Due to the size and the type of use of the proposed project, it is anticipated that the amount of solid waste will be accommodated within.the City's existing solid waste handling programs and will not have a significant impact on the City's Solid Waste Handling services. The City's existing solid waste handling program and contracts have been established to accommodate the development and expansion of new businesses within the City. Source: Proposed Development Plans, City of Tustin PUblic Works Department, City of Tustin Building Division, Orange County Health Care Agency - Environmental Health Division, Great Western Reclamation, Inc. Mitigation/Monitoring: The applicant will be required to contract for a fee with the City' contracted solid waste hauler. The applicant shall provide a trash receptacle which comply with the requirements of the City'of Tustin's contract hauler's specifications. All hazardous wastes shall be disposed of in accordance with the requirements of the Orange County Health Care Agency - Environmental Health Division, and Orange County Fire Department. Compliance shall be verified at Building Permit plan check. The .applicant shall also submit written evidence that a corrective action plan has been submitted to the Orange County Health Care Agency - Environmental Health Division. 19. Aesthetics - "No" - As proposed, 'the restaurant and drive- through facility would consist of an approximately 989 square foot building, a drive-through aisle, 27 on-site parking spaces, a trash enclosure, one monument sign, one freeway oriented pole sign, a menu board, and landscaped plahting areas. The proposed architecture, materials and colors, match ~.~ the existing car wash structure on the adjacent property to the east. The proposed~'landscaping materials, quantities and installation would meet the City of Tustin Landscape and Irrigation Standards. Source: Proposed Development Plans, Field observations, Community Development Department. Mitigation/Monitoring: None required, however, conditions related to the architecture, materials, colors, landscaping and site modifications would be included to ensure that the facility does not negatively affect the existing surrounding neighborhood. Compliance with all conditions shall be 'Discussion of Environmental Evaluation Conditional Use Permit 94-016, Design Review 94-025 and Zone Change 94-005 November 8, 1994 Page 15 verified during the plan check process prior to the issuance of any building permits. 20. Recreation -"No" - The project is non-residential in nature and is not located in proximity to recreational facilities. It will have no impact on quality of recreation opportunities in the community. · Source: City of Tustin Community Services DePartment, City of Tustin General Plan Land Use Element. Mitigation/Monitoring: None Required. 21. Cultural'Resources - A Throuqh D "No" - The subject property is not located within the City's Cultural Resources Overlay District, nor are there any identified cultural, historic or archaeological· resources identified on or around the site. The project will have no impacts on cultural resources. Source: City of Tustin Historical Resources Survey, City of Tustin Community Development Department Mitigation/Monitoring: None Required. 22. Mandatory Findings of Significance - As discussed above, the proposed pr~oject involves demolition of an existing structure, and construction of a restaurant with a drive-through lane. The establishment of the proposed project could result in potential impacts to the environment in the areas of earth, air, water, noise, light and glare, risk of upset, transportation and circulation, public services, solid waste and aesthetics. However, due to the project design and conditions imposed, the potential impacts would be reduced to a level of insignificance. .. Item a - "No"- Based upon the responses to Items 1 - 21 in this Initial Study, the review of City files, records and documents and the nature of the project, the project is not antiCipated to significantly impact wildlife, fish, flora, fauna or cultural resources. Item b - "No": As designed and conditioned, the project would not 'achieve short-term goals to the disadvantage of long-term environmental goals, specifically with regard to traffic and circulation, aesthetics and light and glare. Discussion of Environmental Evaluation Conditional Use Permit 94-016, Design Review 94-025 ~and Zone Change 94-005 November 8, 1994 Page 16 Item c - "No:" In reference to the project background discussion provided herein, the project will have limited impacts cumulatively. Item d - "No": As a result of the preparation of and as discussed in this Initial Study, mitigation measures have been identified and have either been implemented in the project's design or will become Conditions of Approval. Any possible impacts associated with this project have been mitigated to a level of insignificance. Sources: Ail sources listed in items 1 -.21 of this Initial Study, Submitted development plans, AppliCable City and Stat~ Codes. Mitigation/Monitoring: As stated above, mitigation measures have been identified in Items 1 - 21 of this Initial Study and have either been implemented in the project's design or will become Conditions of Approval. 8CS: br/cup94 - 016. env 1 RESOLUTION NO. 3332 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN, RECERTIFYING THE FINAL NEGATIVE DECLARATION AS ADEQUATE FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 94-016 AND DESIGN REVIEW 94-025 INCLUDING REQUIRED FINDINGS PURSUANT TO THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT. The Planning Commission of the City of Tustin does hereby resolve as follows: I. The Planning Commission finds and determines as follows: A, The request to approve Conditional.Use Permit 94- 016 and Design Review 94-025 are considered "projects" pursuant to the terms of the California Environmental Quality Act. S , A Negative Declaration has been previously Certified as adequate for Zone Change 94-005 for which this project is a part and has been previously been distributed for public review. C . Whereby, the Planning Commission of the City of Tustin has considered evidence presented by the Community Development Director and other interested parties with respect to the s~bject Negative Declaration. D . The Planning Commission has evaluated the proposed final Negative Declaration and determined it to be adequate and complete. II. A Final Negative Declaration has been completed in compliance with CEQA and State guidelines. The Planning Commission, having approval authority over Conditional Use Permit 94-016 and Design Review 94-025, has received and considered the information contained in the Negative Declaration, prior to approving the proposed project, and found that it adequately discussed the environmental effects of the proposed project. The Planning Commission has found that the project involves no potential for an adverse effect, either individually or cumulatively," on wildlife resources and makes a De Minimis Impact Finding related to AB3158, Chapter 1206, Statutes of 1990. On the basis of the initial study and comments received during the public review process, the Planning Commission has found that, the proposed projects would not have a significant effect on the environment. 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Resolution No. 3332 Page 2 PASSED AND ADOPTED at~'~a~'~egUlRr meeting of the Tustin Planning Commission, held on the 13th day of February, 1995. A.L. BAKER Chairperson BARBARA REYES Recording 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. 3332 was duly passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the Tustin Planning Commission, held on the 13th day of February, 1995. BARBARA REYES Recording Secretary RESOLUTION NO. 3333 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN, CONDITIONALLY APPROVING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 94-016 AND DESIGN REVIEW 9.4-025 TO ALLOW CONSTRUCTION OF A 1,989 SQUARE FOOT FAST-FOOD RESTAURANT WITH DRIVE- THRU SERVICE AND DENYING A FREEWAY POLE .SIGN ON THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 14042 RED HILL AVENUE. The Planning Commission of the City of Tustin does hereby resolve as follows: The Planning Commission finds and determines as follows: a. That proper applications for Conditional Use Permit 94-016 and Design ~Review 94-025 were filed by Fancher Development Services, Inc. requesting approval of a 1,989 square foot fast-food restaurant with drive-thru service and a freeway pole sign on the property located at 14042 Red Hill Avenue. A drive-thru facility within the CG (Commercial General) zoning district would be' allowed with the approval of a conditional use permit pursuant to City Code Section 9235m(c) and a freeway pole sign would be allowed on the subject property for the proposed use with the approval of. a conditional use permit pursuant to City Code Section 940463. C , That a public hearing was duly called, noticed and held on said applications on February 13, 1995 by the Planning Commission. D . Pursuant to Section 9272 of the 'Tustin Municipal Code, the Commission finds that the · location, size, architectural features and gener~l~ appearance of Design Review 94-025 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. Resolution No. 3333 Page 2 E . , , , , Exterior materials and colors. Type and pitch of roofs. Size and spacing of windows, doors and other openings. Towers, chimneys, roof structures, flagpoles, radio and television antennae. Landscaping, parking area design and traffic circulation. 8. Location, height and standards of exterior illumination. Location and appearance of equipment located outside of an enclosed structure. 10. Location and method of refuse storage. 11. Physical relationship of proposed structures 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, with the exception of the freeway pole sign. 14. Development Guidelines and criteria as adopted by the City Council. That.establishment, maintenance, and operation of the drive-thru 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: Resolution No. 3333 Page 3 F . G , On-site traffic concerns have generally been mitigated through the separation of the drive-thru aisle from the on-site parking by requiring the three parking spaces located at the northeast corner of the site to be marked "employee parking". , The potential for pedestrian/vehicle conflicts has been mitigated through the construction of an internally illuminated sign reading, "pedestrian crossing" at the crosswalk on the west side of the restaurant. Further, the decorative pavement treatment required for the crosswalk surface will visually and textually alert drivers to the crosswalk. . 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 board, pay/pick-up window and length of drive-thru lane. The use will not create a noise nuisance as the proposed loudspeaker shall conform to the Tustin Noise Ordinance and shall be designed so as not to impact adjacent commercial properties. That the establishment, maintenance and operation of the proposed drive-thru 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 establishment, maintenance, and operation of a freeway pole sign would, 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: Resolution No. 3333 Page 4 ~ · The proposed freeway pole sign would set a precedent for all properties adjacent to the freeway to have a freeway sign, including those properties which do not comply with the minimum development criteria, in conflict with the primary objective of the Sign Code, as stated in Section 9401, to reduce sign clutter within the City. If the proposed pole sign were approved, other .restaurants without freeway signage might request a conditional use permit for a freeway pole sign to compete with the proposed drive- thru restaurant, thus increasing sign clutter along the freeway~which would be detrimental to the general welfare of persons, property and improvements in the neighborhood. There are numerous nonconforming freeway pole signs in the immediate vicinity of the I-5 Freeway and Red Hill Avenue (i.e Chevron, Al's Woodcraft, Mobil, Shell, Taylor's) which create a proliferation of sign clutter contrary to the objective of the Sign code as stated in Section 9401. The proposed freeway pole sign would reinforce the existence of these nonconforming freeway pole signs~'thereby continuing to promote sign clutter within the community which would be detrimental to the general welfare of persons, property and improvements in the neighborhood. Caltrans provides blue, food service signs along I-5 Freeway which may be available for restaurants to include business identification. Such a sign would provide more adequate business identification as it would alter a driver in either the northbound or southbound direction well before the Red Mill Avenue off-ramp that the restaurant was available which would provide a greater benefit to the general welfare of persons, property and improvements in the neighborhood. Resolution No. 3333 Page 5 , , The project proposes a monument sign located at the southwest corner of the Red Hill Avenue and Nisson Road, several freestanding directionalsigns throughout the site to designate the drive-thru lane, and a total of three wall signs facing the I-5 Freeway, Red Hill Avenue and Nisson Road. The types, sizes and locations of the proposed monument, directional and wall signs currently permitted by the Sign Code would provide adequate opportunity for business identification at this intersection which would provide a greater benefit to the general welfare of persons, property and improvements in the neighborhood. The location of the freeway pole sign does not C0mply with the minimum criteria to be eligible for a conditional use permit which requires a 25 foot setback from a non-freeway property line (Red Hill Avenue) pursuant to Section 940363(c). H . That the establishment, maintenance and operation of the proposed freeway pole sign will 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. I , 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 Qualitas. Sub-Element. II. The Planning Commission hereby approves Conditional Use Permit 94-016 and Design Review94-025 allowing construction of a 1,989 square foot fast-food restaurant with drive-thru service and denies the proposed freeway pole sign on the property located at 14042 Red Hill Avenue, subject to the conditions contained in Exhibit A, attached hereto. Resolution No. 3333 Page 6 PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Tustin Planning Commission, held on the 13th day of February, 1995. A.L. BAKER Chairman BARBARA REYES~ 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. 3333 was duly passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the Tustin Planning Commission, held on the 13th day of February, 1995. BARBARA REYES Recording Secretary EXHIBIT A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 94-016 AND DESIGN REVIEW 94-025 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL RESOLUTION NO. 3333 GENERAL (1) 1.1 The proposed project shall substantially conform with the submitted plans for the project date-stamped February 13, 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. mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm 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 - Conditions of Approval Resolution No. 3333 CUP 94-016 and DR 94-025 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. (3) B. Preliminary technical detail and plans for all 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. (3) C. Final grading and specifications consistent with the 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. (3) D. A precise soils engineering report provided by a soils engineer within the previous twelve (12) months as determined by the Building Official~ (5) 2.2 Entrance and exit, path of travel, aisles, cashier space, sanitary facilities and public telephones serving the property shall be accessible to persons with disabilities. (5) 2.3 Prior to issuance of any building permits,'the property owner and/o~developer shall satisfy all requirements for the dedication of right-of-way 'along Red Hill Avenue and the preparation of street improvement plans as required by the executed and recorded Dedication and Reimbursement Agreement entered into between the property owner, developer and the City related to this property and project. (5) 2.4 Prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy for the project, the developer shall complete the necessary street improvements along Red Hill Avenue as required by the executed and recorded Dedication and Reimbursement Agreement entered into between the property owner, Exhibit A - Conditions of Approval Resolution No. 3333 CUP 94-016 and DR 94-025 Page 3 developer and the City related to this property and project. OPERATIONAL STANDARDS *** 3.1 The hours of operation for the restaurant dining room shall be limited to 6:00 a.m. to 12 midnight. The drive- thru lane may be permitted to operate 24 hours per day. *** 3.2 All loading vehicles shall be parked in designated areas and loading shall be completed during non-peak hours. (2) 3.3 The three (3) parking spaces located in the northeast corner -of the site shall be labeled as "employee parking". *** 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. (4) 3.5 The restaurant seating shall at no time exceed 68 seats, unless additional parking becomes available and said change is submitted to the Community Development Department for review. A seating plan shall be submitted at building plan check for review and approval by the Community Development Department. (7) 3.6 No outdoor seating shall be permitted unless specifically approved by a Conditional Use Permit. (5) 3.7 Ail graffiti shall be removed within 72 hours of a complaint being transmitted by the City to the property owner. Failure to maintain said structure and adjacent facilities will be grounds for City enforcement of its Property Maintenance Ordinance, including nuisance abatement procedures. SITE AND BUILDING CONDITIONS (4) 4.1 Provide exact details for exterior doors and window types on construction plans. (4) 4.2 Ail mechanical and electrical fixtures and equipment shall be adequately and decoratively screened. The Exhibit A - Conditions of Approval Resolution No. 3333 CUP 94-016 and DR 94-025 Page 4 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 and consistent with the existing carwash property to the east. 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 the building shall be of a decorative design. Freestanding fixtures in the parking area shall match existing fixtures on the existing carwash property to the east. (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 buildiDg and equipment heights. The bUilding parapet shall be an integral part of the building design, and shall screen all roof mounted equipment. All roof-mounted equipment and vents shall be a minimum of six inches below the top of the parapet. (4) 4.8 All .roof access shall be provided from the inside of the building. (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. Exhibit A - Conditions of Approval Resolution No. 3333 CUP 94-016 and DR 94-025 Page 5 (4) 4.~0 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.~3 Note on plans~that outdoor storage shall be prohibited. (2) 4.14 The proposed crosswalk at the drive-thru lane exit on the west side of the building shall include the use of a decorative pavement treatment, with details of such treatment subject to the approval of the Community Development Department during building plan check. NOISE (1) 5.~ Ail construction operations including engine warm up 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. until 5:00 p.m. of Saturday unless the Building Official determines that said activity will be in substantial conformance with the Noise Ordinance and the public health and safety will not be impaired subject to application being made at the time the permit, for the work is awarded or during progress of the work..~ (1) 5.2 Construction work hours shall be clearly poSted on the construction 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 staff so that no noise is directed toward adjoining businesses and properties. Exhibit A - Conditions of Approval Resolution No. 3333 CUP 94-016 and DR 94-025 Page 6 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, etcl The irrigation plan shall show location and control of backflow prevention devices (screened from view from right-Cf-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 Community Development Department 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 Community Development Department. (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. Be 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. 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 Exhibit A - Conditions of Approval Resolution No. 3333 CUP 94-016 and DR 94-025 Page 7 litter, fertilizing, regular watering, replacement of diseased or dead plants. or (5) 6.3 Ail landscaping should be kept below the window areas to maintain visibility. (4) 6.4 The use of Heavenly Bamboo and Yellow Butterfly Iris shall be eliminated from the proposed plant palette. Alternate shrubs consistent with the Mediterranean-style landscaping theme may be added to the plant palette,. subject to the approval of 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: ae Primary Wall Sign - One (1) primary wall sign permitted per site. The maximum sign area may be 15% of the storefront area with a maximum of 75 square feet. S~ Secondary Wall Sign - Two (2) secondary wall signs permitted per site. The maximum sign area for each sign may be 5% of the storefront area with a maximum of 25 square feet. (4) 7.2 All incidental signs for this project including entry, exit, menu board and other directional-~signs shall be designed with a monument type base consistent with the proposed monument sign and architecturally consistent with the main building architecture, subject to review and approval by the Community Development Department. (4) 7.3 An internally illuminated "Pedestrian Crossing" sign shall be installed adjacent to the drive-thru lane on the west side of the building next to the decorative pedestrian walkway. Exhibit A - Conditions of Approval Resolution No. 3333 CUP 94-016 and DR 94-025 Page 8 (1) 7.4 Ail reference to the proposed freeway pole sign shall be removed from the plans. 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 the issuance of any building permits for combustible construction, a letter and plan from the developer shall be submitted to and approved by the Fire Chief. This letter and plan shall state that water for fire fighting purposes and an all weather fire.access road shall be in place before any combustible materials are placed on site. (5) 9.2 Prior to the issuance of any certificates of use and occupancy, all fire hydrants shall have a "Blue Reflective Pavement Marker" indicating its location on the street o'r drive per Orange County Fire Department Standard. On private property these markers are to be maintained in good condition by the property owner. (5) 9.3 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) 9.4 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 Exhibit A - Conditions of Approval Resolution No. 3333 CUP 94-016 and DR 94-025 Page 9 the location 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) 9.5 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. Ce 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. Do Building(s) not approved for high piled combustible storage. Materials in closely packed piles shall not exceed 15 feet in height, 12 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 NFPA Std. 231, 231C and 231D. E · Plans of modification to or new fire protection, detector or alarm system(s) shall be approved by the Fire Department prior to installation. FEES (5) 10.1 Prior to issuance of any building permits, payment shall be made of all required fees, including but not limited to those identified below, payment will 'be required based upon those rates in effect, at the time of payment and are subject to change: 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. Be 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. Exhibit A - Conditions.of Approval Resolution No. 3333 CUP 94-016 and DR 94-025 Page 10~ 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 Orange County Sanitation District No. 7. Transportation System Improvement Program, Benefit Area "B" fees to 'the Community Development in the amount of $3.31 per square foot, or as may be amended prior to permit issuance. F~ 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 (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. 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. EM NO. 4 aport to the Planning Commission DATE: FEBRUARY 13, 1995 SUBJECT: ZONE CHANGE 94-006 APPLICANT CALIFORNIA PACIFIC HOMES 5 CIVIC PLAZA, SUITE 100 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 ATTN: WILLIAM L. MOORHOUS LOCATION: EAST TUSTIN SPECIFIC PLAN ZONING: EAST TUSTIN SPECIFIC PLAN, PLANNED COMMUNITY RESIDENTIAL ENVIRONMENTAL. STATUS: THIS PROJECT IS COVERED BY A PREVIOUSLY CERTIFIED EIR (85-2) FOR THE EAST TUSTIN SPECIFIC PLAN. NO ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTATION IS REQUIRED. REQUEST: TO MODIFY SUBSECTION "a" OF SECTION 3.6.3.C3 OF THE EAST TUSTIN SPECIFIC PLAN ENTITLED "PROJECTIONS INTO REQUIRED SETBACKS" RELATED TO THE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF PATIOCOVER AND TRELLIS STRUCTURES WITHIN PATIO HOME DEVELOPMENTS. RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the Planning Commission take the following actions: I . , Approve the Environmental Determination for the project by adopting Resolution No. 3330 and; Recommend to the City council approval of Zone Change 94-006 by ~dopting Resolution No. 3331, as submitted or revised. BACKGROUND The applicant is proposing to amend Subsection "a" of Section 3.6.3.C3 of the East Tustin Specific Plan (ETSP) entitled "Projections into Required Setbacks" to modify the development standards for the construction of patio cover and trellis structures within Patio Home developments which are permitted within the Medium and Medium High Density Land Use Designations of the ETSP, subject to the approval of a conditional use permit. Planning Commission Report Zone Change 94-006 February 13, 1995 Page 2 Subsection "a".currently requires patio covers to satisfy the same setback and distance between building requirements as required for main structures. The proposed amendments would eliminate the need to conform to main building setback and distance between building requirements and refer to the Uniform Building Code for required separation between structures. Existing provisions for patio covers to cover no more than 50.percent of the private yard area would remain unchanged. The proposed amendment would apply to all properties located within the ETSP area which are developed as a "Patio Home Development". A 1/8 page display ad public hearing notice identifying the time, date and location of the public hearing for the project was published in the Tustin News. Since there are more than 1,000 property owners within the. boundaries of the ETSP, no mailing of notices is required pursuant to Government Code Section 65091(3). Notices were posted at City Hall and the Police Department. The applicant was informed of the availability of a staff report for this item. DISCUSSION In May of 1993, the Planning Commission and City Council approved amendments to the East Tustin Specific Plan (ETSP) to establish development standards for "Patio Home" developments including specific building setbacks and distance between building requirements. Provisions were also included to require patio cover and trellis structures to conform to the same setbacks as the main building (Attachment A). The individual patio home units typically have usable private yard areas between the adjacent units which could accommodate patio and landscaping improvements. In most cases, compliance with the setback requirements for patio covers as currently required would not feasibly accommodate the construction of a patio-cover as it would be ineffective in size. In order to provide greater flexibility to accommodate useable patio covers within the Patio Home developments, the following revisions to the ETSP are proposed. The portions of the ETSP proposed to be deleted are marked with strikeouts and the portions proposed to be added are highlighted as shaded areas. "Covered Patio, trellis or canonies shall ccn~o P~D~:e¢~:~:~:~:~:i'nto'~h~ required setbacks and ........ ~d~a:~"?~t?~:~'":~:~ ..... ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: ............ ............... no~ cover ~'Off~'"'~han 50 .percen~ of ~he p'ff'i~'~"~'~'"'""8~'~'H'"'"~'~'~'~'~"'"'~ ...... : ............................................................................................................................... :: ~:: ~ ~ ~... i:: :.: ~: ~ ~ ~ ~:: :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: · :~ ~:~ .:.: :. ::: :: :~i:: :t:: :~::::::::[ ::::: ::::~ ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: :::::: ~ :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: Planning Commission Report Zone Change 94-006 February 13, 1995 Page 3 The primary purpose for setbacks as they relate to patio cover and trellis structures, is to insure that there is adequate separation of structures. The Uniform Building Code (UBC) would require a minimum of three (3) feet separation of any patio cover from an existing structUre. However, under the proposed amendments, a patio cover would be able to be located directly adjacent to a private yard fence if there were no other structures located within three (3) feet of the fence in the adjacent yard. The existing provisions to require that no more than 50 percent of the private yard area is covered by a patio cover would remain unchanged. The combination of compliance with the UBC and the 50% coverage requirement would be the key factors in locating a patio cover or trellis structure resulting in the greatest flexibility possible.~. The proposed amendment would also be similar to other higher density developments within the ETSP area. Current provisions of the ETSP do not establish specific setback requirements for patio covers in the Medium and Medium-High Land Use .Designations of the ETSP for multiple family units. In those situations, compliance with provisions of the UBC would still be required in order to obtain a Building Permit, even though it is not specifically stated in the ETSP. ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS Based upon review of the proposed amendments, as well as Environmental Impact Report 85-2, as modified by subsequently adopted supplements and addenda, it has been determined that environmental issues relating to this project have previously been addressed. With this information in mind, it is recommended that the Commission make the finding that requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act have been met and that no further environmental review is required. Planning Commission Report Zone Change 94-006 February 13, 1995 Page 4 CONCLUSION The proposed amendments to the ETSP would provide for flexibility in locating patio cover and trellis structures within the Patio Home Developments, while insuring that the Uniform Building Code requirements related to separation of structures are being met. Based upon the information presented above, it is recommended that the Planning Commission forward Zone Change 94-006 to the City Council with a recommendation of approval by adopting Resolution No. 3331, as submitted or revised. Daniel Fox Senior Planner DF :br;mp:ZC94006 Attachments: Attachment A - 3.6.3.C3 of the ETSP Initial Study Resolution Nos. 3330 and 3331 'C. Patio Home Development Cl. Table C1 Site Requirements M MH , , o . C2. Permitted density, maximum dwelling units per gross acre 15 15 Lot coverage (%) 100(1) 100(1) Open space (sq. ft.) 400(2) 400(2) Maximum No. of 4 bedroom units (3) 30% 30% (1) (2) (3) Less required setbacks and open space areas. A minimum of 150 square feet may be for private use provided such area is located on a ground level and if open on three sides. Areas excluded from the open space requirement include all structures, private streets, private drives, private courts, above ground patios and parking lots. No more than four (4) bedrooms shall be permitted in Patio Home developments. For purposes of bedroom determination, a den shall count as a bedroom. General Requirements Buildinq Site Requirements - Patio home subdivisions shall be designated as a development unit on a tentative map. Development Unit o A development unit shall consist of all building sites, their private open space, common recreation and open spaces areas, and public and/or private streets serving the project. The overall density within the development shall not exceed 'the allowable dwelling units per gross acre maximum for a given land use district. Specific Requirements Buildinq Height - 35 feet, including roof mounted equipment. Buildinq Setbacks ao Tract Boundary - The minimum building setback from any tract boundary shall be 10 feet. If the tract boundary is adjacent to a park or other permanent open space, the minimum building setback shall be 5 feet. bo Public/Private Streets - The minimum building setback shall be 10 feet from a public or private street. An attached or detached garage may be setback a minimum of 5 feet from a public or private street. If living areas are provided above garages, garage setbacks shall apply provided that no more than 75% of the units along the street frontage may have living space over a garage with less than a 10 feet setback. Rev: 5-24-93 3o33b ATTACHMENT A Rev' Co All units located along both sides of a street segment shall be included when calculating the above 75% determination, regardless of whether they front, side or rear load on that section of a street. A garage shall not be setback between 9 feet and 19 feet from the right-of-way line. Garages setback 9 feet and less shall be equipped with an automatic garage opener. Private Drives and Courts - The minimum building setback shall be 7 feet in a private court or on a private drive not located within a court. An attached or detached garage may be setback a minimum of 3 feet provided that no more than 50% of the length of the building frontage over the total length of the drive or court is setback less than 7 feet. In calculating the total length of the drive or court and the length of building frontage, the length of building and street frontage on both sides of the drive or court shall be used. If living areas are provided above garages, garage setback shall apply. The minimum 3 foot garage setback shall be increased where necessary to accommodate required sidewalks. A garage shall not be setback between 9 feet and 19 feet from the right-of-way line. Garages setback 9 feet and less shall be equipped with an automatic garage opener. A minimum distance of 40 feet shall be maintained between ground floor living areas on units across from each other in a court, on a drive or on a shared driveway. do Between Buildings The minimum horizontal distance between adjacent buildingS shall be 10 feet. The minimum distance between buildings may be reduced to 6 feet for no more than a maximum length of 25 feet of a building elevation provided that there are no windows on one elevation for that portion of the building elevation with less than a 10 feet setback, if living areas are provided above garages, garage setbacks shall apply. Proiections Into Required Setbacks a. Covered Patio, trellis or canopies shall conform to required setbaCks and not cover more than 50 percent of the private open space. b. Eaves, cornices, chimney, balconies and other similar architectural features shall not project more than 3 feet into any required building setback, and in no event closer than 2 feet to a private street, drive, court or shared driveway. Rain gutters would not be subject to setback requirements provided the eave, cornice or other architectural projection which the gutter is attached to satisfies applicable setbacks for such projections. A minimum distance of 4 feet shall be maintained between any architectural projections and an adjacent building or an architectural projection on an adjacent building. Co Locations of swimming pools and/or spas shall conform with City Code Section 9271 (o). Minimum Gross Floor Area Per Unit Excludinq the Garaqe Area: 900 square feet 5-24-93 3-33c COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT 300 Centennial Way, Tustin, CA 92680 (7~49 573-3~05 INITIAL STUDY Ie BACKGROUND Name of Proponent Address and Phone Number of Proponent %-civic ,. sol.-r _ loc) Date Check List Submitted ~'~. ]<q,j~ Agency Requiring Check List Name of Proposal, if applicable 2C c]4-ooG~ ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS 1. Earth. Will the proposal result in: a. Unstable earth conditions or in changes in geologic substructures? b. Disruptions, displacements, compaction or overcovering of the soil? c. Change in topography or ground surface relief features? d. The destruction, CoVering or modification of'any unique geologic or physical features? e. Any increase in wind or water-erosion of soils, either on or off the site? Changes in deposition or erosion of beach sands, or changes in siltation, deposition or erosion which may modi~ the channeI of a river or stream or the bed of the ocean or any bay, inlet or lake? YES MAYBE [-I 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, or temperatures, or any change in climate, either locally or regionally? 3. Water. Will the proposal result in: a. Changes in currents, or the course of direction of water movements, in either marine or fresh water? b. Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the rate and amount of surface runoff?. c. Alterations to the course or flow of flood waters? d. Change in the amount of surface water in any water body? e. Discharge into surface waters, or in any alteration of surface water quality, including but not limited to temperature, dissolved oxygen or turbidity? f. Alteration of the direction or rate of flow of ground waters? go 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? Exposure of peo31e or property to water related hazards such as flooding or tidal waves9 4. Plant Life. Will the proposal result in: a. b. Change in the diversity of species, or number of any species of plants (including trees, shrubs, grass, crops, and aquatic plants)? 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 species? d. Reduction in acreage of any agricultural crop? 5. Animal Life. Will the proposal result in: bo 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)? Reduction of the numbers of any unique, rare or endangered species of animals? c. Introduction of new species of animals into an area, or result in a barrier to the migration or movement of animals? d. Deterioration to existing fish or wildlife habitat? 6. Noise. Will the proposal result in: . . a. Increases in existing noise levels? b. Exposure of people to severe noise levels? Light and Glare. Will the proposal produce new light or glare? Land Use. Will the proposal reSult in a substantial alteration of the present or planned land.use of an area? 9. Natural Resources. Will the proposal result in: a. Increase in the rate or use of any natural resources? b. Substantial depletion of any nonrenewable natural resource? 10. Risk of Upset. Will the proposal involve: ao 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? YES MAYBE NO 11. Population. Will the proposal alter the location, distribution, density, or growth rate of the human population of an area? 12. Housing. Will the proposal affect existing housing, or create a demand for additional housing? 13. Transportation/Circulation. Will the proposal result in: a. Generation of substantial additional vehicular movement? b. Effects on existing parking facilities, or demand for new parking? c. Substantial impact upon existing transportation systems? d. Alterations to present patterns of circulation or movement of people and/or goods? e. Alterations to waterborne, rail or air traffic? f. Increase in traffic hazards to motor vehicles, bicyclists or pedestrians? 14. Public Services. Will the proposal have an effect upon, or result in a need for new or altered governmental services in any of the following areas: a. Fire protection? b. Police protection? c. Schools? d. Parks or other recreational facilities? e. Maintenance of public facilities, including roads? f. Other governmental services? 15. EnergY.. Will the proposal result in: -. a. 'Use of substantial amounts of fuel or energy? b. Substantial increase in demand upon existing sources of energy, or require the development of new sources of energy? YES -I MAYBE NO 16. Utilities. Will the proposal 'result in a need for new systems, or substantial alterations to the following utilities: a. Power or natural gas? b. Communications systems? c. Water? d. Sewer or septic tanks? e. Storm water drainage? f. Solid waste and disposal? 17. Human Health. Will the proposal result in: a. Creation of any health hazard or potential health hazard (excluding mental health)? b. Exposure of people to potential health hazards? 18. Solid Waste. Will the proposal create additional solid waste requiring disposal by the City? 19. Aesthetics. Will the proposal result in 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: a. The alteration of or the destruction of a prehistoric or historic archaeological site? b. 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? YES MAYBE NO d, Will the proposal restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the potential impact area? YES MAYBE NO 22. Mandatory Findings of Significance. Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history. or prehistory? bo 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.) d. 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 PART III - DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION EXHIBIT A TIERED INITIAL STUDY RESPONSES FOR ZONE CHANGE 94-006 BACKGROUND The proposed project is an application by California Pacific Home to amend the East Tustin Specific Plan (ETSP) regarding the limitation for patio cover and trellis structures within Patio Home Developments. Subsection "a" of Section C3, Projections into Required Setbacks, currently requires patio covers to satisfy the same setback and distance between building requirements as required for m~in structures. The proposed amendments would eliminate the need to conform to main building setback and distance between building requirements and refer to the Uniform Building Code for required separation between structures. Provisions for patio covers to cover no more than 50 percent of the private yard area would remain unchanged.' This is a tiered initial study that is based on and incorporates by reference, the environmental analysis included in EIR 85-2, which was previously certified on March 17, 1986, and subsequently amended with supplements and addenda for the ETSP. In conformance with CEQA, the purpose of this tiered initial study is to identify and focus the environmental analysis for the project on significant new environmental impacts that were not previously considered in the Program EIR. EIR 85-2, as subsequently amended with supplements and addenda, identified several impact categories where a Statement of Overriding Consideration was adopted by the City for the entire ETSP area. F6r the purposes of~this initial study check list, these items have been checked "Yes" .and an evaluation has been made to ensure that projects previously identified have not been intensified. Mitigation measures identified in the EIR to minimize the impacts that would be applicable to this project have been identified. .~. · EIR 85-2, as subsequently amended with supplements and addenda, also identified several impact categories where impacts could be lessened to a level of insignificance with the imposition of mitigation measures. Staff has reviewed each of these impact categories to be sure no new project impacts associated with the project would occur that were not identified in the Program EIR. For the purposes of this initial study check list, these items have been checked "No" and the mitigation measures identified in the Program EIR that would be applicable to this project that are included as part of the project'have been identified. Exhibit A - Initial Study Responses Zone Change 94-006 January 23, 1995 Page 2 Impact categories not identified to have a potential impact in EIR 85-2, as subsequently amended with supplements .and addenda, have been also checked "No" and were also reviewed to ensure that no new impacts would be created by the project. Since the scope of the entire ETSP is rather broad, and the subject project is a relatively minor amendment to the ETSP, most of the impact categories are not applicable. 1. EARTH Items B and C - "Yes": The Program EIR addresses the impact of development and the resultant negative effects on the earth. 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, as amended with supplements and addenda. The proposed Zone Change will not result in any significant disruption, displacement, compaction or overcrowding of the soil which was not previously considered in EIR 85-2, as amended with supplements and addenda, as development authorized by the ETSP would not be altered by the proposed amendment. The proposed amendment would provide flexibility in the placement of patio cover structures within private yard areas only. Items A, D, E, F and G - "No": The certified EIR 85-2, as amended with supplements and addenda, 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. Consequent!y, mitigation measures were identified in EIR 85-2, as amended with supplements and addenda.. The proposed Zone Change will not have any additional affects on the earth, not previously considered in EIR 85-2, as amended with supplements and addenda, as grading activities are typically not associated with the construction of patio covers. Sources: City of Tustin Building Division Proposed Zone Change EIR 85-2, as amended with supplements and addenda Mitiqation/Monitoring Required: No additional mitigation required. Exhibit A - Initial Study Responses Zone Change 94-006 January 23, 1995 Page 3 2. 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. A Statement of Overriding Considerations was prepared to address necessary compromises for the overall benefit of the Specific Plan and the region. The.proposed Zone Change would not result in any degradation of existing air quality based upon SCAQMD guidelines for preparation of EIRs which was not previously considered in EIR 85-2, as amended with supplements and addenda, as development authorized by the ETSP would not be altered by the proposed amendment. Items B and C - "No" The certified EIR 85-2, as amended with supplements and addenda, 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, as amended with supplements and addenda. The Proposed Zone Change would not affect air quality in any way not previously considered in EIR 85-2, as amended with supplements and addenda. Sources: Proposed Zone Change SCAQMD Standards EIR 85-2, as amended with supplements and addenda Mitigation/Monitoring Required: No additional mitigation required. WATER Items .B, C and F - "Yes": The Program EIR addresses the impact of development and the resultant negative effects on water.. 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. Mitigation measures were identified in EIR 85-2, as amended with supplements and addenda. The proposed Zone Change would not result in any additional change to absorption rates, water movement, flood waters, discharge into surface waters, flow of groundwater, quantity of ground water, or water consumption not previously considered by EIR 85-2, as amended with supplements and addenda. The proposed amendment would provide flexibility in the placement of patio cover structures within private yard Exhibit A - Initial Study Responses Zone Change 94-006 January 23, 1995 Page 4 areas only. There would be no additional effect on drainage or water than that which was previously considered. Items A, D, E, G, H and I - "No": The certified EIR 85-2, as amended with supplements and addenda, identified impacts to the Specific Plan area related to the proposed development and the resultant negative effects to water quality. Applicable mitigation measures were identified in EIR 85-2, as amended with supplements and addenda. The proposal will not result in any impacts not previously considered by EIR 85-2, as amended with supplements and addenda. Sources: Proposed Zone Change City of Tustin Building Division EIR 85-2, as amended with supplements and addenda Mitigation/MonitOring Required: No additional mitigation required. · PLANT LIFE Items A throuqh D - "No": The certified EIR 85-2, as amended with supplements and addenda, 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, as amended with supplements and addenda. The proposed Zone Change would not result in any additional change to plant life not previously considered by EIR 85-2, as amended with supplements and addenda, as the proposed amendment would provide flexibility in the placement of patio cover structures within private yard areas only which would have no effect on plant life. Sources: Proposed. Zone Change EIR 85-2, as amended with supplements and addenda Mitiqation/Monitoring Required: No additional mitigation required. · ANIMAL LIFE Items A throuqh D - "No": The certified EIR 85-2, as amended with supplements and addenda, identified impacts to the project site related to the proposed development and the Exhibit A - Initial Study. Responses Zone Change 94-006 January 23, 1995 Page 5 resultant negative effects to animal life. Applicable mitigation measures were identified in EIR 85-2, as amended with supplements and addenda. The proposed Zone Change would not result in any additional change to existing animal life not previously considered by EIR 85-2, as amended with supplements and addenda, as no additional development is proposed as part of the Zone Change. Sources: Proposed Zone Change EIR 85-2, as amended with supplements and addenda Mitiqation/Monitoring Required: No additional mitigation required. · NOISE · Items A - "Yes": The Program EIR addresses the impact of development and the resultant negative effects of noise. The City Council considered the benefits of the ETSP original program EIR, as amended with supplements and addenda, and balanced those benefits against the project's unavoidable effects. A Statement of Overriding Considerations was adopted for the ETSP. Mitigation measures addressing the acoustic environment were identified in the Program EIR. The proposed Zone Change would not result in any additional changes to noise levels not previously considered by EIR 85-2, as amended with supplements and addenda. The change in standards for the placement of patio cover structures would have no impact on noise~ levels. Items B - "No": The certified EIR 85-2, as amended with supplements and addenda, 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, as amended with supplements and addenda. These measures are not applicable to this project . because the change in standards for the placement of patio cover structures would have no impact on noise levels. Sources: Proposed Zone Change EIR 85-2, as amended with supplements and addenda Mitiqation/Monitoring Required: No additional mitigation required. Exhibit A - Initial Study Responses Zone Change 94-006 January 23, 1995 Page 6 · LIGHT AND GLARE "Yes": The Program EIR addresses the impact of 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, as amended with supplements and addenda. The proposed Zone Change would not result.in any additional change to light and glare not previously considered by EIR 85-2, as amended with supplements and addenda. The proposed amendment would provide flexibility in the placement of patio cover structures within private yard areas only which would not produce any light or glare. Furthermore, natural light would not be significantly affected on adjacent properties, as the proposed changes would not substantially impede sunlight from reaching adjacent properties as provisions would limit patio cover structure to cover not more than 50 percent of the private yard area. Sources: Proposed Zone Change EIR 85-2, as amended with supplements and addenda Mitiqation/Monitoring Required: No additional mitigation required. · LAND USE "Yes": The certified EIR 85-2, as amended with supplements and addenda, identified impacts to the project site related to the proposed development and the resultant negative effects on 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. The proposal will not result in any alterations of present or planned land uses for the East Tustin Specific Plan not previously considered by EIR 85-2, as amended with supplements and addenda. Patio cover and trellis structures are currently authorized in the East Tustin Specific Plan. The proposal would provide flexibility for locating patio covers within private yard areas only. Exhibit A - Initial Study Responses Zone Change 94-006 January 23, 1995 Page 7 Sources: Proposed Zone Change EIR 85-2, as amended with supplements and addenda East Tustin Specific Plan · Mitiqation/Monitoring Required: No additional mitigation required. NATURAL RESOURCES Items A and B - "No": The certified EIR 85-2, as amended with supplements.and addenda, 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, as amended with supplements and addenda, regarding natural resources. The proposed Zone Change would not result in any additional change to natural resources not previously considered by EIR 85-2, as amended with supplements and addenda. The proposed amendment would provide flexibility in locating patio covers within private yard areas only. Sources: Proposed Zone Change EIR 85-2, as amended with supplements and addenda~ East Tustin Specific Plan Mitigation/Monitorinq Required: No additional mitigation required. 10. RISK OF UPSET Items A and B - "No": The certified EIR 85-2, as amended with supplements and addenda, identified no impacts to the project site related to the ~proposed development and the resultant negative effects -from risk of' upset. Furthermore, the proposed Zone Change would not result in any. change to the risk of upset. Sources: Proposed Zone Change EIR 85-2, as amended with supplements and addenda East Tustin Specific Plan Mitiqation/Monitoring Required: No additional mitigation required. Exhibit A - Initial Study Responses Zone Change 94-006 January 23, 1995 Page 8 11 . POPULATION "Yes": The certified EIR 85-2, as amended with supplements and addenda, identified impacts from the Specific Plan regarding 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, as amended with supplements and addenda. There would be no change to anticipated population for the ETSP project area associated with the proposed Zone Change.. The proposed change to patio cover standards would not change existing or permitted densities. Sources: Proposed Zone Change EIR 85-2, as amended with supplements and addenda East Tustin Specific Plan Mitigation/Monitoring Required: No additional mitigation required. 12. HOUSING "No": The certified EIR 85-2, as amended with supplements and addenda, identified impacts on housing. Mitigation measures were identified in EIR 85-2, as amended with supplements and addenda, relating to new housing developments. The proposed Zone Change would not create a need for additional housing. No dwelling units are being eliminated or proposed in conjunction with the proposal. Sources: Pr.oposed Zone Change East Tustin~Specific Plan Mitigation/Monitorinq Required: No additional mitigation required. 13. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION Items A and B - "Yes": The Program EIR identifies that the ETSP will generate traffic in the vicinity. The City Council considered the benefits of the Specific Plan and balanced those benefits against the project's unavoidable effects and chose to adopt a Statement of Overriding Considerations. .Exhibit A - Initial Study Responses Zone Change 94-006 January 23, 1995 Page 9 Applicable mitigation measures were incorporated into the ETSP Program EIR. The proposed Zone Change would not increase traffic or demand for parkingnot previously considered by EIR 85-2, as amended with supplements and addenda. Items C throuqh F - "No": The certified EIR 85-2, as amended with supplements and addenda, identified impacts related to the proposed development and the resultant negative effects to transportation/circulation. Mitigation measures were identified in, EIR 85-2, as amended with supplements and addenda. The proposed Zone Change would not increase traffic . or demand for parking not previously considered by EIR 85-2, as amended with supplements and addenda. sources: Proposed Zone Change EIR 85-2, as amended with supplements and. addenda East Tustin Specific Plan Miti~qation/Monitorinq Required: No additional mitigation required. 14. PUBLIC SERVICES Items A, through F - "Yes": The certified EIR 85-2, as amended with supplements and addenda, 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, as amended with supplements and addenda, and recommended for implementation. The proposed Zone Change.would not result in any additional need for additional public services nOt considered by EIR 85-2, as amended with supplements and addenda. Fire and police services are currently in place to service existing developments; school, facilities, parks and roads will not be affected by the Zone Change. Sources: Proposed Zone Change EIR 85-2, as amended with supplements and addenda Mitiqation/Monitorinq Required: ~No additional mitigation required. Exhibit A - Initial Study Responses Zone Change 94-006 January 23, 1995 Page 10 15. ENERGY Items A and B - "Yes": The certified EIR 85-2, as amended with supplements and addenda, identified impacts of the proposed development and the resultant negative effects related 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. Additionally, mitigation measures were identified in EIR 85-2, as amended with supplements and addenda, and recommended for implementation. The proposed Zone Change would not result in any additional need for energy not previously considered by EIR 85-2, as amended with supplements and addenda, as no new development is proposed as part of the proposed Zone Change. Sources: Proposed Zone Change EIR 85-2, as amended with supplements and addenda Mitiqation/Monitoring Required: No additional mitigation required. 16. UTILITIES Items A throuqh F - "Yes": The certified EIR 85-2, as amended with supplements and addenda, identified impacts of the proposed development and the~ resultant negative effects related to utilities. 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, as amended with supplements and addenda, and recommended for implementation. The proposed Zone Change would not result in any additional need for utilities not previously considered by EIR 85-2, as amended with supplements and addenda, as no new development is proposed as part of the proposed Zone Change. Sources- Proposed Zone Change EIR 85-2, as amended with supplements and addenda Mitiqation/Monitoring Required: No additional mitigation required. Exhibit A - Initial Study Responses Zone Change 94-006 january 23, 1995 Page 11 17. HUMAN HEALTH Items A and B - "No": The certified EIR 85-2, as amended with supplements and addenda, identified impacts related to the proposed development and the resultant negative effects to human health. Mitigation measures were identified in EIR 85- 2, as amended with supplements and addenda. The proposed Zone Change would not create new health hazards to those living or working in the vicinity not previously considered by EIR 85-2, as amended with supplements and addenda. The modification to the development standard is similar to what is currently permitted. Sources: proposed Zone Change EIR 85-2, as amended with supplements and addenda Mitigation/Monitoring Required: No additional mitigation required. 18. SOLID WASTE "No": The certified EIR 85-2, as amended with supplements and addenda, identified impacts related to the proposed development 'and the resultant negative effects of solid waste. Consequently, mitigation measures were identified in EIR 85-2, as amended with supplements and addenda. The proposed Zone Change would not create additional solid waste not previously considered by EIR 85-2, as amended with supplements and addenda, as no new development is proposed as part of the proposed Zone Change. Sources: Proposed Zone Change EIR 85-2, as amended with supplements and addenda Mit iqat ion/Monitoring Required: No additional mitigation required. 19. AESTHETICS "No": The certified EIR 85-2, as amended with supplements and addenda, identified impacts 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, as amended with supplements and addenda. The proposed Zone Change would not Exhibit A - Initial Study Responses Zone Change 94-006 January 23, 1995 Page 12 result in any significant aesthetic impacts not previously considered by EIR 85-2, as amended with supplements and addenda. The proposed Zone Change would provide for flexibility in locating patio cover structures within private yard areas. In addition, any future development proposals for patio covers would be subject to the City's Design Review process which takes aesthetics into consideration by requiring that the size, height, architectural features, materials and colors of the patio cover are compatible with the adjacent residence. Sources: Proposed Zone Change EIR 85-2, as amended with supplements and addenda Mitigation/Monitorinq Required: No additional mitigation required. 20 . RECREATION "No": The certified EIR 85-2, as amended with supplements and addenda, identified impacts related to the proposed development and the resultant negative effects to recreation. Consequently, mitigation measures were identified in EIR 85-2, as amended with supplements and addenda. The proposed Zone Change would not create a need for additional recreational services not previously considered by EIR 85-2, as amended with supplements and addenda. The proposed amendment would not affect development densities or park land dedication requirements. Sources: Proposed Zone Change EIR 85-2, as amended with supplements and addenda Mitigation/Monitoring Required: No additional mitigation required. 21. CULTURAL RESOURCES Items A through D - "No": The certified EIR 85-2, as amended with supplements and addenda, identified impacts related to the proposed development and the resultant negative effects to cultural resources. Consequently, mitigation measures were identified in EIR 85-2, as amended with supplements and addenda. The proposed Zone Change would not result in the alteration or destruction of archaeological sites and historic Exhibit A - Initial Study Responses Zone Change 94-006 January 23, 1995 Page 13 buildings, or cause a physical change which will affect cultural values not previously considered by EIR 85-2, as amended with supplements and addenda, as no specific development plans are prOposed. Sources: Proposed Zone Change EIR 85-2, as amended with supplements and addenda Mitigation/Monitoring Required: No additional mitigation required. 22. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE Items A throuqh d - "No": The proposed Zone Change would not result in the degradation of the environment. There is no potential to achieve short-term, to the disadvantage of long- term, environmental goals. There are no cumulative impacts and there would .be no adverse effect to human beings for the reasons stated above. The Program EIR 85-2 addressed all of these concerns, and this project is fully within the scope of that discussion. Sources: As Previously Noted Mitigation/Monitoring Required: No additional mitigation required. PART IV - DETERMINATION EXHIBIT B INITIAL STUDY RESPONSES FOR ZONE CHANGE 94-006 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, it's supplements and addendum 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 reauired. · · TITLE ~_~,~ ~5~J[~ DF: \ZC9~.006. ENV RESOLUTION NO. 3330 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 A RESOLUTION OF THE P.IjLNNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA, FINDING THAT FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (EIR) FOR THE EAST TUSTiN SPECIFIC PLAN (FINAL EIR 85-2, AS MODI'FIED BY SUBSEQUENTLY ADOPTED SUPPLEMENTS AND ADDENDA) ISADEQUATE TO SERVE AS THE PROGRAM EIR FOR ZONE CHANGE 94-006 AND ALL FEASIBLE MITIGATION MEASURES HAVE BEEN INCORPORATED AS REQUIRED BY THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT. The Planning Commission of the City of Tustin does hereby resolve as follows: I , The Planning Commission finds and determines as follows: A, That Zone Change 94-006 is considered a "project" pursuant to the terms of the California Environmental Quality Act; and B . That the project is 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 Planning Commission having recommending authority over the subject proj.ect hereby finds that this project is within the scope of the East Tustin Specific Plan previously approved. All. 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 Planning Commission 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 Assembly Bill 3158, Chapter 1706, Statutes of 1990. In addition, 'there will not be a significant effect on the environment as applicable mitigation measures identified in the Final EIR have been incorporated into the project's approval which mitigate any potential significant environmental effects. 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2O 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Resolution No. 3330 Page 2 PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Planning Commission of the City of Tustin at a regular meeting held on the 13th day of February, 1995. A.L. BAKER Chairperson BARBARA REYES Recording Secretary STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF ORANGE ) CITY OF TUSTIN ) I, BARBARA REYES, the undersigned, hereby certi.fy that I am the Recording Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Tustin, 'California; that Resolution No. 3330 was duly passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the Tustin Planning Commission, held on the 13th day of February, 1995. BARBARA REYES Recording Secretary - 1 10 11 12 13 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 28 RESOLUTION NO. 3331 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING TO THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF ZONE CHANGE 94- 006 TO AMEND SUBSECTION "a" OF SECTION 3.6.3.C3 OF THE EAST TUSTIN SPECIFIC PLAN ENTITLED "PROJECTIONS INTO REQUIRED SETBACKS" RHLATED TO THE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF PATIO COVER AND TRELLIS STRUCTURES WITHIN PATIO HOME DEVELOPMENTS. The Planning Commission of the City of Tustin does hereby resolve as follows: I , The Planning Commission finds and determines as follows: A, That an application, has been filed by California Pacific Homes, requesting approval of Zone Change 94-006 to amend Subsection "a" of Section 3.6.3.C3 of the East Tustin Specific Plan entitled "Projections into Required Setbacks" related to the development standards for the construction of patio cover and trellis structures within Patio Home developments. B · That a public hearing was duly notice, called and held on said application on February 13, 1995 by the Planning Commission. C . That an Environmental Impact Report (EIR 85-2 for the East Tustin Specific Plan) has been previously certified in conformance with the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act for the subject project. D · Proposed Zone Change 94-006 would not be detrimental to the public health, safety and general welfare in that the amendments would provide for flexibility in locating patio cover structures while insuring "that the Uniform Building Code requirements for separation of structures would be satisfied. E . Proposed Zone Change 94-006 would be consistent with the City,s General Plan, particularly the Land Use Element in that the amendments would provide for orderly development. 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Resolution No. 3331 Page 2 II. The Planning Commission hereby recommends to the City Council approval of Zone Change 94-006, amending Subsection "a" of Section 3.6.3.C3 of.the East Tustin Specific Plan entitled "Projections into Required Setbacks" related to the development standards for the construction of patio cover and trellis structures within Patio Home developments, subject to the conditions contained in Exhibit A and amendments as shown in Exhibit B, attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Planning Commission of the City of Tustin at a regular meeting held on the 13th day of February, 1995. A.L. BAKER Chairperson BARBARA REYES Recording 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..3331 was duly passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the Tustin Planning Commission, held on the 13th day of February, 1995. BARBARA REYES Recording'Secretary EXHIBIT A RESOLUTION NO. 3331 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL ZONE CHANGE 94-006 (CALIFORNIA PACIFIC HOMES) GENERAL (1) 1.1 Unless otherwise specified, the conditions contained in this Exhibit shall be complied'with prior to the approval of any subsequent patio cover or trellis structure submittals utilizing the amended standards within the East Tustin Specific Plan area, subject to review and approval by the Community Development Department. (1) 1.2 The applicant shall sign and return an Agreement to Conditions Imposed form prior to any subsequent patio cover or trellis structure, approvals utilizing the amended standards within the East Tustin Specific Plan area. (i) 1.3 The applicant shall hold and defend the City of Tustin harmless for all claims and liabilities'out of City's approval of the entitlement process for this project. PLAN SUBMITTAL *** 2.1 Within 30 days of approval, the applicant shall submit 20 copies of the applicable pages of the East Tustin Specific Plan, and a camera ready master, with all revisions as shown in Exhibit B attached hereto. FEES (1) 3.1 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 3185, Chapter 1706, Statutes of 1990, enabling the City to file the Notice of Determination required under Public Resources Code Section 21152 and 14 Cal. Code of Regulations 15094. If within.~such forty-eight (48)'hour period ~the applicant has not delivered to the Community Developmeht Department the above-noted check, the approval for the project granted herein shall be considered automatically null and void. SOURCE CODES (1) STANDARD CONDITIONS (2) PLANNING COMMISSION POLICY (3) MUNICIPAL CODE (4) UNIFORM BUILDING CODE (5) RESPONSIBLE AGENCY REQUIREMENT Exhibit A Resolution No. 3331 Page 2 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) hours of notification, a cashier's check payable to the COUNTY CLERK in the amount of $850 (eight hundred fifty dollars) pursuant to AB 3158, Chapter 1706, Statutes of 1990. If this fee is imposed, the subject project shall not be operative, vested or final unless and until the fee is paid. EXHIBIT B RESOLUTION NO. 3331 DRAFT ORDINANCE NO. ZONE CHANGE 94-006 (CALIFORNIA PACIFIC HOMES) AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING ZONE CHANGE 94-006 TO .AMEND SUBSECTION "a" OF SECTION 3.6.3.C3 OF THE EAST TUSTIN SPECIFIC PLAN ENTITLED "PROJECTIONS INTO REQUIRED SETBACKS" RELATED TO THE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF PATIO COVER AND TRELLIS STRUCTURES WITHIN PATIO HOME DEVELOPMENTS. The City Council of the City o'f Tustin does hereby ordain as follows: I. The City Council finds and determines as follows: ae That an application has been filed by California Pacific Homes, requesting approval of Zone Change 94-006 to amend Subsection "a" of Section 3.6.'3.C3 of the East Tustin Specific Plan entitled "Projections into Required Setbacks" related to the development standards for the construction of patio cover and trellis structures within Patio Home developments. Bo That a public hearing was duly notice, called and held on said application on February 13, 1995 by the Planning Commission and on February 21, 1995 by the City Council. Ce That an Environmental Impact Report (EIR 85-2 for the East Tustin Specific Plan) has been previously certified in conformance with the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act for the subject project. De Proposed Zone Change 94-006 would not be detrimental to the public health, safety and general welfare in"that the amendments would provide for flexibility in locating patio cover structures while insuring that the Uniform Building Code requirements for separation of structures would be satisfied. E · Proposed Zone Change 94-006 would be consistent with the City's General Plan, particularly the Land Use Element in that the amendments would provide for orderly development. Exhibit B Resolution No. 3331 Page 2 II. NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Tustin DOES HEREBY ORDAIN as follows: Section 1. Subsection "a" of Section 3.6.3.C3 of the East Tustin Specific Plan entitled "ProjeCtions into Required Setbacks" is hereby amended to read as follows: "Covered Patio, trellis or canonies ~kall ccnfc~ ~ ~ ........,...........~ .. ...... ...............~............,,......,. .................... ~ & ~ aLL ~ ~L~i i~:~:i'i:i:i~.~:~::i:::i~:~::::::::~han 50 percent of the p~¢~¥~:~i':':':'~'~:~'"'*'~i Section 2. Severability Ail of the provisions of this ordinance shall be construed together in order to accomplish the purpose of these regulations. If any provision of this ordinance is held by a court to be unconstitutional, such unconstitutionality shall apply only to the particular facts, or if a provision is declared to be unconstitutional as applied to all facts, all of the remaining provisions of this ordinance shall continue to be fully effective. PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Tustin City Council, held on the 21st day of February, 1995. THOMAS R. SALTARELLI MAYOR Mary E. Wynn, City Clerk STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF ORANGE CITY OF TUSTIN SS CERTIFICATION FOR ORDINANCE NO. MARY E. WyNN, City Clerk and ex-officio Clerk of the City Council of the City of Tustin, California, does hereby certify that the whole number of the members of the City Council of the City of Tustin is five; that the above and foregoing Ordinance No. was duly and regularly introduced at a regular meeting of the City Exhibit B Resolution No. 3331 Page 3 Council held on the 21st day of February, 1995 and passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council held on the day of , ~, by the following vote: COUNCILMEMBER AYES: COUNCILMEMBER NOES: COUNCILMEMBER ABSTAINED: COUNCILMEMBER ABSENT: Mary E. Wynn, City Clerk ITEM NO. 5 aport to the Planning Commission DATE. · SUBJECT: PROPERTY APPLICANT LOCATION: ZONING: ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS-. FEBRUARY 13, 1995 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 93-011 AND VARIANCE 93-002 CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY 1451 IRVINE BOULEVARD TUSTIN, CA 92680-3844 ATTENTION: MS. MARIE MURILLO 1451 IRVINE BOULEVARD PROFESSIONAL (PR) DISTRICT A NEGATIVE. DECLARATION HAS BEEN PREPARED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROVISIONS OF THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA). REQUEST: 1. A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO AUTHORIZE AN EXISTING MOTIVATIONAL SCHOOL TO OCCUPY AN ENTIRE OFFICE COMPLEX. · A VARIANCE TO REDUCE THE REQUIRED NUMBER OF PARKING SPACES FROM 150 SPACES TO 111 SPACES. RECOMMENDATION Pleasure of the Commission. BACKGROUND The applicant is requesting approval of a Conditional Use Permit to authorize the existing expansion of use for an existing motivational school to occupy an entire office complex in the Professional (Pr) District. A Variance to reduce the required number of-on-site parking spaces from 150 spaces to 111 spaces is also requested. The subject property contains approximately 1.86 acres, and is developed with five single story buildings originally built as offices totaling 22,584 square feet and a 100 space parking lot. Planning Commission_Report CUP 93-011 and VAR 93-002 February 13, 1995 Page 2 On September 6, 1977, the Planning Commission approved Conditional Use Permit 77-19, which authorized approximately 5,000 square feet (22%) of the office complex to be occupied by the Church of Scientology for church/school activities, with the remaining square footage to be reserved for professional offices. Of the 5,000 square feet, about 3,900 square feet of floor area was designated as assembly area. Through Resolution No. 1668, the Planning Commission limited the use to no more than sixty (60) attendants at any one time and also restricted services and classes to a particular schedule. Since that time, the Church of Scientology has undertaken numerous tenant improvements without obtaining building permits and has expanded its floor area to completely occupy all of the buildings on the property. As a result, the City of Tustin has been pursuing code enforcement action on the site for some time. The purpose of the applicant's request is to legitimize the use for the entire site. The site is located on the northwest corner of Irvine Boulevard and Redhill Avenue. Surrounding uses include single family residential to the north, south, east and west and office uses to ~he southwest across Irvine Boulevard. The subject property is surrounded on three sides by Unincorporated Orange County (see location map). A public hearing notice on this project was published in the Tustin News. Property owners within 300 feet of the site were notified of the date, time and location of the hearing by mail and notices, were posted on the site and at the Police Department. The applicant'was notified of the availability of a staff report. DISCUSSION The appliqant is requesting approvals to authorize the existing expanded operation of a motivational school in the Professional (Pr)-District and a reduction of the required number of on-site parking spaces from 150 spaces to 111 spaces. The subject property is fully developed with five single story buildings totalling 22,584 square feet that were constructed in 1973 as an office complex. The buildings are clustered in a campus-like arrangement toward the southeasterly .portion of the property. Access to the site is provided from both Irvine Boulevard and Redhill Avenue with the parking lot stretchin9 along the two sides of the property adjacent to the existing single family residences to the north and west. Planning Commission Report CUP 93-011 and VAR 93-002 February 13, 1995 Page 3 The interior spaces of the five buildings on the subject site. include classrooms, two film rooms, a chapel, administrative offices, counseling rooms, a conference room, and other support areas. The proposed use of the church facility is strictly for activities related to the Church of Scientology. Meeting times are distributed throughout the week according to the following approximate schedule. Anticipated attendance figures were also provided by the applicant as indicated below. Session times Anticipated Attendance 1. 9:30 a.m. - 12:00 noon 16 - 49 2. 1:00 p.m. - 3:15 p.m. 17 - 53 3. 3:30 p.m. - 6:00 p.m. 18 - 46 4. 7:00 p.m. - 10:15 p.m. 15 - 70 Each meeting is approximately two to three hours in length. As outlined traffic study for the project (Attachment A), ~the most intensive use of the proposed facility is week nights and weekends which are not considered peak traffic hours. variance The amount of parking spaces required for the proposed use is based on Section 9231(d) of the Tustin City Code which establishes the following parking rates for motivational schools in the Professional District: 1. Assembly - 1 space for every 50 square feet of occupied area 2. Administrative Office - 1 space for each 250 square feet of gross floor area Based upon these rates, the ratios would be applied to the various uses of the church as follows: 1. One (1) parking space for every 250 square feet of gross floor area of all offices, counseling rooms,, restroom, storage areas, saunas, reception/lobby areas, hallways, conference rooms, and other office support areas. One (1) parking space for every 50 square feet of occupied area for all classrooms, assembly rooms and film rooms. Planning Commission Report CUP 93-011 and VAR 93-002 February 13, 1995 Page 4 Based upon these parking rates and the existing breakdown of uses, the Church would require 171 parking spaces. There are presently 100 striped parking spaces on the subject property. Concerned by the difference between by the existing number of parking spaces and the number required by City Code, the applicant met with City staff to discuss the situation and developed a plan to reduce the square footage of assembly area within the Church by converting some of the classroom space into offices. The applicant is proposing a modified floor plan which would require 150 parking spaces calculated as follows: Area Use Assembly rooms: Theater/Chapel: Office: floor area spaces 2,861 57 915 18 18,808 75 The applicant is also proposing to have the existing parking lot restriped with 22 compact spaces and additional standard size spaces to accommodate an increase of eleven (11) parking spaces for a total of 111 parking spaces on the property. Handicap parking spaces will be required, as determined by the Building Department. Therefore, the Variance request is to reduce the required number of parking spaces from 150 spaces to 111 spaces. The consultant who prepared the traffic/parking study stated that parking supply was adequate on all weekday mornings and afternoons, but was exceeded on weekday evenings and one weekend afternoon when a sPecial event was occurring. According to the conclusions of the Study, overflow parking on weekday evenings is available across Irvine Boulevard at an office complex where the Church of Scientology leases approximately 3,360 square feet of office space. The parking area across the street at 1442 Irvine Boulevard contains 127 parking spaces which serve offices that have traditional hours of operation. However, the owner of the property. at t44-2 Irvine Boulevard chose not to apply for a variance to formalize a shared parking arrangement with the Church of Scientology. Therefore, any spaces available at 1442 Irvine Boulevard are not officially counted as provided parking spaces. Based on the leased square footage at 1442 Irvine Boulevard, thirteen (13) parking spaces are informally available during weekend and evening weekday hours to serve the parking demand generated by the use of the building at 1451 Irvine Boulevard. Planning Commission Report CUP 93-011 and VAR 93-002 February 13, 1995 Page 5 City staff has also conducted periodic informal field observations and surveyed neighboring residents to identify any impacts on the adjacent residential areas. The parking lot has been observed at various times during the past eighteen (18) months to be at or near capacity. More recently, on January 3, 1995 at 7:35 p.m., staff observed three (3) available spaces within the parking lot, no vehicles parked on Irvine Boulevard adjacent to the property, and no unusual parking conditions on the adjacent residential streets. An additional observation on January 9, 1995 at 7:25 p.m. identified 26 unoccupied parking spaces on the property, no vehicles parked on the street, and no parking problems in the adjacent residential area. In both cases, twenty (2.0) vehicles were parked at 1442 Irvine Boulevard. However, it could not be determined whether any of these vehicles were parked by members of the Church of Scientology. According to nearby residents, church members have occasionally parked on the surrounding residential streets. At~ the time the neighboring residents were surveyed, staff requested that any parking problems be reported to the Community Development Department. Staff have not received any complaints regarding parking in the neighborhood recently. It shoUld be noted that on-street parking on Irvine Boulevard will be prohibited in the near future, as the street has been scheduled for restriping to accommodate three travel lanes in each direction. This prohibition may improve safety for pedestrians crossing Irvine Boulevard and improve circulation in the vicinity, but will also reduce the number of off-site parking spaces available for the Church of Scientology. The following conditions contained in Resolution No. 3335 would mitigate impacts related to transportation and circulation: . If at any time in the future the City is made aware that a parking and/or traffic problem exists on the site at 1451 Irvine Boulevard or in the vicinity as a result of the Church use, the Community Development and Public Works Departments may require the applicant to submit an updated parking demand analysis and/or traffic study, at the applicant's sole cost within the time schedule stipulated by the City. If said study indicates that there is inadequate parking or a traffic problem, the applicant shall be required to provide additional mitigation measures to be reviewed and approved by the Community Development and Public Works Departments. Said mitigation may include, but not be limited to, the following: Planning Commission Report CUP 93-011 and VAR 93-002 February 13, 1995 Page 6 a , Establish alternate hours of operation. Conversion of assembly/classrooms to offices. Failure to adequately respond to such a request and to implement mitigation measures within the time schedules established shall be grounds for initiation of revocation procedures for the Variance and Conditional Use Permit for the project. · Ail site alterations shall conform to the parking and landscaping criteria of the City of Tustin to the greatest extent possible which.will be verified at plan check and inspected by the Community Development Department. . Church members and other users of the facility shall be notified in writing that acceptable parking is available on-site and within a maximum of thirteen (13) spaces at 1442 Irvine Boulevard. Said notice shall be reviewed and approved by the Community Development Department. Said notice shall graphically illustrate the subject parking lot at 1442 Irvine Boulevard and shall also indicate that no parking shall be located in the adjacent residential areas on Cameo Drive, Kenneth Drive, or Keith Place and that the City reserves the right to remove on-street parking on Irvine Boulevard and Redhill Avenue. · If the Church terminates its lease or reduces the amount of leased square footage at 1442 Irvine Boulevard, the Community Development Department may require the applicant to submit an updated parking demand analysis and/or traffic study at the applicant's sole cost. If said study indicates that there is inadequate parking or a traffic problem, the applicant shall be required to provide -~itigation measures to be reviewed and approved by the Planning Commission. In determining whether to approve a Variance to allow the reduction in the required number of parking spaces, the Planning Commission must make the following findings: , That any variance granted shall be subject to such conditions as will assure that the adjustment thereby authorized shall not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations upon other properties in the vicinity and district in which the subject property is situated; and Planning Commission Report CUP 93-011 and VAR 93-002 February 13, 1995 Page 7 . Thatbecause of special circumstances applicable to the subject property, including size, shape, topography, location or surroundings, the strict application of the Zoning Ordinance is found to deprive subject property of privileges enjoyed by other properties in the vicinity and under identical zone classifications. In considering the reduction of the required number of parking spaces, the above findings can be justified. The granting of the Variance would not constitute a special privilege as the Church would be required to limit operations such that parking demand would not be expected to exceed parking supply. Furthermore, parking demand would be monitored and additional mitigation measures would be required in the event that provided parking becomes inadequate. There are special circumstances related to the site, particularly the location and surroundings of the parcel, which deprive the subject property of privileges enjoyed by neighboring properties. The subject property is bordered on two sides by existing residential properties and on two sides by roadways.· The existing single story buildings on the property occupy more land area than would a multi-story building of the same total square footage. Maintaining the existing structures has less of an impact on, and creates greater compatibility of scale with, the adjacent residential units to the north and west than would a newly constructed multi-story building at the same location. Conditional Use Permit In considering the Conditional Use Permit application, Tustin City Code Section 9291(c) requires that the Planning Commission determine whether or not the establishment of the use applied for will, under the circumstances of this particular case, be detrimental to the health, safety, morals, comfort and general welfare of.the persons residing or working in the neighborhood of such proPosed use, or whether it will be injurious or detrimental to property and improvements in the neighborhood or the general welfare of the City. In previous applications for church and school facilities, the Planning Commission and the City Council have expressed concerns regarding noise, land use, and traffic and circulation impacts. These concerns were also raised by several residents in the Planning Commission Report CUP 93-011 and VAR 93-002 February 13, 1995 Page 8 vicinity who were informally surveyed by staff. These individuals explained that the neighborhood has been negatively impacted by the operation of the Church of Scientology. However, most of the residents stated that these impacts have more recently become significantly less obtrusive and less frequent. The proposed project could add noise sources into the area during hours of greatest church activity. These noises could be associated with increased vehicular and pedestrian traffic. The adjacent residential land uses in the immediate vicinity would be especially sensitive to the noise generated by the proposed use as the primary operational hours are during evening hours when ambient noise is less and a greater number of residents tend to be present in their homes. According to the surveyed neighboring residents, human generated noises in the form of speaking or clapping have been a nuisance on an occasional basis. In order to mitigate the potential for noise impacts, the following conditions have been included in Resolution No. 3335: , Ail requirements of the City's Noise Ordinance (Chapter 6 of the Municipal Code) shall be met at all times, which, in part, requires noise levels not to exceed 60 dBa at any time. · Ail activities directly related to the Church of Scientology at 1451 Irvine Boulevard shall take place on the subject property within the buildings. · Services, classes, and personal study shall be limited to the hours between 9:00 a.m. and 10:30 p.m., seven days a week. Hours of operation for the 15,000 square feet of office and administration uses shall not be restricted, as those uses are outright permitted in the Professional District. Regarding land use conformity, there are single family residential neighborhoods directly adjacent to two sides of the site and across Redhill Avenue and Irvine Boulevard, which are typically sensitive to commercial uses. Given this sensitivity, a six foot high masonry wall on two sides of the property was required to be constructed as a condition of Use Permit 77-19 approval. The following conditions have been included in Resolution No. 3335 to mitigate any impacts related to incompatibility of land uses: Planning Commission. Report CUP 93-011 and VAR 93-002 February 13, 1995 Page 9 Based on 111 on-site parking spaces provided, the number of attendants including staff persons and office and administrative personnel present at any one time on the site shall be limited to 222 individuals. This number is derived from the City Code requirement of one (1) parking space for each two (2) students at maximum enrollment. This method of calculating required parking spaces is applied to professional, instructional, motivational and/or seminar schools in the Professional District when the number of Students is intensive and would therefore require a greater number of parking spaces than would the square footage method of one (1) parking space for each fifty (50) square feet of occupied area. If the number of provided parking spaces were increased and an amendment to the subject Conditional Use Permit and Variance were obtained, the maximum number of attendants may be increased accordingly. In order to address potential traffic and circulation impacts, a traffic/parking study and supplemental parking study prepared by Rock E. Miller & Associates were submitted to the City for review by the Community Development and Public Works. Departments. A copy of these Studies are included as Attachment A. Based on a review by the City's Transportation Engineer, the studies were prepared by a qualified professional and were found to address all of the necessary elements for a complete evaluation of this project. The studies use field data collected for the Church of Scientology as well as standard trip generation rates to compare the impacts of the Church with an office complex and a vacant site at the same location. Traffic counts prepared by the consultant show that the project would generate approximately 30 vehicle trips during the AM peak hour and 59 trips during the PM peak hour. The volumes associated with an office building of the same square footage would average 63 and 62, respectively. The Traffic/Parking Study indicates that the intersection of Redhill Avenue and Irvine Boulevard currently operates at level of service "D" during the AM peak hour and level of service "E" during the PM peak hour. The .002 increase in the Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) value caused by the Church of scientology during the PM peak hour would not be considered significant and is actually less than the ICU increase of .003 for an office complex at that location. No increases in ICU were measured for the AM peak hour. The traffic/parking study concluded Planning Commission Report CUP 93-011 and VAR 93-002 February 13, 1995 Page 10 that the existing operations of the Church of Scientology generate traffic volumes comparable to or slightly less than offices of the same square footage and have a negligible impact on traffic at the intersection of Irvine Boulevard and Redhill Avenue. The Engineering Division of the City's Public Works Department is in agreement with the findings of the Study. Should the Planning Commission wish to consider ~approval of the church facility, the following findings could be made: , . . , . The Church of Scientology has been located at the site since 1975, and no complaints regarding its operation are On record with the City of Tustin Police Department or the Orange County Sheriff. The use is compatible with the surrounding existing commercial/office and institutional uses. The church use would not be expected to have any additional impacts in terms of traffic than would similar existing office developments. As conditioned, any potential adverse impacts to the adjacent residential areas related to noise, land use, and transportation and circulation will be mitigated through conditions of approval. These conditions would require that church activities take place indoors and be limited to certain hours, that the number of attendants be limited, and that additional mitigation be imposed if determined to be necessary. The Church of Scientology operates within an existing single story building that is in scale with the surrounding existing commercial and residential structures and is of a compatible architectural design with adjacent commercial structures. The amount of provided par~ing should be sufficient to accommodate the use based on the infrequent use of the film rooms and chapel, and the thirteen parking spaces available on week nights and weekends at 1442 Irvine Boulevard. In addition, the on-site circulation and has been designed to reduce the potential for traffic conflicts by providing adequate drive aisle widths and maneuvering space. Planning Commission Report CUP 93-011 and VAR 93-002 February 13, 1995 Page 11 . Parking demand would be monitored periodically on an informal basis. In the event that the City is made aware of parking problems at the subject site and an updated parking demand analysis indicates that parking has become inadequate, the applicant will be required to implement additional mitigation measures approved by the Community Development and Public Works Departments within an established time schedule. ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS A Negative Declaration has been prepared for this project. The attached Initial Study discusses numerous impact categories and appropriate mitigation measures, including the issues discussed above. Based upon this review, staff has determined that any potential impacts can be mitigated to a level such that no significant impacts would occur for this project. If the Commission wishes to approve the project, identified mitigation measures are included as Conditions of Approval in the Resolutions for the project. With this information in mind, the Commission must first certify the Negative Declaration as adequate pursuant to the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act if they wish to approve the project. PUBLIC CONCERNS In response to the public noticing of this project, staff has been contacted by one individual calling on behalf of the Hope Christian Church which is located at 1372 Irvine Boulevard. The individual requested additional information on the project and expressed concerns regarding potential parking impacts and traffic safety. The individual also indicated that the Hope Christian Church is considering expansion plans and would expect that approval of a parking variance for the Church of Scientology would set a precedent for approving parking variances for churches, in general. Staff explained that the Planning Commission would be considering conditions to mitigate any potential impacts. As variances are property specific, staff also explained that a variance request from the Hope Christian Church would need to be considered based on the individual circumstances of the project. Planning Commission Report CUP 93-011 and VAR 93-002 February 13, 1995 Page 12 CONCLUSION If the Commission wishes to approve the project, a list of conditions of approval has been included in the attached Resolution Nos. 3335 and 3336. Outside of specific issues discussed in this report, conditions of approval would be standard conditions required by either the Municipal Code, the California Environmental Quality Act, or requirements of City Departments or outside reviewing agencies. In the event the Commission wishes to provide alternate direction other than approval, staff will be prepared to provide resolutions as requested. Scott Reekstin Assistant Planner Fc~, AI CP Senior Planner CAS: SR: bt/cup93011 .sr2 Attachments: Location Map Site Plan Floor Plan Initial Study Attachment A - Traffic Study and Supplemental Parking Study Resolution Nos. 3334, 3335, and 3336 LOCATIO N MAP,/ ? ? tFFANY NO SCALE Ch urch o£ ScientoJogy Utllty 24' Red Hi]] Avenue Parking Provided (Existing) 100 (Proposed) 111 Compact Parking 22 stalls (20%) Rock E. htiller & Associates Ch urch o£ Scien to]ogy Re vised Site }}]an FIGURE .~ COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT 300 Centennial Way, Tustin, CA 92680 (714) 573-3105 NEGATIVE DECLARATION Project Title: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 93-0112 VARIANCE 93-002 Project Location: Project Description: 1451 IRVINE BLVD.~ TUSTIN~ CA 92680 EXISTING EXPANSION OF USE FOR AN EXISTING MOTIVATIONAL SCHOOL AND A VARIANCE FOR A REDUCTION IN PARKING FROM 150 SPACES TO 111 'SPACES. Project Proponent: MARIE MURILLO, ON BEHALF OF THE CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY Lead Agency Contact Person: SCOTT REEKSTIN Telephone: 714/573-3126 The Community Development Department has conducted an Initial Study for the above project in accordance with the City of Tustin's procedures regarding implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act, and on the basis of that study hereby finds: '-I That there is no substantial evidence that the project may have a significant effect on the environment. That potential significant effects were identified, but revisions have been included in the project plans and agreed to by the applicant that would avoid or mitigate the effects to a point where clearly no significant effects would occur. Said Mitigation Measures are included in Attachment A of the Initial Study which is attached hereto and incorporated herein. Therefore, the preparation of an Environmental Impact Report is not required. The Initial Study which provides the basis for this determination is attached and is on file at the COmmunity Development Department, City of Tustin. The public is :,n:4ted to comment on the appropriateness of this Negative Declaration during the review period, which begins.with the public notice of Negative Declaration and extenda for twenty (20) calendar days. Upon review by the Community Development Director, this review period may be extended if deemed necessary. REVIEW PERIOD ENDS 4:00 P.M. ON Date JANUARY 19, 1995 NEGDEC. PM5 3704.A FEBRUARY 13, 1995 Christine A. Shingleton Community Developmer~t Director CITY OF TUSTIN Community Development Department ENVIRONMENTAL INITIAL STUDY FORM I. Backgroun~ ro onen · Address and Phone Number of Proponent · · · Date of Checklist Submitted ~~ Agency Requiring Checklist Ci~ Name of Proposal, if applicable II. Environmental Impacts (Explanations of all "yes" and "maybe" answers are. required on attached sheets.) Yes Maybe No · Earth· Will the proposal result in: Unstable earth conditions or in changes in geologic substructures? b. Disruptions, displacements, compactiOn or overcovering of the soil? Ce Change in topography or ground surface relief.features? i , de The destruction, covering or modification of any unique geologic or physical features? X Any increase in wind or water erosion of soils, either on or off the site? fe Changes in deposition or erosion of beach sands, or changes in siltation, deposition or erosion which may modify the channel of a river or stream or.the bed of the ocean or any. ban, inlet or lake? Yes Maybe · · ge Exposure of people or property to geologic hazards such as earthquakes, landslides, mudslides, ground failure, or similar hazards?. Air. Will the proposal result in: be Substantial air emission or deterioration of a.mbient air quality? The creation'of objectionable odors? C· Alteration of air movement, moisture, or temperatures, or any change in climate, either locally or regionally? Water. Will the proposal result in: ae Changes in currents, or the course of direction of water movements, in either marine or fresh water? be Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the rate and amount of surface runoff? Ce Alterations to the course or flow of flood waters? d· Change in the amount of surface water in any water body? e· Discharge into surface waters, or in .any alteration of surface water quality, including but not limited to temperature, dissolved oxygen or turbidity? f· g® Alteration of the direction or rate of flow of ground waters? · . 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? · · · · Yes Maybe No i· Exposure of people or property to water related hazards such as flooding or tidal waves? Plant Life. Will the proposal result in: a· Change in the diversity of species, or number of any species of plants (including trees, shrubs, grass, crops, and aquatic plants)? be Reduction of the numbers of any unique, rare or endangered species of plants? C· Introduction of new species of plants into an area, or in a barrier to the normal replenishment of existing species? de Reduction in acreage of any agricultural crop? Animal Life. Will the proposal result in: a· Change in the diversity, of species, or numbers of any species of animals (birds, land animals including reptiles, fish and shellfish, benthic organisms or insects)? be Reduction of the numbers of any unique, rare or endangered species of animals? Ce Introduction of new species of animals into an area, or result in a barrier to the migration or movement of animals? de Deterioration to existing fish or wildlife habitat? Noise. Will the proposal result in': a. Increases in existing noise levels? b· Exposure of people to severe noise levels? Light and Glare. Will the proposal produce new light or glare? Yes Maybe 'No e Land Use. Will the proposal result in a substantial alteration of the present or planned land. use of an area? · Natural Resources. Will the proposal result in: a · Increase in the rate of use of any natural resources? be 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? 11. be Possible interference with an emergency response plan or an emergency evacuation plan? Population. Will the proposal alter the location, distribution, density, or growth rate of the..human population of an area? Housing· Will the proposal affect existing housing,-or create a demand for additional housing? 13. Transportation/Circulatign. Will the proposal result in: a · Generation of substantial additional vehicular movement? b· Effects on ~xisting parking facilities, or demand for new barking? C· Substantial impact upon existing transportation systems? d· Alterations to present patterns of circulation or movement of people and/or goods? Yes Maybe No · 14. 15. 16. e. Alterations to waterborne, rail or air traffic? f. Increase in traffic hazards to motor vehicles, bicyclists or pedestrians? 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? Energy. Will the proposal result in: a. Use of substantial amounts of fuel or energy? b. Substantial increase in demand upon existing sources of energy, or require the development of new sources of energy? 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? de ee fo Sewer or septic tanks? Storm water drainage? Solid waste and disposal? × Yes Maybe No · 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. Human Health. Will the proposal result in: ae Creation of any health hazard or potential health hazard (excluding. mental health)? be Exposure of people to potential health hazards? Solid Waste. Will the proposal create additional solid waste requiring disposal by the City? 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? Recreation. Will the proposal result in an · impact upon'the quality or quantity of existing recreational opportunities? Cultural Resources ae Will the proposal result in the alteration of or the destruction of a prehistoric or historic archaeological site? be Will the proposal result in adverse physical or aesthetic effects to a prehistoric or historic building, structUre, or object? Ce de Does the proposal have 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® Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? be 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 con- siderable? (A project may impact on two or more separate resources where the impact on each resource is relatively small, but where the effect of the total of those impacts on the environment is significant.) de Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? III. Discussion of Environmental Evaluation IV. Determination (To be completed by the Lead Agency) On the basis of this initial evalUation: I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have.a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measure described on an attached sheet have been added to the project. A NEGATIVE DECLARATION WILL BE PREPARED I find the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. Date Signature Discussion of Environmental Evaluation Conditional Use Permit 93-011/Variance 93-002 January 24, 1995 Modified February 8, 1995 Project Description The subject project includes a request for a conditional use permit to authorize an existing expansion of use for an existing motivational school in the Professional (Pr) District which would be designed to accommodate a maximum of approximately 300 staff people/occupants/church members at any one time. Pursuant to City Code Section 9231(d), a conditional use permit is required for motivational schools located in the ProfeSsional (Pr) District. A variance is also required to reduce the required number of on-site parking spaces from 150 spaces to 111 spaces. Pursuant to City Code Sections 9231(b) and 9231(d), one (1) parking space for each fifty square feet of occupied school area and one (1) parking space for each 250 square feet of office area are required for the proposed use. The subject property is fully developed with five single story bUildings totalling 22,584 square feet and is located at 1451 Irvine Blvd. on September 6, 1977, the Planning Commission approved Conditional Use Permit 77-19, which authorized a portion of the office complex to be occupied by the Church of Scientology, with the remaining square footage to be reserved for professional offices. Through ResOlution No. 1668, the Planning Commission limited the use to no more than sixty (60) attendants at any one time and also restricted services and classes to a particular schedule. Since that time, the Church of Scientology has undertaken nUmerous tenant improvements without obtaining building permits and has expanded its floor area to occupy all of the buildings on the property. The proposed Conditional Use Permit and Variance would legitimize the use for the entire site. Surrounding uses adjacent to and across Redhill Avenue and Irvine Blvd from the property include single-family residential to the north, south, east. and west, and office uses to the southwest across Irvine Blvd (see attached Location Map). i · Earth - A through G "No" - The subject project would not result in any change to the existing earth conditions. The site is presently developed, and with the exception of minor landscape improvements and parking lot restriping, no other alterations are proposed for the property. Sources: Field Observations Submitted Plans · Mitigation/Monitoring: None Required. Air - A through C "No" - The proposed project would not result in any degradation to the existing air quality as there will be no emissions of polluted contaminants into the air as a method 'of operation. Discussion of Environmental Evaluation CUP 93-011 and VAR 93-002 January 24, 1995 Modified February 8, 1995 Page 2 · · · · Source: Submitted Plans Mitigation/Monitoring: None Required. Water - A throuqh I - "No" - The proposed project would not alter present drainage patterns or result in any increase in impermeable surface area in that the existing building footprint and area of the parking lot would remain unchanged. The subject site is nOt located near any standing or moving bodies of water. Sources: Field Observations Submitted Plans · Mitigation/Monitoring: None Required. Plant Life - A throuqh D - "No" - The proposed project would not require the removal of any existing landscaping on the subject site. Additional landscaping will be required in existing planter areas which presently lack plant materials. Sources: Field Observations Submitted Plans Mitigation/Monitoring: None Required. Animal Life - A throuqh D - "No" - The subject site is located within an urban area and is fully developed. The site is not inhabited by any known species of animals. Expansion of the Church of Scientology within the existing buildings will have no impacts on animal populations, diversity of species or migratory patterns. Source: Field Observations Mitigation/Monitoring: None Required. Noise - A and B - "Maybe" - The proposed project could add noise sources into the area during hours of greatest church activity. These noises could be associated with increased vehicular and pedestrian traffic. The adjacent residential land uses in the immediate vicinity would be especially sensitive to the noise generated by the proposed use as the primary operational hours are during evening hours when ambient noise is less and a greater number of residents tend to be present in their homes. According to neighboring residents, human generated noises in the form of speaking or clapping have been a nuisance on an occasional basis. Discussion of Environmental Evaluation CUP 93-011 and VAR 93-002 January 24, 1995 Modified February 8, 1995 Page 3 · · Sources: Community Development Department Field Observations Resident Survey Mitigation/Monitoring: I · Ail requirements of the. City's Noise Ordinance (Chapter 6 of the Municipal Code)' shall be met at all times, which, in part, requires noise levels not to exceed 60 dBa at any time. · Ail activities directly related to the Church of Scientology at 1451 Irvine Boulevard shall take place on the subject property within the buildings. · Services, classes, and personal study shall be limited to the hours.between 9:00 a.m. and 10:30 p.m., seven daYs a week. Hours of operation for the 15,000 square feet of office and administration uses shall not be restricted, as those uses are outright permitted in the Professional District. Light and Glare - "No" - The proposed project does not require installation of new lighting and would therefore not result in an increase or introduction of new sources of light or glare. Existing lighting is confined to the subject property and does not impact adjacent properties. Sources: Field Observations Proposed Development Plans Mitigation/Monitoring: None Required. Land Use - "Maybe" - The subject use is located in an existing five building complex, totaling 22,584 square feet, originally built as an' office complex. The-subject property is zoned Professional (Pr) and in that district a variety of office uses are listed as permitted uses. Conditionally permitted uses in the district include instructional, motivational, and seminar schools. As the Church of Scientology operates more like a school than a traditional church, it falls under the school category. The Church of Scientology was previously granted Conditional Use Permit 77-19 to occupy a portion of the subject site for school/church purposes. Through Resolution No. 1668, the Planning Commission limited the use to no more than sixty (60) attendants at any one time and also restricted services and classes to a particular schedule. Discussion of Environmental Evaluation CUP 93-011 and VAR 93-002 January 24, 1995 Modified February 8, 1995 Page 4 Since that time, the Church has expanded its operations to occupy all of the remaining square footage within the complex without approval of a Conditional Use Permit. Because the parking requirements for school uses are more intense than those for office uses, there is not sufficient parking on-site as required by the City Code to support the Church of Scientology. Therefore, a variance is also being requested to reduce the required number of on-site parking spaces from 150 spaces to 111 spaces. Regarding land use conformity, there are single family residential neighborhoods directly adjacent to two sides of the site and across Redhill Avenue and Irvine Boulevard, which are typically sensitive to commercial uses. Given this sensitivity, a six foot high masonry wall on two sides of the property was required to be constructed as a condition of Use Permit 77-19 approval. Source: .. Community Development Department Mitigation/Monitoring: · Based on 111 on-site parking spaces provided, the number of attendants including staff persons and office and administrative personnel present at any one time on the site shall be limited to 222 individuals. This number is derived from the City Code requirement of one (1) parking space for each two (2) students at maximum enrollment. This method of calculating required parking spaces is applied to professional, instructional, motivational and/or seminar schools in the Professional District when the number of students is intensive and would therefore require a greater number of parking spaces than would the square footage method of one (1) parking space for each fifty (50) square feet of occupied, area. If the number of providedh, parking spaces were increased and an amendment to the subject Conditional USe Permit and Variance were obtained, the maximum number of attendants may be increased accordingly. · Ail classes and other similar activities directly related to the Church of Scientology at 1451 Irvine Boulevard shall take place on the subject property within the buildings. · Services, classes, and personal study shall be limited to the hours between 9:00 a.m and 10:30 Discussion of Environmental Evaluation CUP 93-011 and VAR 93-002 January 24, 1995 Modified February 8, 1995 Page 5 · p.m., seven days a week. Hours of operation for the 15,000 square feet of office and administration uses shall not be restricted, as those uses are outright permitted in the Professional District. · Ail items listed under Mitigation/Monitoring related to Number 13 - Transportation/Circulation shall also apply to this Section. Natural Resources - A and B - "No" - The proposed project would not result in any 'increased use of natural resources given the scale of the project. The fuel supply necessary to accommodate the energy, needs is presently available to the site. Source: Community Development Department Mitigation/Monitoring: None Required. 10. 'Risk of Upset - "No" - The proposed project would not result in any significant risk of upset given the scale and nature of the proposed use. All building improvements are required to satisfy the Uniform Building Code and Uniform Fire Code. The proposed project would correct many outstanding building code violations for construction/improvements without permits. Source: Community Development Department Mitigation/Monitoring: Ail construction, including all work previously' completed without permits, shall be in accordance with applicable Building and Fire Codes. New construction would be inspected by the Community Development Department and Fire Department during construction and prior to project final of .all improvements. 11. Population - "No" - The proposed use does not involve construction, demolition or relocation of any residential units. The project would have no impact on the location, growth, distribution or density of the population in the surrounding area. Source: Community Development Department _ Mitigation/Monitoring: None Required. Discussion of Environmental Evaluation CUP 93-011 and VAR 93-002 January 24, 1995 MOdified February 8, 1995 Page 6 12. Housing - "No" - The proposed use does not involve construction, demolition or relocation of any residential units. The project would have no impact on the location, growth, distribution or density of the Population in the surrounding area. Source: Community Development Department Mitigation/Monitoring: None Required. 13.. Transportation/Circulation - B - "Yes" - A,D,F - "Maybe"- C,R -"No" - The proposed project would not add any new square footage to the existing 22,584 square feet of building area. Conditional Use Permit 77-19 authorized the church use to . . occupy a portion of this area with a limit of sixty (60) attendants because of limited parking on the site. The number of parking spaces required is based on one (1) parking space for each fifty square feet of occupied school area and one (1) parking space for each 250 square feet of office area. As the parking demand for the Church of Scientology has increased with the increased occupied square footage, a variance to reduce the number of spaces from the required 150 spaces to 111 spaces is being requested. A traffic/parking study and supplemental parking study prepared by Rock E. Miller & Associates were submitted to the City for review by the.Community Development and Public Works Departments. -A copy of these Studies are included as Attachment A and incorporated herein. Based on a review by the City's Transportation Engineer, the Studies were prepared by a qualified professional and were found to address all of the necessary elements for a complete evaluation of this project. This Study uses field data collected for the Church of Scientology as well as standard trip generation rates to compare the impacts of the Church~with an office complex and a vacant site at the same location. .. Traffic counts prepared by the Consultant show a total of. 30 vehicle trips during the AM peak hour and a total of 59 trips during the PM peak hour. The volumes associated with an office building of the same square footage would average 63 and 62, respectively. The Traffic/Parking Study indicates that the intersection of Redhill Avenue and Irvine Boulevard currently operates at level of service "D" during the AM peak hour and level of service "E" during the PM peak hour. The .002 increase in the Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) value caused by the Church of Scientology during the PM peak hour is considered insignificant and is actually less than the Discussion of Environmental Evaluation CUP 93-011 and VAR 93-002 January 24, 1995 Modified February 8, 1995 Page 7 ICU increase of .003 for an office complex at that location. No increases in ICU were measured for the AM peak hour. The Traffic/Parking Study concluded that the existing operations of the Church of Scientology generate traffic volumes comparable to or slightly less than offices of the same square footage and have a negligible impact on traffic at the intersection of Irvine Boulevard and Redhill Avenue. The City's Engineering Department is in agreement with the findings of the Study. Furthermore, the consultant stated that parking supply was adequate on all weekday mornings and afternoons, but was exceeded on weekday evenings and'one weekend afternoon when a special event was occurring. According to the conclusions of the Study prepared by the applicant's consultant, overflow parking on weekday evenings is available across Irvine Boulevard at an office complex where the Church'°f Scientology leases approximately 3,360 square feet of office space. -The parking area across the street at 1442 Irvine Boulevard contains 127 parking spaces which serve offices that have traditional hours of operation. However, the owner of the property at 1442 Irvine Boulevard chose not to apply for a variance to formalize a shared parking arrangement with the Church of Scientology. Therefore, any spaces available at 1442 Irvine Boulevard are not officially counted as provided parking spaces. Based on the leased square footage at 1442 Irvine Boulevard, thirteen (13) parking spaces are informally available during weekend and evening weekday hours to serve the parking demand generated by the use of the building at 1451 Irvine Boulevard. City staff has also conducted periodic informal field observations and surveyed neighboring residents to identify any impacts on the adjacent residential areas. The parking lot has been observed at various times during the past eighteen (18) months to be at or near capacity. More recently, on January 3, 1995 at 7:35 p.m., staff observed three (3) available spaces within the parking lot, no vehicles parked on Irvine Boulevard adjacent to the property, and no unusual parking conditions on the adjacent residential streets. An additional observation on January 9, 1995 at 7:25 p.m. identified 26 unoccupied parking spaces on the property, no vehicles parked on the street, and no parking problems in the adjacent residential area. In both cases, twenty (20) vehicles were parked at 1442 Irvine Boulevard. However, it could not be determined whether any of these vehicles were parked by members of the Church of Scientology. According to nearby residents, church members have occasionally parked on Discussion of Environmental Evaluation CUP 93-011 and VAR 93-002 January 24, 1995 Modified February 8, 1995 Page 8 the surrounding residential streets. At the time the neighboring residents were surveyed, staff requested that any parking problems be reported to the Community Development Department. Staff have not received any complaints regarding parking in the neighborhood since that time. It should be noted that on-street parking on Irvine Boulevard will be prohibited in the near future, as the street has been scheduled for restriping to accommodate three travel lanes in each direction. This prohibition may improve safety for pedestrians crossing Irvine Boulevard and improve circulation in the vicinity, but will also reduce the number of off-site parking spaces available for the Church of Scientology. Sources: Community Development Department Public Works Department Traffic Study~by Rock E. Miller & Associates Field Observations Survey of residents Proposed site plan Mitigation/Monitoring: If at any time in the future the City is made aware that a parking and/or traffic problem exists on the site at 1451 Irvine Boulevard or in the vicinity as a result of the Church use, the Community Development and Public Works Departments may require the applicant to submit an updated parking demand analysis and/or traffic study, at the applicant's sole cost within the time schedule stipulated by the City. If said study indicates that there is inadequate parking or a traffic problem, the applicant shall be required to provide additional mitigation measures to be reviewed and approved by the Community Development and Public Works Departments. Said mitigation may include, but not be'limited t°, the following: '. a · Establish alternate hours of operation. Conversion of assembly/classrooms to offices. Failure to adequately respond to such a request and to implement mitigation measures within the time schedules established shall be grounds for initiation of revocation procedures for the Variance and Conditional Use Permit for the project. Discussion of Environmental Evaluation CUP 93-011 and VAR 93-002 January 24, 1995 Modified February 8, 1995 Page 9 · · · · Ail site alterations shall conform to the parking and landscaping criteria of the City of Tustin to the greatest extent possible Which will be verified at plan check and inspected by the Community Development Department. On-street parking on Irvine Boulevard will be prohibited in the near future, as the street has been scheduled for restriping to accommodate three travel lanes in each direction. This prohibition should increase safety for pedestrians crossing Irvine Boulevard and improve circulation in the vicinity'. Church members and other users of the facility shall be notified 'in writing that acceptable parking is available on-site and within a maximum of thirteen (13) spaces at 1442 Irvine Boulevard. Said notice shall be reviewed and approved by the Director of Community Development. Said notice shall graphically illustrate the subject parking lot at 1442 Irvine Boulevard and shall also indicate that no parking shall be located in the adjacent residential areas on Cameo Drive, Kenneth Drive, or Keith Place and that the City reserves the right to remove on-street parking on Irvine Boulevard and Redhill Avenue. If the Church terminates its lease or reduces the amount of leased square footage at 1442 Irvine Boulevard, the Community Development Department may require the applicant to submit an updated parking demand analysis and/or traffic study at the applicant's sole cost. If said study indicates that there is inadequate parking or a traffic problem, the applicant shall be required to provide mitigation measures to be reviewed and approved by the Planning Commission. 14. Public Services - A through F - "No" Ail services are existing and are adequate to serve the proposed project. No additional public services would be required. According to the City of the Tustin Police Department and the Office of the Orange. County Sheriff, no complaints regarding the Church of Scientology are on record. Discussion of Environmental Evaluation CUP 93-011 and VAR 93-002 January 24, 1995 Modified February 8, 1995 Page 10 Sources: Orange County Fire Department City of Tustin Police Department Orange County Sheriff Community Development Department Public Works Department Mitigation/Monitoring: None required. 15. Energy - A and B - "No" - The proposed project would' not result in any significant change in the current use of energy given the scale of the development. All necessary utilities are in place on the subject property. Source: Public Works Department Mitigation/Monitoring: None Required. · . 16. Utilities - A through F - "No" - The proposed project would not require modification to existing utilities or the need for additional utilities to serve the site. All necessary utilities are in place on the subject property. Source: Public Works Department Mitigation/Monitoring: None Required. 17. Human Health - A 'and B - "No" - The proposed use would not create conditions that negatively affect human health. Sources: Church of Scientology Orange County Fire Department Mitigation/Monitoring: None required. 18. Solid Waste - "No" - The proposed project would not generate additional solid waste nor require removal services above what would be expected of an office use of the same square footage. Source: Community Development Department Mitigation/Monitoring: None required. 19. Aesthetics - "No" - The proposed project would involve minor exterior improvements to the parking lot and landscaping. The property and improvements are in good condition, and no improvements to the elevations of any of the buildings are proposed or required. Discussion of Environmental Evaluation CUP 93-011 and VAR 93-002 January 24, 1995 Modified February 8, 1995 Page 11 Source: Submitted Plans Field observations Mitigation/Monitoring: None required. 20. Recreation - "No" - The project is non-residential in nature and is not located in proximity to recreational facilities. It will have no impact on recreation opportunities in the community. Source: Community Services Department Mitigation/Monitoring: None Required. 21. Cultural Resources - A through D - "No" - The subject property is not located within the City's Cultural Resources Overlay District, nor are there any identified cultural, historic or archaeological resources identified on or around the site. The project would have no impacts on cultural resources. Sources: Historical Structure Survey Community Development Department Mitigation/Monitoring: None Required. 22. Mandatory Findings of Significance - As discussed above, the. proposed project would conditionally permit an existing 22,584 square foot building to be used for instructional purposes on the property located at 1451 Irvine Blvd which could result in several impacts that can be mitigated through conditions of approval to a level of insignificance in the areas of noise, land use, risk of upset, and transportation/circulation. SCR:br/cup93-011. env 7_" Twaff~c RCfI-':..'O For The F ...... .SCI£NTO . ,., LOC~ Presented .. · . . Rock E. Miller & Associates Troffic & Tronsportation Engineers~ > ~' October 22, 1993 Ms. Marie Murillo Church of Scientology of Orange County 1451 Irvine Boulevard Tustin, CA 92680 Subject: Traffic Study for the Church of Scientology of Orange County in the City of Tustin · Dear Ms. Murillo: Rock E. Miller and Associates has completed a traffic study for the Church of Scientology of Orange County in the City of Tustin. The report was prepared to meet the normal requirements and needs of the City of Tustin for evaluating the traffic impact of the existing development. The report has been revised to address City comments on the initial draft of the study. Please contact me if you have any questions about the report, or if you need additional information to complete your submittal to the City of Tustin. If there are any comments which require my response, or revisions required, please advise me as soon as possible for prompt revision. Sincerely, Rock ~. 'M±ller ?tine±pal scient.stu\93052\BMH 17852 East Seventeenth Street, Suite 107, Tustin, CA 92680 FAX (714) 573-95.~ TEL. (714) 573-0317 Traffic Study for the Church of Scientology of Orange County in the City of Tustin Prepared for Church of Scientology of Orange County 1451 Irvine Boulevard Tustin, CA 92680 (714) 544-5491~ October 22, 1993 Prepared by Rock E. Miller and Associates 17852 East 17th Street #107 Tustin, CA 92680 (714) 573-0317 TABLE OF CONTENTS Section Page ~umber INTRODUCTION AND PROJECT DESCRIPTION ............ 1 EXISTING CONDITIONS ..................... 4 EXISTING TRAFFIC VOLUME ................... 6 PROJECT-RELATED TRAFFIC ................... 10 FUTURE TRAFFIC CONDITIONS WITHOUT THE PROPOSED PROJECT · · · 13 FUTURE CONDITIONS WITH ALTERNATE PROJECT .......... 15 TRAFFIC IMPACTS ....................... 18 ACCESS AND INTERNAL CIRCULATION ............... 19 PARKING SUPPLY ...... . ....... 20 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ............... 24 APPENDIX .......................... 26 Parking Generation Studies Traffic Generation Studies Intersection Capacity Utilization Calculations Peak Hour Turn Count Summaries Figure 1 Title LIST OF FIGURES VICINITY MAP SITE PLAN EXISTING TRAFFIC VOLUMES PROJECT-RELATED TRIP DISTRIBUTION AND TRAFFIC VOLUMES FUTURE (VACANT SITE) TRAFFIC CONDITIONS ALTERNATE PROJECT TRAFFIC VOLUMES PaGe 12 14 16 ~IST OF TABLES Number Description LEVELS OF SERVICE EXISTING TRAFFIC CONDITIONS TRIP GENERATION - EXISTING CHURCH FUTURE (VACANT SITE) TRAFFIC CONDITIONS ALTERNATE OFFICE PROJECT TRIP GENERATION FUTURE TRAFFIC CONDITIONS TRAFFIC IMPACTS PARKING UTILIZATION SUPPLEMENTAL PARKING STUDIES Page 7 11 13 15 17 18 21 22 INTRODUCTION AND PROJECT DESCRIPTION The City of Tustin has requested the Church of Scientology of Orange County to apply for a Use Permit for their existing facility located in the City of Tustin on the northwest corner of Red Hill Avenue and Irvine Boulevard. The address of the facility is 1451 Irvine Boulevard. The Church of Scientology occupies an existing development which was constructed as an office complex. City building records indicate that the building gross floor area is approximately 22,584 square feet (sf). The existing buildings are used as a office/school facility. The hours of operation are from 9:00 am to 10:00 pm, Monday-Sunday. Rock E. Miller and Associates inspected the premises and determined that the building floor area is being used approximately as follows: o Offices 60% o Classrooms 35% o Chapel 5% The Church measured the floor area of all rooms and identified the usage of 20,112 sf of interior floor space. The remaining 2500 sf is attributed to thickness of walls or other unusable areas. The proportion of usage for the entire site is estimated from church measurements as follows: Offices 13,249 sf 66% Counseling 1,794 sf 9% Assembly 853 sf 4% Classrooms 4.216 sf ~1% TOTAL 20,112 sf 100% This traffic report has been prepared to address existing traffic conditions, project-related traffic, and future conditions if the Church of Scientology use is discontinued. Access for the site, internal circulation, and parking needs are also evaluated in this report. ~--- .... Figure 1 is a vicinity map showing the location of the project and the surrounding major street system. Figure 2 depicts a current site plan for the project. i La Colina j Dr ~) , ~ ~- Project ~ Site I Irvine Blvd > \( n,- o I IBryan Ave. . I 1 : . FIGURE Vi c i n i Rock E. ~iller & Associates Jl Lo Colina Dr ,,, Project Site ~ I Irvine Blvd Bryan Ave. . _.~~~.~~~~ ~_ El Comino Real - '~"'--..~. ~ I[' (~ Santo An . Rock [.. M~ler &: ^ssociates g 27 Stelts l..Trosh- 17 Stolls Church of Scientology Red Hill Avenue Ch urch of SiLe Scien tolo£y Plan FIGURE EXISTING CONDITIONS The existing Church of Scientology of Orange County is located at 1451 Irvine Boulevard, northwest of the intersection of Red Hill Avenue and Irvine Boulevard in the City of Tustin. Most principal roadways in the vicinity run northeast/southwest or northwest/ southeast. In this study, Red Hill Avenue and parallel roadways are referred to as north/south roadways, while Irvine Boulevard and parallel roadways are presumed to travel east/west. Land uses in the vicinity of the Scientology church include offices, churches, and residences. The site is bounded by single family residences to the north, east, and southeast. Offices and a church are located to the south and southwest of the site. A neighborhood shopping center is located further to the west. The Tustin City Limit with the County of.Orange runs along the North property line for the site. The Church of Scientology site has two driveways. The north driveway is located on Red Hill Ave, approximately 200 feet north of Irvine Blvd. The west driveway is located on Irvine Blvd approximately 300 feet west of Red Hill Ave. Both of these driveways allow for left-turns and right-turns into and out of the site'. All left-turns are made from median areas striped for left- turns. Roadways within the area that will be potentially affected by traffic from the existing project are Red Hill Avenue and Irvine Boulevard. The intersection of these roadways may also be affected. The City of Tustin and the County of Orange each have General Plans which include Circulation Elements. These plans indicate the location and planned width of all through highways within the respective agencies. These plans refer to such highways by functional classification, briefly summarized as follows: Major Arterial: A planned six-lane divided highway, normally on a right-of-way of 120 feet. Primary function is to carry through traffic between communities and freeways. Access is typically restricted to signalized intersections and major developments. Daily volumes of 45,000 vehicles or more can be carried. Primary Arterial: A planned four-lane divided'highway, normally with a right-of-way of 100 feet. Access functions are similar to major highways however daily capacity is lower, approximately 30,000 vehicles. Secondary Arterial: A planned f°ur-lane undivided highway, normally with a right-of-way of 80 feet. Functions are to provide access to local streets and to higher class arterials. Volumes carried are typically under 20,000 vehicles per day. .Red Hill Avenu~e Red Hill Avenue is a through highway providing access to the site and running in a north/south direction. It is mostly a 4-lane divided arterial from the Church of Scientology, north driveway, south past Irvine Boulevard to Interstate 5 and beyond. There are a few sections of Red Hill Avenue south of Irvine Boulevard which are not divided, however four lanes are provided continuously. Red Hill Avenue is a four-lane undivided highway from the Church of Scientology to La Colina Drive, one half mile north. It reduces to one lane in each direction at this point and ends about 3/4 mile further north. Red Hill Avenue is was formerly designated as a secondary arterial from Irvine Boulevard north past the Tustin City Limit to La Colina Drive. This designation was officially removed by the County of Orange in April, 1993. Redhill Avenue is currently designated as a primary arterial from Irvine Boulevard to Interstate 5. It is mostly constructed to these standards except in some areas south of Irvine Boulevard. ' Red Hill AvenUe-is posted for a 45 mph speed limit. Parking is allowed in most areas, however it is prohibited in front of the Church of Scientology. Irvine Boulevard Irvine Boulevard is a 4-lane divided east/west arterial highway adjacent to and south of the Church of Scientology. It travels the length of Tustin connecting State Route 55 to E1 Toro, and provides two through travel lanes eastbound and westbound in the project vicinity. Irvine Boulevard is designated as a modified major between Newport Avenue and Browning Avenue. Irvine Boulevard is designated as a major arterial west of Newport Ave and east of Browning Ave. Irvine Boulevard is divided by a two-way-left-turn lane and left- turn pockets are provided at all major intersections. The posted speed limit is 45 mph, and the street is designated for use by trucks. Parking is allowed on the street in the project vicinity, but the City indicates that it may be prohibited within the next couple~of years to provide-additional travel lanes. The intersection' of Red Hill Avenue and Irvine Boulevard is signalized. The traffic signal provides for protected left-turns from Irvine Boulevard. There is no separate left-turn phasing for Red Hill Avenue, however the City indicates that left-turn phases will be constructed within 12 months, approximately. Pedestrian crossings are present for all legs of the intersection. Interstate 5 (Santa Ana Freeway) The Interstate 5 Freeway is a multi-lane freeway providing regional north/south circulation in the area. It is the nearest freeway to the site and is located about one mile south of the project site. I-5 extends south to San Diego and north to Los Angeles. It interchanges with State Route 55. An interchange is also provided at Red Hill Avenue. Currently, there is major construction occurring at the Interstate 5 interchange with State Route 55. This project is causing some travelers to use Irvine Boulevard and Red Hill Avenue as a freeway alternate route. EXISTING TRAFFIC VOLUMES Traffic conditions are normally evaluated by determining the Level of Service provided for motorists during specific time periods, normally the AM and the PM peak hours, at intersections which will be used by project traffic. Project impacts may be identified if traffic resulting from a project is causing or would cause traffic 'Levels of Service to decline below acceptable standards. For this study, project related traffic already exists, so project impact would be measured based upon eliminate of project uses. It is thus necessary to compare the existing traffic conditions with future traffic conditions without traffic associated with the proposed project. In evaluating Level of. Service, it is also necessary to discuss or. evaluate the capacity of the highway, facility or intersection. Capacity is defined as the highest possible number of vehicles which can use a facility under normal traffic conditions. Levels of service at intersections are frequently determined by calculation of "Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU)". This widely accepted method essentially measures the proportion of traf- fic signal "green" time required for all signal phases at the intersection. The ICU procedure permits the identification of the operating Level of Service at each intersection using a look-up table. Level of Service is a report card scale evaluating traffic performance, approximated in Table 1. At Level of Service D, most traffic at intersections clears on the next green signal, 'however non-stop signal coordination can be difficult. At Level of Service E, most cars do not clear on next green signal. At Level of Service F many cars do not clear on second green signal. Level of Service D is a customary maximum allowable "standard" Level of Service during peak hours at intersections. Mitigation measures are considered for traffic at poorer levels of service. Table 1 LEVELS OF SERVICE Level of Service A B C D E F Description Excellent, Light Traffic Good, Light to Moderate Traffic Moderate Traffic, Insignificant Delay Heavy Traffic, Significant Delay Severe Congestion and Delay Failed, Traffic Cannot Be Handled ICU Range .00-.60 .60-.70 .70-.80 .80-.90 .90-1.0 1.0 and up Existing daily traffic volumes for the study area were obtained from the County of Orange Traffic Flow Map, dated December 1991. Rock E. Miller and Associates conducted peak period traffic counts for this study at the intersection of Irvine Boulevard at Red Hill Avenue. Figure 3 presents the existing AM and PM peak hour traffic volumes. Capacity and Level of Service ratings were calculated at Red Hill Avenue and IrVine Boulevard using the Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) technique. Table 2 indicates the ICU analysis and the current Level of Service at the intersection studied. Table 2 indicates that the intersection is currently experiencing unacceptable traffic conditions in the PM peak hour. Table 2 EXISTING TRAFFIC CONDITIONS Intersection Irvine Boulevard at: Red Hill Avenue AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour ICU LOS ICU LOS .83 D .97 E Notes ICU = Intersection Capacity Utilization LOS = Level of Service Rock E. Miller and Associates inspected the project location several times during peak hour traffic conditions. The study area intersection appears to be congested, particularly for northbound. Irvine Boulevard appears to be operating slightly better than Level of Service E during the evening peak hour. This is attributed to the lack of north-south left turn phasing and signal timing for coordinated traffic east-west. 39,T)00 ~/s -Y ExieUn~ Scientolo~y & Dl~neties 0/2 25/8z J'~ f 567/1997-., ~ _~ ~ 104/lg~ ~ ~ -- 0 Irvine Blvd 35,~00 Legend k'-OO/O0 = AM/PU Troffic Vo)urne$ eO0 = Daily Traffic Volumes Rock £, hhller & Associates Exisiin~ Traffic Volumes FIGURE PROJECT RELATED TRAFFIC The traffic impact of the Church of Scientology is determined by measuring the traffic which occurs On roadways in the study area as a result of the project. The existing traffic for Church of Scientology is measured from site driveway counts. This traffic is then "distributed" and "assigned" 'to roadways and to intersection turning movements in the study area. Service Levels are then recalculated omitting traffic for the proposed project to identify if any changes would be significant. Trip Generation Trip generation is the process of determining the total number of trips which will begin or end at the project site as a result of the development of the project. All or part of these trips result in traffic increased on the streets where they occur. Trip generation is a function of the extent and type of development proposed for the site. For an existing development, trip generation can be most easily measured by taking driveway counts at all accesses to the site. For proposed developments or alternatives, trip generation is estimated from published trip generation rates for various typical land uses. Trip generation for existing developments can also be estimated from trip generation rates. The Church of Scientology does not function similar to a conven- tional Sunday worship church from a traffic perspective. The City of Tustin requested a traffic generation study for the existing Church of Scientology. Table 3 presents the results of the generation study. Additional site data for this study is presented in the report appendix. Table 3 presents the actual traffic volumes generated by the existing site and also the rate per 1,000 square feet of building gross floor area. Trip Distribution Trip distribution is the process of identifying the probable destinations, directions, or traffic routes which will be utilized by project traffic. The potential interaction betWeen the proposed land use and surrounding residential areas, employment oppor- tunities, services, and regional access routes are considered to identify the routes where the project traffic will distribute. Turning movements at each driveway were observed during .the generation study. The regional distribution of approach and 10 Table 3 TRIP GENERATION Existing Church of Scientology Inbound Drwy #1 Inbound Drwy #2 Total Inbound Outbound Drwy #1 Outbound Drwy #2 Total Outbound AM Peak Total Inbound Drwy #1 Inbound Drwy #2 Total Inbound Outbound Drwy #1 Outbound Drwy #2 Total Outbound PM Peak Total Total .,Trips 19 5 24 Trips per 1000 s.f. 0.84 .22 1.06 2 .09 4 .18 6 .27 30 1.33 20 0.89 7 .31 27 1.20 14 .62 18 0.80 32 1.42 59 2.61 Note: Driveway #1 is on Red Hill Ave. Driveway #2 is on Irvine Blvd. Site floor area is 22,584 Sq. ft. Departure traffic was developed from the distribution of traffic turning movements at the driveways. The distribution is as follows: Direction North South East West Arrivals Departures From To ~AM P__M AM .PM 17% 22% 0% 9% 37% 31% 20% 21% 25% 28% 13% 14% 21% 19% 67% 56% The anticipated trip making characteristics for the traffic associated with the project are presented on Figure 4. Figure 4 also presents the project-related traffic for each turn movement using the trip distribution. 11 i FxietJnQ $cient~)lo~y & D~net~s i O~ out/~ out ~ ,~ I~ine Blvd Redhlll Ave Lo,end ~OOg in/out = ~/~ lr[p Distribution ,,, ~00/00 = ~/~ lr~ffic Volume, Exieting 5ci~ntol~y ~ D~net~s IN OUT ~ ~4 ~ 0/3 [Pa 27 32 2/11~ 5/S ~ f Imine Bird Projec t- ~ela ted FIOURE ~~ g~~~ Rela ~ed Trip Distribution 4 Rock E. ~1~ ~ A~iot~ ~ and Traffic Volumes FUTURE TRAFFIC CONDITIONS WITHOUT THE PROPOSED PROJECT The Church of Scientology is an existing use, so the forecast of future traffic volumes was prepared based upon existing volumes subtracting the project related traffic for the Church of Scientology. Figure 5 presents a forecast of traffic volume if the Church site was vacant today. Table 4 indicates the Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) analysis and the Level of Service (LOS) at the Irvine/Red Hill intersection. The ICU values are presented to 3 digit (.001) precision to properly evaluate the project. This precision is not implied to be accurate, however it shows a better comparison of project traffic impact. The evening peak hour ICU would drop by .002 if the site was vacant today, however the Level of Service would be unchanged. The AM peak hour ICU and Level of Service are both unchanged. The table suggests that traffic related to the Church of Scientology is not significantly affecting conditions at the intersection. Table 4 FUTURE TRAFFIC CONDITIONS Excluding the Proposed Project (Vacant Site) Intersection Irvine at Red Hill Vacant Site Existing Condition AM Peak Hour ICU .,LOS · 829 D PM Peak Hour ICU LOS .964 E Notes ICU = Intersection Capacity Utilization LOS = Level of Service 13 iiii :~ ~"~ ~ 28/68 39,001:) ~ i kC"' 8,5/o8 Ir'vine Bird 35,000 104/19~8"-,~ ~ ~ I Legend ~00/00 = AM/PM Troffic Volumes · 00 = Doily lroffic Volumes ... · i FIGUSE ~=~ ~A,~~ FUture (Vacant Site) ~°~[-"'"'~"~""~'°'"~ Traffic Volumes FUTURE CONDITIONS WITH ALTERNATE PROJECT If the Church of Scientology vacates the site, the existing buildings would likely be occupied by conventional office uses. Traffic Levels of Service for this alternative office project should be compared with the Church of Scientology to fully evaluate its potential closure. The general office alternate trip generation characteristics are estimated based on an equation published in the Trip Generation, Fifth Edition, published by the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE). Table 5 summarizes the traffic generation rates and the expected daily and peak hour traffic generation for the alternative project. Table 5 ALTERNATE OFFICE PROJECT TRIP GENERATION band Use General Office TRIP GENERATION RATES (Trips per 1000 sf) Daily Traffi_______~c AM Peak PM Peak In Out .In Out 20.19 2.37 .29 .47 2.28 Land Use General Office (22,584 sq. ft.) TRIP GENERATION (Vehicle Trips) Daily AM Peak PM Peak Traffic In Out In Out 456 56 7 11 51 The anticipated trip making characteristics for the office alternative are assumed to be the same as the Church of Scientology distribution previously presented on Figure 4. Figure 6 presents office-related traffic volumes as well as future intersection traffic .volumes with the office alternative. The results of the interseCtion capacity calculations for the key intersection is summarized on Table 6. 15 ,, Office I AlternoUve ,~ ~/~ ~ Redh[ll Ave . Lo~ond ~00% in/out = AM/PM Trip Distribution ~00/00 = ~M/PM Troffic Volumes ~ x~ ,~ ~/so ~_~ ~ o 2071/1 g~ ~ ~ ~ 85/9, I~ine Blvd ~7/1997-- ~g i FIGURE ~~ ~~~~ Alterna tire Project ~ock E. u,,~ , ~,~ ~ Traffic VoIum es Table 6 FUTURE TRAFFIC CONDITIONS Future Forecast with Office Alternative Intersection Irvine Boulevard at: Red Hill Avenue AM Peak Hour .I CU LO S .829 D PM Peak Hour ICU LO_S .967 E Notes ICU = Intersection Capacity Utilization LOS = Level of Service, per ICU Analysis 17 TRAFFIC IMPACTS The traffic impact for the proposed project is identified by comparing existing traffic conditions with conditions for the vacant site and the office alternative. Table 7 compares the Level of Service results for the existing and future 'conditions. The difference noted in the final column is the change in ICU for the intersection as a result of the existing project or office alternative. This decimal can be readily compared to a percentage impact, i.e., .01 corresponds to a 1% impact. For most public agencies, an impact is considered to be significant if the impact, is equal or greater than 0.01 and if the forecasted condition is within the unacceptable range. The table indicates that the impact of discontinuing the Church of Scientology use will be .002 or if the site becomes vacant. The ICU would increase by up to .001 over existing levels, if the site is occupied by an office. The intersection is already operating at a Level of Service E, but the Scientology Church generates a negligible amount of traffic at the intersection. The office alternative would impact the intersection slightly but not measurably more than the Church. Table 7 TRAFFIC IMPACTS Intersection Irvine at Red Hill AM Peak PM Peak Intersection Irvine.at Red Hill AM Peak PM Peak Church of Scientology ICU LOS .829 D .966 E Church of Scientology ICU Los .829 D .966 E Site Vacant ICU LOS Difference .829 D .000 .964 E -.002 Office Alternative ICU LOS D~fference .829 D .000 .967 E +.001 Notes: ICU = Intersection Capacity Utilization LOS = Level of Service 18 ACCESS AND INTERNAL CIRCULATION There are two driveways for the Scientology site: on Red Hill Avenue north of Irvine Boulevard and on Irvine Boulevard west of Red Hill Avenue. The number of driveways is more than adequate for a site of its size. The two driveways are justified.by the corner location of the site. Both driveways provide width for two-way traffic. Left-turns are permitted from both driveways, however few vehicles turn left from the west driveway onto Irvine Boulevard eastbound. In fact, no vehicles were observed to make this turn during the AM and PM traffic generation study. About ten percent of exiting traffic turn left'onto Red Hill, however the traffic volume on Red Hill is much lower than on Irvine Boulevard, and the turn is not difficult to execute. A traffic problem is not evident at either driveway. A driveway aisle connects the north driveway to the west driveway, passing behind the site buildings. All parking, on-site is taken from this driveway or from a short, intersecting parking aisle located at the northwest corner of the site. The layout of the driveways and parking generally complies with current standards for aisle width and stall location. Ail parking areas on the site appear to comply with accepted City design standards for parking stall size and configuration and aisle width. There are currently 99 parking stalls striped on the site. Stalls were measured and found to be 9.feet wide. Double loaded aisles measure 60 feet, providing two stalls at 18 feet plus a 24 foot aisle. It is also possible to overhang into the planter areas, and the City Code allows up to 2.5 feet for overhang. All parking spaces were found to be accessible for ingress and egress. A site plan previously prepared for the site indicates 108 parking spaces, with a typical stall width of 8.5 feet. The narrow width and restriping accounts for the change in parking provided. The nine-foot parking stall complies with the City Code, while a variance would be required for narrower stalls. The paint marking the stalls has faded, and it is difficult to identify the lines, especially at night in areas most distant from exterior lighting. Vehicles occasionally park in undesignated areas on the site, particularly near the trash enclosure at the rear of the property and in a nearby minor cross aisle. This occurs mostly at night, so the condition of the lot striping may be aggravating this condition. Rock E. Miller and Associates is not concerned that access to parking and internal circulation will be a problem for the site. 19 - PARKING SUPPLY The existing Church of Scientology of Orange County provides 22,584 square feet of building area with 100 parking spaces. There is a sign in the church lot directing patrons to park in the office building across Irvine Blvd, if the existing parking lot is full on weekends and nights only. The Church leases office space in the building across Irvine Boulevard and thus has acquired "privileges" to park overflow vehicles on this property. The site was designed as an office building, and the parking provided meets the City Code for office parking, four stalls per 1000 sf. The facility is designated as a Church, so the office parking rate is not applicable for the current use. while the use is a church, the utilization of space in the building is not comparable to other churches. Most churches have a large worship area with many adjoining fixed or moveable seats. The parking needs for this type of assembly area is normally large. The City Code indicates a requirement of one stall for each 50 feet of assembly area, plus four stalls per 1000 sf of other building area. The City staff have indicated that the parking needs for the site can be determined from the Code by applying the assembly area rate to the assembly and classroom areas, plus the office rate to the remaining areas. The parking requirements for the site can be calculated as follows: Assembly & Classrooms Office Areas TOTAL 22,584 sf x 25% @ 1/50 sf 22,584 sf x 75% @ 1/250 sf 113 stalls 68 stalls 181 stalls It would not be possible to provide this amount of parking on the site. The amount may be excessive when compared with the actual parking demand requirements for the facility. Rock E. Miller and Associates inspections of the site determined that the number of persons which occupy the classroom areas is substantially lower than normal experience in an general assembly area, due to desks and tables located in all of these rooms. Only a chapel and a small film theater would potentially generate parking at the assembly rate. The Church also leases approximately 4000 sf of office space 'in the Red Hill Plaza Office building directly across the street at 1442 Irvine Boulevard. This development has 127 parking stalls. The leased space is utilized by Church employees, including instructors who conduct classes across the street.on the main Church campus. This situation complicates an accurate calculation of Church parking needs, since the Church occupies more area than their building provides. 20 The City of Tustin requested information regarding the utilization of' parking for the existing facility. Rock E. Miller and Associates conducted a parking study of the site on representative weekdays and weekends, to determine normal parking patterns for the site. Counts of vehicles parked on the site were taken at appropriate intervals throughout a typical weekday and a typical Saturday. Counts were also taken in the parking area across the street, on occasions when parking use in the church lot was approaching its capacity and the lot across the street was clearly being used for overflow parking. Parking is prohibited on Red Hill Avenue adjacent to the site, however parking is currently allowed on Irvine Boulevard. Cars parked on Irvine Boulevard in front of the Church of Scientology were included in parking utilization counts for the site. The site was found to be full during the initial Saturday survey, however the alternate parking across the Street and the on-street parking on Irvine Boulevard were being utilized at that time. The counts include vehicles parked at these locations. The results of the parking utilization studies are shown in Table 8. Table 8 PARKING UTILIZATION (Parked Vehicles) Monday Time July 12 Saturday Saturday July 17 July 24 10:45 am 61 80 -- 11:50 am -- 72 -- 2:30 pm 54 125, 60 4:00 pm -- 80 -- 4:45 pm 61 -- __ 8:30 pm 88 -- __ Parking Provided 95 NOTE: .* Included 12 vehicles parked in the Street, six vehicles double parked on site, and 12 vehicles parked across the street. All other surveys found and counted vehicles on- site only. The staff of the Church of Scientology indicated that a unusual special event was being held at the facility on Saturday, July 17, attended by 45 persons who are not normally on the site. These persons did not know where to park properly. Rock E. Miller and 21 Associates inspected the site on the following Saturday to determine if parking demands were similar to the previous week. This survey identified many fewer parked vehicles in the church site, and the amount observed was comparable to the weekday surveys. We believe that the July 24 experience is more realistic of a .typical weekend. The City staff indicated upon initial review of this report that the site had a history of overflow parking problems, and that more studies should be taken, particularly on weekends and evenings. Table 9 indicates the results of supplemental parking studies taken for the site. These studies indicated more clearly that a significant number of vehicles are parking across the street from the site during weekday evenings. Since office would normally be closed during these hours, most of these vehicles would be attributed to the Church. Table 9 SUPPLEMENTAL PARKING STUDIES Scientology Day Time Church Lot 1442 Irvine Blvd Office Lot Total Tue 8/31/93 8:10 pm 84 43 127 Wed 9/1/93 8:20 pm 88 39 127 Sat 9/4/93 8:15 pm 25 3 28 Sun 9/5/93 2:00 pm 72 8 80 Thu 9/9/93 8:00 pm 88 32 120 Sat 9/11/93 11:00 am 84 5 89 Note: No vehicles were observed parking on-street on Irvine Boulevard adjacent to the Church or on Redhill adjacent to the office building for any survey in Table 9. All vehicles in the lot for 1442 Irvine Blvd were included in these counts. These parking studies would indicate that the site has adequate parking on.weekday and on weekends, however the supply is regularly being exceeded on weekday nights. On these occasions, the parking in the office building was regularly utilized (up to 43 stalls in the 127 stall parking lot). Rock E. Miller and Associates recommends that the City find that the parking provided on site is adequate to meet the needs of the Church daytime and on weekends, however additional parking will be required to meet the weekday night requirements of the church. 22 This demand, up to 43 vehicles, is currently being met in the 127- stall office parking lot across the street. Parkinq Supply Mitiqation The office building across the street provides substantially more parking than the Scientology site, 127 stalls. Also another church, Hope Christian Church at 1372 Irvine Boulevard, is located to the west of the office building and an additional office building, Cooksey Howard Martin & Toolen Law Offices at 1352 Irvine Boulevard, is located to the west of the second Church. All three of these developments have on-site circulation to allow sharing of their parking areas. There is a total of 253 parking stalls available in these three parking lots, and there is no significant evening parking demand at these lots except by the Church of Scientology. The City Staff have suggested that the Church may wish to determine if surplus parking, above the City Code, is available across the/// street. If so, the church could potentially acquire an easement or joint parking agreement to permanently obtain parking rights across the street. Acquisition of an easement for 'r'eciprocal parking may not be feasible. The office buildings do not appear to have a greater parking supply than the amount indicated by the City Code. The Sunday parking requirements for the second church at 1372 Irvine Blvd, appear to rely upon the office building parking areas for portions of their parking needs. AlSo, the Church of Scientology does not require the additional parking during normal office hours or on Sundays. The parking overflow for Scientology is only required on Weekday evenings, when the office building would always be near vacant. Further, the necessary legal documents to create the needed rights may create problems or tension between the affected parties. Lastly, by leasing space across the street, the Church has explicitly acquired the privilege to use approximately 20 parking stalls for its 4000 sf, and no lease restrictions would prevent the Church from using more parking stalls across the street at hours when they are clearly available. The Church has parking needs greater than their parking lot can provide, .however the site is currently being managed properly. If parking was being poorly managed, there would be continuous usage of the parking areas allowed on Irvine Boulevard adjacent to the site and on Redhill adjacent to the office across the street. There is no significant on-street parking occurring now on either street, and all overflow parking is occurring in the office building lot across the street from the Church. Rock E. Miller and Associates would recommend that the City require the Church to continue to lease space in the building across the street and continue.to provide overflow parking suitable to meet the demands of the facility on evenings as a condition of the proposed use permit. The actual lease document and posting of the Church lot would be appropriate proof, and these could be incorporated as conditions in the proposed use permit. If the Church terminates the lease across the street, it will be necessary to reevaluate parking requirements. If the lease is terminated the Church will also lose space currently required for staff. This should result in a reduction in parking requirements for both instructors and members. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS The Church of Scientology of Orange County is applying for a Use Permit for their existing facility in the City of Tustin located on the northwest corner of Red Hill Avenue and Irvine Boulevard. The church is a religious institution, however the uses and activity on the site would generate traffic more comparable to offices or schools. The hours of operation are from 9:00 am to 10:00 pm, Monday through Sunday. 'A traffic generation study was conducted for the site. The existing church currently generates 30 vehicle trips in the morning peak hour, and 59 trips in the evening peak hour. These traffic volumes are about the same as for a comparable office development. Existing conditions at the intersection of Irvine Boulevard and Red Hill Avenue currently exceed acceptable Levels of Service in the PM peak hour. Traffic related to the Church of Scientology is not causing any significant changes in levels of service at the location. If the site was currently occupied by office uses, the intersection Level of Service would be virtually the same as for the Church of Scientology. Conditions at the intersection of Red Hill and Irvine Boulevard will be improved significantly when the City restripes Irvine Boulevard in the next'few years to provide six through lanes. It may also improve somewhat when disruptive construction along Interstate 5 is completed in about two years. Parking utilization on the site was monitored for this study. Adequate surplus parking existed on all weekday mornings and afternoons. ~Parking supply was exceeded regularly on weekday evenings. The parking demand also exceeded supplY for one weekend, when a unique special event was occurring. The overflow demand was met in all cases observed by the office parking lot across Irvine Boulevard. Rock E. Miller and Associates concludes that the site has adequate parking for normal daytime and weekend operations at the facility. There is not sufficient parking on site on weekday evenings. Overflow parking is available across Irvine Boulevard during 24 special events, and the Church has secured rights to park vehicles in this area by leasing office space in this site. A sign in the church parking,lot indicates the availability of surplus parking evenings and weekends. This parking was being used during a special event which was being held during the weekend survey. It will be necessary for the Church to continue to maintain parking privileges across from the site to meet the needs of the facility on weekday evenings. While the Church of Scientology is a religious institution, the traffic and parking characteristics for the development more closely match a combination of school and office uses. Also the portion of the site utilized for general offices is high enough that the area for classrooms is comparable to areas used for meeting rooms in conventional office developments. It would not be appropriate to apply traffic generation rates or parking requirements for churches to the Church of Scientology. 25 Appendix: -Parking ACcumulation Studies -Traffic Generation.Studies -Intersection Capacity Utilization Calculations -Peak Hour Turn Count Summaries Site: Tustin Church of DATE TIME 7/12/93 10:45 am 7/12/93 2:30 pm 7/12/93 4:45 pm 7/12/93 8:30 pm Parking Survey Worksheet Scientology IN DOUBLE ON OFF SPACES PARKED STREET SITE TOTAL 61 0 0 0 61 53 0 1 0 54 61 0 0 0 61 88 0 0 0 88 7/17/93 10:40 am 7/17/93 11:50 am 7/17/93 2:30 pm 7/17/93 4:00 pm 79 1 0 0 80 71 1 0 0 72 95 18 7 5 125 75 0 5 0 80 7/24/93 2:35 pm 59 0 1 0 60 Site: Tustin Church of Date: 7/14/93 Site Traffic Generation Scientology AM E/B IRVINE E/B RED HILL TIME IN OUT IN OUT 7:45-8:00 am 2 0 4 0 8:00-8:15 am 1 0 0 i 8:15-8:30 am 0 1 4 0 8:30-8:45 am 2 3 11 1 8:45-9:00 am 6 3 8 3 Totals 7:45-8:45 am 5 4 19 2 8:00-9:00 am 9 7 23 5 PM E/B IRVINE E/B RED HILL TIME IN OUT IN OUT 4:45-5:00 pm 1 0 2 0 5:00-5:15 pm 3 3 3 6 5:15-5:30 pm 1 4 6 3 5:30-5:45 pm 2 8 7 3 5:45-6:00 pm 1 3 4 2 Totals 4:45-5:45 pm 7 15 18 12 5:00-6:00 pm 7 ~18 20 14 INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION WORKSHEET TRAFFIC VOLUME SUMMARY FILENAME: TUIRREOF NORTH/SOUTH ST.: PROJECT#: SCIENTOLOGY STDY EAST/WEST ST.: NAME: REM & Associates LANE GEOMETRICS: Global Constants: Through Lane Capacity 1800 Left Lane Capacity 1700 Yellow Clearance 0.1 Red Hill Ave Irvine Blvd Existing CONTRIBUTION TO VOLUMES Direc- No of Capa- AM Volumes PM Volumes tion Lanes city Exist Futr. Fu+Of Exist Futr. Fu+Of NL 1 1700 106 0 0 275 0 0 NT 2 3600 45 -9 20 518 -8 3 NR 1 1800 34 0 0 101 0 0 SL 1 1700 104 -1 1 71 -4 7 ST 2 3600 239 -1 1 249 -7 11 SR 0 0 38 0 0 86 0 0 EL 1 1700 25 0 0 82 0 0 ET 2 3600 567 0 0 1997 0 0 ER 1 1800 104 0 0 198 0 0 WL 1 1700 85 0 0 96 0 0 WT 2 3600 2071 0 0 1954 -2 1 WR 1 1800 34 -6 13 94 -6 2 Direc- No of Capa- CUMULATIVE VOLUMES AM Volumes PM Volumes tion Lanes city Exist Futr. Fu+Of Exist Futr. Fu+Of NL 1 1700 106 106 106 0 275 275 275 0 NT 2 3600 45 36 56 0 518 510 513 0 NR 1 1800 34 34 34 0 101 101 101 0 SL 1 1700 104 103 104 0 71 67 74 0 ST 2 3600 239 238 239 0 249 242 253 0 SR 0 0 38 38 38 0 86 86 86 0 EL 1 1700 25 25 25 0 82 82 82 0 ET .. 2 3600 567 567 567 0 1997 1997 1997 0 ER 1 1800 104 104 104 0 198 198 198 0 WL 1 1700 85 85 85 0 96 96 96 0 WT 2 3600 2071 2071 2071 0 1954 1952 1953 0 WR 1 1800 34 28 41 0 94 88 90 0 TUIRREOF INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION WORKSHEET AM ICU CALCULATION SUMMARY Intersection: Red Hill Ave Direc- Existing tion Volume Cap. V\C Crit NL 106 1700 0.06 1 NT 45 3600 0.01 0 NR 34 1800 0.02 0 SL 104 1700 0.06 0 ST 239 3600 0.08 1 SR 38 0 0.00 0 EL 25 1700 0.01 1 ET 567 3600 0.16 0 ER 104 1800 0.06 0 WL 85 1700 0.05 0 WT 2071 3600 0.58 1 WR 34 1800 0.02 0 N + S 0.14 E + W 0.59 Clear. 0.1 Total 0.829 at Irvine Blvd Future Site Volume Cap. V\C Existing Vacant Crit 106 1700 0.06 36 3600 0.01 34 1800 0.02 103 1700 0.06 238 3600 0.08 38 0 0.00 25 1700 0.01 567 3600 0.16 104 1800 0.06 85 1700 0.05 2071 3600 0.58 28 1800 0.02 0.14 0.59 0.1 0.829 Direc- Future + Office tion Volume Cap. V\C Crit m NL 106 1700 0.06 1 NT 56 3600 0.02 0 NR 34 1800 0.02 0 SL 104 1700 0.06 0 ST 239 3600 0.08 1 SR 38 0 0.00 0 EL 25 1700 0.01 1 ET 567 3600 0.16 0 ER 104 1800 0.06 0 WL 85 1700 0.05 0 WT 2071 3600 0.58 1 WR 41 1800 0.02 0 N + S 0.14 E + W 0.59 Clear. 0.1 Total 0.829 ----. Volume Cap. V\C Crit m~mm 0 1700 0.00 0 0 3600 0.00 1 0 1800 0.00 0 0 1700 0.00 1 0 3600 0.00 0 0 0 0.00 0 0 1700 0.00 0 0 3600 0.00 1 0 1800 0.00 0 0 1700 0.00 1 0 3600 0.00 0 0 1800 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0.1 mmmm 0.10 INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION WORKSHEET TUIRREOF PM ICU CALCULATION SUMMARY Intersection: Red Hill Ave at Irvine Blvd Existing Direc- Existing Future Site Vacant tion Volume Cap. V\C Crit Volume Cap. V\C Crit NL 275 1700 0.16 1 275 1700 0.16 1 NT 518 3600 0.14 0 510 3600 0.14 0 NR 101 1800 0.06 0 101 1800 0.06 0 SL 71 1700 0.04 0 67 1700 0.04 0 ST 249 3600 0.09 1 242 3600 0.09 1 SR 86 0 0.00 0 86 0 0.00 0 EL 82 1700 0.05 0 82 1700 0.05 0 ET 1997 3600 0.55 1 1997 3600 0.55 1 ER 198 1800 0.11 0 198 1800 0.11 0 WL 96 1700 0.06 1 96 1700 0.06 1 WT 1954 3600 0.54 0 1952 3600 0.54 0 WR 94 1800 0.05 0 88 '1800 0 05 0 N + S 0.25 0.25 E + W 0.61 0.61 Clear. 0.1 0.1 0.966 0.964 e + Office · V\C Crit Volume Cap. V\C Crit Total Direc- Futur tion Volume Cap NL 275 1700 0.16 1 0 1700 0.00 0 NT 513 3600 0.14 0 0 3600 0.00 1 NR 101 1800 0.06 0 0 1800 0.00 0 SL 74 1700 0.04 0 0 1700 0.00 1 ST 253 3600 0.09 1 0 3600 0.00 0 SR 86 0 0.00 0 0 0 0.00 0 EL 82 1700 0.05 0 0 1700 0.00 0 ET 1997 3600 0.55 1 0 3600 0.00 1 ER 198 1800 0.11 0 0 1800 0.00 0 WL 96 1700 0.06 1 0 1700 0.00 1 WT 1953 3600 0.54 0 0 3600 0.00 0 WR ~~90 1800 0.05 ~0 0 1800 0.00 0 N + S 0.26 0.000 E + W 0.61 0.000 Clear. 0.1 0.1 Total 0.967 0.10 INTERSECTION TURNING MOVEMENT ANALYSIS PROGRAM File: TUIRRETC Project: SCIENTOLOGY Date of Count: 7/13/93 ~North/South Street: REDHILL East/West Street: IRVINE Scenario/Date: Existing PM Peak Hour CUMULATIVE COUNTS Start Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound Tm. Lt Thru Rt Lt Thru Rt Lt Thru Rt Lt Thru Rt Total 400 94 118 24 28 45 26 25 264 53 14 398 32 15 180 234 47 48 88 39 42 602 108 38 838 58 30 244 324 76 65 133 51 60 981 158' 63 1311 88 45313 431 100 87 174 67 73 1324 204 75 1730 109 500 402 555 129 105 221 91 103 1907 264 103 2728 139 15 464 725 152 126 302 118 131 2458 326 131 2856 166 30 538 817 175 139 360 136 146 2931 368 153 3287 185 45 588 949 201 158 423 153 155 3321 402 171 3681 203 600 15 MINUTE COUNTS Start Northbound Southbound Tm. Lt Thru Rt Lt Thru Rt Eastbound, Lt Thru Rt 400 94 118 24 28 45 26 25 264 53 15 86 116 23 20 43 13 17 338 55 3'0 64 90 29 17 45 12 18 379 50 45 69 107 24 22 41 16 13 343 46 500 89 124 29 18 47 24 30 583 60 15 62 170 23 21 81 27 28 551 62 30 74 92 23 13 58 18 15 473 42 45 50 132 26 19 63 17 9. 390 34 600 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Westbound Total Lt Thru Rt 14 398 32 1121 24 440 26 1201 25 473 30 1232 12 419 21 1133 28 998 30 2060 28 128 27 1208 22 431 19 1280 18 394 18 1170 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total 588 949 201 158 423 153 155 3321 402 171 3681 203 10405 HOURLY COUNTS. Start Northbound Tm. Lt Thru Rt Southbound Lt Thru Rt Eastbound Lt Thru Rt Westbound Total Lt Thru Rt 400 313 431 100 15 308 437 105 30 284 491 105 45 294 493 99 74 227 85 86 1950 210 90 1976 5~0U .... 275 518 10i 71 249 86 82 1997 .... 1--9~-- 96 1951 -~5 ........ O- '0 -'~ ....... 0 ....0 ...... 0" '0 ..... 0 0 0 0 30 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 45 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 600 87 174 67 73 1324 204' 75 1730 109 4687 77 176 65 78 1643 211 89 2330 107 5626 78 214 79 89 1856 218 93 2018 108 5633 97 5681 94 5718 0 0 0 0 0 0 Peak Hour 5718 Start Tm. -xNTERSECTION TURNING MOVEMENT ANALYSIS PROGRAM File: TUIRRETC North/South Street: REDHILL Project: SCIENTOLOGY East/West Street: Date of Count: 7/13/93 IRVINE Scenario/Date: Existing AM Peak Hour ' CUMULATIVE COUNTS ............. Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound Total Lt Thru Rt Lt Thru Rt Lt Thru Rt Lt Thru Rt 630 45 700 28 8 15 60 17 30 93 31 45 119 39 800 134 53 15 151 77 30 179 96 45 215 125 7 27 46 10 13 67 80 25 22 92 150 35 30 109 221 41 41 131 285 48 51 145 332 58 59 161 370 69 2 115 11 8 501 11 7 239 25 10 1030 26 12 377 57 29 1521 36 21 560 91 71 2101 39 27 682 115 93 2572 45 30 794 137 102 2998 49 33 908 155 123 3462 52 64 188 427 8i 35 1029 172 149 3825 68 ' - 15 MINUTE COUNTS ..... Start Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound Total Tm. Lt Thru Rt Lt Thru Rt Lt Thru Rt Lt Thru Rt ~o o o o o o ---~--' o o o .... ~ .... ~--- o ~ o o o o o o o o o o~o o o° 30 33 14 9 25 70 10 5 138 32 19 491 10 85 45 26 8 8 17 71 6 800 15 14 1 n~ - . 9 183 34 9 =o~ _ 6 15 17 ~ ._1 .~ 94 7 6 1~ ~A _4_~ ~ou J 987 45 q~ ~ _ ±~ 38 11 3 1~ ~=~ 4 698 ~ z~ b ~4 18 21 6 ~ ~ 27 57 12 2 ~ -- 4 4 3 743 u O 0 0 0 0 0 ~ ~ 206 3603 1~ 71~ Total 215 125 64 188 427 81 35 1029 172 149 3825 68 6378 .... HOURLY COUNTS ' - ............ .- ........... Start Northbound Southbound Eastbound WeStbound Tm. Lt Thru Rt Lt Thru Rt 700 60 17 13 67 80 25 15 93 31 22 92 150 35 Lt Thru Rt Lt Thru Rt Total 7 239 25 10 10J0 26 1599 12 377 57 29 1521 36 2455 __30 119 39 30 109 221 41 21 560 91 71 2101 39 3442 .............. 071 _ 3__~.4 345~---'"-- O0 91 60 38 - "~8 ..... ~2' '33'' 2"3 555 112 92 1968 23 3325 15 86 65 37 69 220 34 21 531 98 94 1941 16 3212 30 96 86 34 79 206 40 14 469 81 78 1724 29 2936 45 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Peak Hour 3452 Rock E. Miller & Associates Troffic & Transporfation Engineers P EC£ "V k-D, CO*,4MUNITY D£V£LOf%t, td.?4T ~¥._. January I2, 1995 Ms. Marie Murillo Church of Scientology of Orange County 1451 Irvine Boulevard Tustin, CA 92680 Subject: Parking Analysis for the Church of Scientology of Orange County in the City of Tustin Dear Ms. Murillo: Rock E. Miller and Associates has completed additional studies of parking needs for the' Church of scientology of Orange County~in the City of Tustin. A previous traffic and parking study was prepared for the project and accepted by the City. This supplemental report was prepared to provide additional information regarding parking needs for the proposed development. Please contact me if you have any questions about the report, or if you need additional information to complete your submittal to the City of Tustin. If there are any comments which require my response, or revisions required, please advise' me as soon as possible for prompt revision. Sincerely, /;/' Rock E. Miller, P.E. Principal scient2, stu\94 103 \BMH 17852 East Seventeenth Street, Suite 107, Tusfin, CA 92680 FAX (714) 573-9534 TEL. (714) 573-0317 Supplemental Parking Study for the Church of Scientology of Orange County in the City of Tustin Prepared for Church of Scientology of Orange County 1451 Irvine Boulevard Tustin, CA 92680 (714) 544-5491 January 14, Prepared by Rock E. Miller and Associates 17852 East 17th Street #107 Tustin, CA 92680 (714) 573-0317 PROJECT DESCRIPTION The City of Tustin has requested the Church of Scientology of Orange County to apply for a Use Permit for their existing facility located in the City of Tustin on the northwest corner of Red Hill Avenue and Irvine Boulevard. The address of the facility is 1451 Irvine Boulevard. The Church of Scientology occupies an existing development'which was constructed as an office complex. City building records indicate that the building gross floor area is approximately 22,584 square feet (sf). While the building occupant is a Church, the use of the existing buildings more closely resembles a combination of office and school uses. The hours of operation are from 9:00 am to 10:00 pm, Monday-Sunday. The parking on the site for the Church is currently 100 stalls. The Parking requirement for assembly areas in churches is greater than the parking requirement for office areas. The continued use of the site as a Church may result in parking needs greater than the parking supply on the site. If the parking requirement identified by the City Code for the Church is not met on site, the project will require a variance from the required.parking. ., The Church is proposing to provide additional parking at an office building located across Irvine Boulevard from the Church at 1442 Irvine Boulevard. This off-site parking is proposed to address any deficiency between the parking needs of the Church and the parking provided. SUMMARY OF PREVIOUS STUDY Rock E. Miller and Associates previously prepared a traffic and parking study for the Church. That study identified the extent of traffic impacts and the existing parking demand resulting from the current use of the site. Traffic impacts from the Church were found to be comparable, to a typical office use for the site. The volume of traffic attributed to the site is not resulting in a significant traffic impact at the intersection of Red Hill and Irvine. The parking studies for the site determined that the peak parking requirement occurs during weekday evenings, when up to 127 vehicles were parked on the site or in other areas attributable to use of the site. The Church parking area currently provides 100 stalls. The overflow parking, approximately 30 vehicles, is being met by the office building across the street. The Church leases about 4000 square feet of office space in this building. This area, when occupied, would generate a parking demand of 16 vehicles according to the City Code, so approximately 14 vehicles parked in this area on evenings can be attributed to overflow from the Church. Parking studies taken at times other than weekday evenings identified that a surplus of unused parking spaces normally exists on the site. The existing 100 stall parking lot is meeting the needs of the existing Church operation, except on weekday evenings. Ail parking studies included investigations whether vehicles were parked along Irvine Boulevard in front of the Church or on Red Hill near the site. Vehicles were generally not found to be parking in these areas. Parking studies included in the previous traffic and parking study are also included in this supplemental parking study, so that all available parking information for the proposed project is available from one study. EXISTING BUILDING FLOOR UTILIZATION The City of Tustin must establish an "Ordinance Requirement" for parking for the Church, and determine if the site parking meets this ordinance requirement. The City Code indicates that a rate of 1 stall per 50 square feet should be applied to the area occupied for assembly and a rate of 1 stall per 250 square feet should be applied to all other building areas. This requires a determination of the area occupied for assembly. Rock E. Miller and Associates inspected each room on the premises and determined that the building floor area is being used approxi- mately as follows: o Offices 75% o Classrooms 20% o Chapel 5% The Church measured the floor area and categorized the usage of 20,112 sf of interior floor space. The remaining 2500 sf is attributed to thickness of walls, interior hallways, or other areas with indefinite uses. Rock E. Miller and Associates measured the developed area of the Church along its exterior walls and found 22,144 square feet, only 440 feet (2%) less than City building records. Church staff have been concerned with the accuracy of the floor area indicated in building records, however Rock E. Miller and Associates would accept that the area indicated in the City records is the true'area .of the building. The proportion of usage for the entire site is estimated from Church measurements as follows: Offices 13,249 sf 59% Counseling 1,794 sf 8% Assembly 853 sf 4% Classrooms 4,216 sf 19% Other 2,472 sf 11% TOTAL 22,584 sf 100% The City staff examined the use of the counseling rooms and determined that these areas could be considered office uses for purposes of calculating parking requirements. They also reviewed the use of the classrooms and concluded that these rooms should be classified as assembly areas. Ail interior areas except rooms designated for classes or assembly uses should be considered office uses. This would include hallways, rest rooms, reception areas, closets, and any other area within the exterior walls of the facility. This is normal practice for application of code parking requirements in most cities. The ordinance requirement for parking for the Church is calculated as follows: Gross Parking Parking Area Use Floor Area Rate Number Assembly 4154 1/50 83 Theater/Chapel 915 1/50 18 Office 17515 1/250 70 TOTAL 22584 171 A chapel and two small theaters are included in the assembly area. The'City staff indicated that these uses could be separated from the other assembly areas and treated differently for parking requirements, if they are never used concurrently with .the classrooms. The chapel and theaters are never used concurrently with full occupancy of the classrooms. Entire classes vacate the classroom seating areas and go to the theater to view films. After the films are shown, these groups return to their classrooms. The chapel is used "informally" for small services. It is not used for scheduled services during times that the classrooms are in use. The theater and chapel areas can be separately identified and discounted, because they are never used concurrently with the classrooms. The parking demand for these areas can thus be eliminated from the calculation of overall parking requirements. The parking requirement for the Church, excluding the theater and chapel area, is calculated as follows: Gross Parking Parking Area Use Floor Area Rate Number Assembly 4154 1/50 83 Theater/Chapel 915 0 0 Office 17515 1/250 .70 TOTAL 22584 153 Our previous parking demand studies identified a peak parking demand of 127 vehicles. This. is lower than the 171 stall requirement indicated by the City Code and the 153 stall requirement shown above. In examining the occupancy of each room, we have concluded that the number of persons in the classrooms is much lower than the parking generation expected~for these rooms at one vehicle per fifty square feet. This is because most assembly areas provide a maximum amount of seating within the assembly area, such as theater seats or school desks. The classrooms at the Church have large tables and library/reference facilities around the perimeter of the rooms. They more closely resemble a library than a classroom. The difference between the calculated code requirement for the Church and the observed parking demand is thus attributed to the use of the assembly rate for the classroom areas, because the occUpancy of these rooms is normally lower than 20 persons per 1000 square feet. Additional information on existing parking utilization is provided in a subsequent section of this report. PROPOSED BUILDING FLOOR UTILIZATION The Church is proposing to reduce the amount of floor area in the project to be used for classroom and assembly activities. This would be accomplished by reducing the number of classrooms and increasing the occupancy level in the remaining rooms to a level closer to the amount anticipated by the City Code. The proposed space utilization plan provides for 3100 square feet to be used as classrooms. The remainder of the site would not be used for assembly purposes. This proposal is not expected to change the actual parking demand for the facility. The ordinance requirement for parking for the proposed space utilization is calculated as follows: Gross Parking Parking Area Use Floor Area Rate Number Assembly 2861 1/50 57 Theater/Chapel 915 1/50 18 Office 18808 1/250 75 TOTAL 22584 150 It will still be proper under the proposed plan to discount the area occupied by the theater and the chapel. The parking requirement for the remaining areas is as follows: Gross Parking Parkinq Area Use Floor Area Rate Number Assembly 2861 1/50 57 Theater/Chapel 915 0 0 Office 18808 1/250 75 TOTAL 22584 132 This calculation, 132 stalls, is verY close to the highest observed parking use of the facility, 127 stalls. PARKING UTILIZATION The Church of Scientology does not experience parking demands similar to other churches. It has higher weekday and evening parking requirements than other churches, because services and instruction are provided by the Church during these times. It is necessary to establish the existing parking utilization pattern for the Church on a 24-hour basis, over a 7-day period, to determine the parking needs for the Church at any time. This will determine when the needs for off-site parking are greatest. The office building parking 1-ot for 1442 Irvine Boulevard is proposed for off-site parking for the Church. The availability of this site for off-site parking must be considered on the same weekly basis as the Church parking requirement. Rock E. Miller and Associates collected a representative amount of parking data for inclusion in the initial traffic and parking study for the development. We have collected additional parking data for the Church and for the office building, to identify the current parking trends for the study area. Parking studies for the sit~e and for the office building were conducted on representative weekdays and weekends, to determine normal parking patterns for the site. Counts of vehicles parked on the site were taken at appropriate intervals throughout various typical weekdays and weekends. Counts were also taken in the parking area across the street. There are several observed methods and areas where motorists may double park in the Church parking lot. These include the trash enclosure area, the bicycle parking area, and several areas near the northwest corner of the parcel. These parking areas would not comply with the City Code and cannot be used to meet minimum parking requirements. These areas do make it possible for the site to have more parked vehicles than the striped capacity of the lot. This type of parking is considered undesirable. Parking is currently allowed on Irvine Boulevard near the site. Parking is also allowed along Red Hill adjacent to the office building. Any cars parked on these frontages were routinely included in parking utilization counts for the two sites. City staff have expressed concerns over potential Church parking on Kenneth Drive, a local residential street north of the study site. Parking patterns on this street were frequently observed during other parking studies. It is not possible to accurately determine the purpose for parking on this street, but parking in this area was never observed to exhibit any pattern unusual for a single family residential area. We do not believe that any Church related parking occurred on this street during any survey. The results of the initial parking utilization studies are shown in Table 1. All tables indicate the number of parked vehicles on the relevant sites during the study period. Table 1 INITIAL PARKING UTILIZATION STUDIES (Summer, 1993) pay Scientology Time Church Lot 1442 Irvine Blvd Office Lot Total Mon 7/12/93 10:45 am 61 n/a n/a Mon 7/12/93 2:30 pm 54 n/a n/a Mon'7/12/93 4:45 pm 61 n/a n/a Mon 7/12/93 8:35 pm 88 n/a n/a Sat 7/17/93 10:45 am 80 n/a n/a Sat 7/17/93 11:50 am 72 n/a n/a Sat 7/17/93 2:30 pm 113, 12 125 Sat 7/17/93 4:00 pm 80 n/a n/a Sat 7/24/93 2:30'pm 80 n/a n/a NOTE: * Included 12 vehicles parked, in the Street, and six vehicles double parked on site. The staff of the Church of Scientology indicated that a unusual special event was being held at the facility on Saturday, July 17, attended by 45 persons who are not normally on the site. These persons did not know where to park properly. Rock E. Miller and Associates inspected the site on the following Saturday to determine if parking demands were similar to the previous week. This survey identified many fewer parked vehicles in the Church site, and the amount observed was comparable to the weekday surveys. The July 24 experience is more realistic of a typical weekend.. The City staff indicated Upon initial review of this 'report that the site had a history of overflow parking problems, and that more studies should be taken, particularly on weekends and evenings. Table 2 indicates the results of supplemental parking studies taken for the site. These studies indicated more clearly that a significant number of vehicles are parking across the street from the site during weekday evenings. Since office would normally be closed during these hours, most of these vehicles would be attributed to the Church. Table 2 SUPPLEMENTAL PARKING STUDIES (Summer, 1993) Dav _ Scientology Time Church Lot 1442 Irvine Blvd Office Lot Total Tue 8/31/93 8:10 pm 84 43 127 Wed 9/1/93 8:20 pm 88 39 127 Thu 9/9/93 8:00 pm 88 32 120 Sat 9/4/93 8':15 pm 25 3 28 Sun 9/5/93 2:00 pm 72 8 80 Sat 9/11/93 11:00 am 84 5 89 Note: No vehicles were observed parking on-street on Irvine Boulevard adjacent to the Church or on Red Hill adjacent to the office building for any survey in Table 2. All vehicles in the lot for 1442 Irvine Blvd were included in these counts. Table 3 SUPPLEMENTAL PARKING STUDIES (1994) Day Scientology Time Church Lot Mon 9/19/94 Tue 9/20/94 Wed 9/21/94 Thu 9/22/94 Mon 9/26/94 8:05 pm 79 8:55 pm 102' 8:00 pm 96 8:30 pm 94 7:50 pm 77 Thu 10/20/94 5:25 pm Fri 10/21/94 10:30 am Fri 10/21/94 11:15 am Fri 10/21/94 2:35 pm Fri 10/21/94 5:50 pm Fri 10/21/94 8:37 pm Sat 10/22/94 Sat 10/22/94 Sat 10/22/94 Sat 10/22/94 Sat 10/22/94 Sun 10/23/94 9:45 am 1:28 pm 3:00 pm 4:05 pm 7:45 pm 9:40 am Sun 10/23/94 11:30 am Sun 10/23/94 7:30 pm Mon 10/24/94 11:00 am Mon 10/24/94 4:00 pm 1442 Irvine Blvd Office Lot Total 31 110 23 125 19 105 11 105 38 115 46 23 69 65 46 111 59 43 102 63 45 102 60 12 72 61 5 66 78 25 103 100 4 104 99 4 103 95 1 96 35 5 40 76 1 77 81 26** 107 40 2 42 67 6'0 127 64 22 86 Notes: * Two cars on-street included. 11 cars attributed to Hope Christian Church. 41 cars were parked on the Church property and 5 cars on property west of the Church. CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY PARKING DEMAND ANALYSIS 'The parking data colleCted above was classified by appropriate time period to evaluate the typical daily and weekly.parking behavior for each site. The appropriate periods identified for analysis are weekday (AM, PM, and evening), Saturday (AM, PM, and evening), and Sunday (AM, PM, and evening). Table 4 classifies each of the parking observations made for the Scientology Church by appropriate time period, and presents the average and peak observation for each period. Cars parked at the office building on evenings and weekends are included in the data, unless noted otherwise. Cars parked at the office building during normal business hours are not reflected in the table. Table 4 SCIENTOLOGY CHURCH RELATED PARKING Average Peak Weekday AM .PM 61 54 65 61 59 46 67 63 60 64 Saturday Sunday Eve .AM .pM Eve AM PM 88* 127 127. 120 125 125 10.5 105. 115 66*** 80 113 28 72 80 40 89 80 103 104 103 96 Eve 77 80 40 107,* 63 58 110 86 96 34 92 80 40 67 64 127 103 113 40 107 80 40 Notes: * - Count excluded probable parking at office building. ** - Count included 11 vehicles for Hope Church. *** - Friday count. All Other weekday eves are Mo-Thu. All counts denoted by *'s are excluded from average or peak. All evening and weekend counts include office parking. These parking studies would indicate that the site has adequate parking on weekdays. The highest observed parking count during weekdays is 67 vehicles. Over 30 stalls in the Church parking lot were vacant during these hours. We have conducted numerous informal drive-by surveys of the property over the past 12 months and verified that the Church lot is never utilized greater than the indicated amount on weekday mornings and afternoons. The parking provided on site is adequate to meet the needs of the Church on weekdays during normal business hours. The supply at the Church is regularly being exceeded on weekday nights. The supply is also being occasionally exceeded -on Saturdays and Sundays. On these occasions, the parking in the office building was regularly utilized for overflow parking. The Church will require an off-site parking arrangement to meets is 10 parking demands on evenings and weekends. On the basis of the information available, Rock E. Miller and Associates would recommend a minimum parking supply for the Church at 130 stalls on evenings and weekends. OFFICE BUILDING PARKING DEMAND ANALYSIS The office building at 1442 Irvine Boulevard has 33,820 square feet of leasable area, according to the owners records. The site provides 127 parking stalls, while the City Code would suggest a parking requirement for this building of 136 stalls. The true area of' the building is probably closer to. 32,000 square feet. Regardless of the true area, the building does not have any significant amount of parking available in excess of the City Code. Parking surveys taken at the office building during normal business hours show that the peak parking demand was 46 vehicles. The peak number occurred on a Friday morning. There were 81 vacant stalls at this-time. Rock E. Miller and Associates inspected the premises and estimated that the current occupancy rate for the building is approximately 80%. The owner of the building indicated that 6848 square feet (20%) of building area is currently aVailable for lease. This would indicate a potential parking demand for the building at full occupancy of less than 60 stalls, based upon the parking demand for the existing tenants. It should be noted that the Church of Scientology currently leases 3360 square feet of office space in the building for use as admini- strative offices, so up to 13 parking spaces for the office building could be attributed to this use. For this report, we have attributed all after-hours and weekend use of the office parking to off-site uses, primarily the Church of Scientology. The office building would not be appropriate for off-site parking for the Church of Scientology during normal business hours. The City Code would not recognize the availability of any parking surplus on the site. Also future office building tenants may likely require more daytime parking than the current tenants. We would not recommend any off-site parking arrangement during work hours for the proposed combination of uses. On weekends and evenings, the office building is currently providing off-site parking for the Church of Scientology. This arrangement was created when the Church leased approximately 4000 square feet of office space in the building. Also, on Sundays there is incidental use of the office building parking area (approximately 10 vehicles) by the Hope Christian Church. The highest observed demand for the office building parking area during evenings and weekends was 43 vehicles (and 87 vacant 11 spaces). The potential demand for future parking on evenings and weekends at the site will not change significantly with variations in occupancy of the office building. HOPE CHRISTIAN CHURCH PARKING Most of the noted parking demand on weekends and evenings at the office building at 1442 Irvine Boulevard is attributed to the Church of Scientology. Exceptions include approximately 12 parked vehicles for the Hope Christian Church during Sunday morning services, and a very small amount of after-hours parking for office building tenants. A reciprocal parking agreement exists between the Hope Christian Church (HCC) an the office building, however we understand that this agreement or the parking involved is not required by any City permit. It is voluntary and cancelable at any time by either party. The HCC uses the property for parking on an incidental basis, however Sunday usage is light (12 spaces). Also, the parking was observed to be used solely for convenience, and not to meet overflow demand from the HCC. An additional office bUilding, Cooksey Howard Martin & Toolen Law Offices, 1352 Irvine Boulevard, is located to the west of the HCC. There is a shared parking agreement between the HCC and this office building, and this agreement is required by the City Use permit for the two uses. There are 126 parking stalls, combined, in the HCC lot and in the lot at 1352 Irvine Boulevard. On October 23, 1994 during Sunday services, there were 41 vehicles on the Church property and 5 vehicles in the office lot at 1352 Irvine Boulevard. There appears to be plentiful parking provided for the HCC during Sunday services in its own lot and the lot intended for its use to the northwest. This is in addition to the 80-plus stalls which are normally vacant at 1442 Irvine Boulevard. PARKING SUPPLY The existing Church of Scientology of Orange County has 100 parking spaces. A site study by Rock E. Miller and Associates has determined that the parking supply can be restriped to 111 stalls by providing 22 compact stalls and by creating parking stalls in the connecting aisle near'the northwest corner of the intersection. Figure 1 shows the recommended configuration. 12 I~Jllll~lllI~ll I~l~ I I ~ I I I ~ I I l,l~l~l~~ ~ 27' ~ ~ I~ I - u I I ~ ,, . t I~ ~ I ~ , I ~ I ~", Red Hill Avenue Parking Provided (Existing) 100 (Proposed) 111 Compoct Porkin~ 22 stolls (20g) Ch urch of Scien tology Re vised Site Plan This would leave a 42 stall deficit from the 153-stall code requirement for the existing space utilization and a 21-stall deficit for the proposed space utilization (132 stalls). It would leave a deficit of 19 stalls from our recommended minimum evening/weekend parking supply of 130 stalls. The weekday maximUm parking utilization is 67 stalls, so the proposed parking plan would result in a minimum of 44 vacant stalls during weekday working hours. There is no deficit on weekdays during work hours. The weekend/evening deficit can be addressed by off-site parking in the office building across the street. A variance will be required to allow for the existing use, if the site provides less parking than indicated by the code. It is common for churches to be granted variances from required parking, when the weekday business hour parking needs of the Church can be met on the church site, and off-site parking can be provided at other times during potential hours of worship services. Office or industrial buildings are frequently used as off-site parking areas for these churches. There are several examples of this in Tustin. This type of variance can be justified for the ChUrch of Scientology, on the basis that weekday parking requirements are well within the parking supply provided on the site, and parking requirements during hours of peak worship can be met through off- site parking. The Church currently leases approximately 3360 sf of office space in the Red Hill Plaza Office building directly across the street at 1442 Irvine Boulevard. This development has 127 parking stalls. The leased space is utilized by Church employees, including instructors who occasionally conduct classes or services across the street on the main Church campus. This lease would inherently allow the use of 1 parking stall for each 250 square feet of leased building (14 stalls). The 111 proposed stalls on site together with the 14 leased stalls off-site would result in 127 parking stalls currently available for Church use without restrictions. This supply would meet the observed peak evening parking demand of the Church, however it would still fall five stalls short of the 132-stall requirement,- based upon the City Code, excluding the theater and chapel. It is also less than 'the 150-stall code requirement. The building owner is receptive to informally allowing the use of 30-40 parking stalls on evenings and weekends in conjunction with the proposed use permit. Virtually all other tenants in the complex are not open for business during evenings and weekends; so there is a large quantity of surplus parking available during these times. The owner is hesitant to allow a formal arrangement upon the office property that would require a variance. 14 RECOMMENDATION Rock' E. Miller and Associates recommends that the City find that the parking provided on site is adequate to meet the needs of the Church daytime and on weekends, however additional parking will be required to meet the weekday night requirements of the Church. This demand would be met in the 127-stall office parking lot across the street. The Church of Scientology does not require the additional parking during normal business office hours. The parking overflow for the Church of Scientology is only required on Weekday evenings and on weekends, when the office building parking would always be nearly vacant. The Church currently has parking needs which are greater than their own parking lot can provide, but the site is currently being managed to minimize overflow parking problems. There is no continuous or regular usage of the on-street parking areas on Irvine Boulevard adjacent to the site, on Red Hill adjacent to the office across the street, or on neighborhood streets north, of the Church. Signs are in place directing persons to'park in the office building parking lot on evenings and weekends, and the Church has already secured parking privileges at the office building through its lease of space at the building. Rock E. Miller and Associates would recommend that the City require the Church'to continue to lease space in the building across the street and continue to provide overflow parking suitable to meet the demands of the facility on evenings as a condition of the proposed use permit. The property owner of the office building has indicated agreement to informally allow 30 or more parking spaces for the Church on weekends. The actual lease document and posting of the Church lot would be appropriate proof, and these could be incorporated as conditions in the proposed use permit. If the Church terminates the lease or loses parking privileges across the street, it will be necessary to reevaluate its own parking requirements. If the lease is terminated, the Church will also likely require reallocation of its own space utilization, to make room for administrative staff who currently have offices across the street. This could result in a reduction in parking requirements .on the Church site. Since a variance must be obtained, it will be necessary to find justification for the variance. -This must normally be related to the size, shape, or other unusual feature of the site, when compared with similar properties. The most obvious justification is that the use does not explicitly correspond with the various uses with parking requirements tabulated in the City Code. The Assembly area rate clearly over-predicts the amount of parking 15 required for the property, and the full parking needs of the Church can clearly be met by providing less parking. There is a trend toward allowing variances from on-site parking requirements for churches when it is clear that off-site parking will be available. The Hope Christian Church across from the Scientology Church provides substantially less parking than its building would require by the City Code. A Church on Franklin Street and another Church on Walnut Avenue in an industrial area of the City also rely upon parking off-site. There may be other examples of this type of shared parking for churches within the City. We believe that the City can likely find reasonable grounds for a variance based upon treatment of similar properties and ~other factors~ These would include our parking studies which demonstrate that adequate parking is currently'being provided on-site or off- site and that a large surplus exists off-site during the peak hour of parking demand. Finally, the City can include conditions in the proposed Use Permit to"'assure that the Church demonstrates and maintains the right to park vehicles in appropriate areas off-site during non-work hours. Also, enrollment at the site could be limited to avoid any parking problems during normal work hours. 16 10 11 12 13 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 28 RESOLUTION NO. 3334 'A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN, CERTIFYING THE FINAL NEGATIVE DECLARATION AS ADEQUATE FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 93-011 AND VARIANCE 93-002 INCLUDING REQUIRED FINDINGS PURSUANT TO THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT. The Planning Commission of the City of Tustin does hereby resolve as follows: The Planning Commission finds and determines as follows: ao The request to approve Conditional Use Permit 93- 011 and Variance 93-002 are considered "projects" pursuant to the terms of the California Environmental Quality Act. Be A Negative Declaration has been prepared for this project and has been distributed for public review. Co Whereby, the Planning Commission of the City of Tustin has considered evidence presented by the Community Development Director and other interested parties with respect to the subject Negative Declaration. De The Planning Commission has evaluated the proposed final Negative Declaration and determined it to be adequate and complete. II. A Final Negative Declaration has. been completed in compliance with CEQA and State guidelines. The Planning Commission, having final approval authority over Conditional Use Permit 93-011 and Variance 93-002, has received and considered the information contained in the Negative Declaration, prior to approving the proposed project, and found that it adequately discussed the environmental effects of the proposed project. The Planning Commission has found that the project involves no potential for an adverse effect, either individually or cumulatively, on wildlife resources and, makes a De Minimis Impact Finding related to AB3158, Chapter 1206, Statutes of 1990. On the basis of the initial study and comments received during the public review process, the Planning Commission has found that although the proposed projects could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect on it in this case because mitigation measures identified in the Negative Declaration have been incorporated into the project which mitigate any potential significant environmental effects to a point where clearly no significant effect would occur and~ are identified in Exhibit A to the attached Negative Declaration and 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2¸0 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Resolution No. 3334 Page 2 Initial Study and are adopted as findings and conditions of Resolution Nos. 3335 and 3336, incorporated herein by reference. PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Tustin Planning Commission, held on the 13th day of Februrary, 1995. A.L. BAKER Chairperson BARBARA REYES 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. 3334 was duly passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the Tustin Planning Commission, held on the 13th day of February, 1995. BARBARA REYES Recording Secretary RESOLUTION NO. 3335 10 11 12 13 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 28 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN APPROVING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 93-011, AUTHORIZING AN EXISTING MOTIVATIONAL SCHOOL TO OCCUPY THE ENTIRE OFFICE COMPLEX WITHIN THE PROFESSIONAL (PR) DISTRICT LOCATED AT 1451 IRVINE BOULEVARD, TUSTIN, CA. The Planning Commission of the City of Tustin does hereby resolve as follows: The Planning Commission finds and determines as follows: A, That a proper application, Conditional Use Permit 93-011 was filed by Ms. Marie Murillo on behalf .of the Church of Scientology to authorize an existing motivational school to occupy an entire office complex within the Professional (Pr) District pursuant to City Code Section 9231(d) and located at 1451 Irvine Boulevard, Tustin, California. That a public hearing was duly called, noticed and held for said application on February 13 1995 by the Planning Commission. C . That the establishment, maintenance, and operation of the motivational school (church) use applied for will not, under the circumstances of this case, be detrimental to the health, safety, morals, comfort, or general welfare of the persons residing or working in the neighborhood of such proposed' use nor be a detriment to the property and improvements in the neighborhood, of the subject property, nor to the general welfare of the City of Tustin as evidenced by the following findings: 1. The C~hurch of Scientology has been located at the site since 1975, and no complaints regarding its operation are on record with the City of Tustin Police Department or the Orange County Sheriff. . The use is compatible with the surrounding existing commercial/office and institutional uses. The church use would not be expected to have~ any additional impacts in terms of traffic than would similar existing office developments. 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Resolution No. 3335 Page 2 E , . As conditioned, any potential adverse impacts to the adjacent residential areas related to noise, land use, and transportation and circulation will be mitigated through conditions of approval. These conditions would require that church activities take place indoors and be limited to certain hours, that the number of attendants be limited, and that additional mitigation be imposed if determined to be necessary. , The Church of Scientology operates within an existing single story building that is in scale with the surrounding existing commercial and residential structures and is of a compatible architectural design with adjacent commercial structures. , The amount of provided parking should be sufficient to accOmmodate the use based on the infrequent use of the film room and chapel, and the thirteen parking spaces available on week nights and weekends at 1442 Irvine Boulevard. In addition, the on-site circulation and has been designed to reduce the potential for traffic conflicts by providing adequate drive aisle widths and maneuvering space. . Parking demand would be monitored periodically on an informal basis. In the event that the City is made aware of parking problems at the subject site and an updated parking demand analysis indicates that parking has become inadequate, the applicant will be required to implement additional mitigation measures .approved by the Community Development and Public Works Departments within an established time schedule. A Negative Declaration has been prepared and certified for this project in accordance with provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act. - 1 10 11 12 13 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 r26 28 Resolution No. 3335 Page 3 II. The Planning Commission hereby approves Conditional Use Permit 93-011 authorizing an existing motivational school to occupy an entire office complex within the Professional (Pr) District pursuant to City Code Section 9231(d) and located at 1451 Irvine Boulevard, Tustin, California, 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 13th day of February, 1995. A.L. BAKER Chairman BARBARA REYES 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. 3335 was duly passed and adopted at a ~regular meeting of the Tustin Planning Commission, held on the .13th day of February, 1995. BARBARA REYES Recording Secretary EXHIBIT A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 93-011 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL RESOLUTION NO. 3335 GENERAL (1) 1.1 The proposed project shall substantially conform with the submitted plans for the project date stamped February 13, 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 of Community Development may also approve subsequent minor modifications to plans during plan check if such modifications are to be consistent with provisions of the 'Tustin City Code. (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 Conditional Use Permit approval shall become null and void unless all permits are issued and substantial construction is underway for the interior and parking lot improvements within twelve (12) months of the date of this Exhibit. Time extensions may be granted by the Planning Commission if a written request is received by the Community Development Department within thirty (30) days prior to expiration. (1) 1.4 Approval of Conditional Use Permit 93-011 is contingent upon the applicant/property owner signing and returning an "Agreement to Conditions Imposed" form as established by the Director of Community Development. (1) 1.5 The applicant shall hold and defend the .City of Tustin harmless for all claims and liabilities arising out of City's approval of the entitlement process for this project. SOURCE CODES (1) STANDARD CONDITION (5) RESPONSIBLE AGENCY REQUIREMENT (2) CEQA MITIGATION (6) LANDSCAPING GUIDELINES (3) UNIFORM BUILDING CODE/S (7) PC/CC POLICY (4) DESIGN REVIEW * * * EXCEPTION Exhibit A - Conditions of Approval Resolution No. 3335 Conditional Use Permit 93-011 Page 2 PLAN SUBMITTAL (3) 2.1 At building plan check submittal the following shall be provided:' (3) A. (3) B. 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. 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. In °rder'to renew action on all expired building permits, the permits shall be 'renewed and the permittee shall pay the new full permit fees. In addition,-~the appliCant shall obtain new permits for all work done without necessary permits. Per Uniform ~Administrative Code Sec. 302, every such permit application shall: a . b. Identify and describe the work to be covered by the permit for which application is made. Describe the land on which 'the proposed work is to be done by legal description, street address or similar description that will readily identify and definitely locate the proposed building or work. C · Indicate the use or occupancy for which the proposed work is intended. d~ Be accompanied by an as-built plan complete with ,details, diagrams, computations and specifications. The plans and specifications ' 'shall be drawn to scale upon substantial paper and of sufficient clarity. The plans shall show the existing and proposed work to be done. State the valuation of any addition, remodeling or alteration to the existing building. f. Be signed by the applicant. Exhibit A - Conditions of Approval Resolution No. 3335 Conditional Use Permit 93-011 Page 3 SITE AND BUILDING CONDITIONS (4) 3.1 Ail parking stall markings shall be repainted. (4) 3.2 Ail damaged parking lot light fixtures shall be repaired. (6) 3.3 Ail parking lot landscape planters shall be planted with vegetation, consistent with the City's Landscape and Irrigation Guidelines, and maintained in a healthy condition free of weeds and dead plant material. (4) 3.4 Ail site alterations shall conform to the parking and landscaping criteria of the City of Tustin to the greatest extent possible which will 'be verified at plan check and inspected by the Community Development Department. USE RESTRICTIONS/OPERATIONS (1) 4.1 Ail requirements of the City's Noise Ordinance (Chapter 6 of the Municipal COde) shall be met at all times, which, in part, requires noise levels not to exceed 60 dba at any time. *** 4.2 Ail activities directly related to the Church of Scientology at 1451 Irvine Boulevard shall take place on the subject property within the buildings. ***.· 4.3 Services, classes, and personal study shall be limited to the hours between 9:00 a.m. and 10:30 p.m., seven days a week. Hours of operation for the 15,000 square feet of office and administration uses shall'not be restricted, as those uses are outright permitted in the Professional District. *** 4.4 Based on 111 on-site parking spaces provided, the number of attendants including staff persons and office and administrative personnel present at any one time on the site shall be limited to 222 individuals. This number is derived from the City Code requirement of one (1) parking space for each two (2) students at maximum enrollment. This method of calculating required parking spaces is applied to professional, instructional, motivational and/or seminar schools in the Professional District when the number of students is intensive and would therefore require a greater number of parking spaces than would the square footage method of one (1) parking space for each fifty (50) square.feet of occupied area. If the number of provided parking spaces were increased and an amendment to the subject Conditional Use Permit and Variance were obtained, the maximum number of attendants may be increased accordingly. Exhibit A - Conditions of Approval Resolution No. 3335 Conditional Use Permit 93-011- Page 4 *** 4.5 If at any time in the future the City is made aware that a parking and/or traffic problem exists on the site at 1451 Irvine Boulevard or in the vicinity as a result of the Church use, the Community Development and Public Works Departments may require the applicant to submit an updated parking demand analysis and/or traffic study, at the applicant's sole cost within the time schedule stipulated by the City. If said study indicates that there is inadequate parking or a traffic problem, the applicant shall be required to provide additional mitigation measures to be reviewed and approved by the Community Development and Public Works Departments. Said mitigation may include, but not be limited to, the following: Establish alternate hours of operation. Conversion of assembly/classrooms to offices. Failure to adequately respond to such a request and to implement mitigation measures within the time schedules established shall be grounds for initiation of revocation procedures for the Variance and Conditional Use Permit for the project. *** 4.6 Church members and other users of the facility shall be notified in writing that acceptable parking is available on-site and within a maximum'of thirteen (13) spaces at 1442 Irvine Boulevard. Said notice shall be reviewed and approved by the Community Development Department. Said notice shall graphically illustrate the subject parking lot at 1442 Irvine Boulevard and shall also indicate that no parking shall be located in the adjacent residential areas on Cameo Drive, Kenneth Drive, or Keith Place and that the City reserves the right to remove on-street parking on Irvine Boulevard and Redhill Avenue. *** 4.7 If the Church terminates its lease or reduces the amount of leased square footage at 1442 Irvine Boulevard, the Community Development Department may require the applicant to submit an updated parking demand analysis and/or traffic study at the applicant's sole cost. If said study indicates that there is inadequate parking or a traffic problem, the applicant shall be required to provide mitigation measures to be reviewed and approved by the Planning Commission. Exhibit A - Conditions of Approval Resolution No. 3335 Conditional Use Permit 93-011 Page 5 FEES (1) 5.1 Payment of all BUilding plan check and permit fees, including any applicable fees for work without permits, shall be made prior to the issuance of any building permits in accordance with the Tustin City Code. Payment will be required based upon those rates in effect at the time of payment and are subject to change. *** 5.2 Within forty-eight (48) hours of approval of the subject (5) project, the applicant shall deliver to the Community Development Department, a cashier's check payable to the COUNTY CLERK in the amount of $25.00 (twenty five dollars) 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. SR:br 1 RESOLUTION NO. 3336 10 11 12 13 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 - 27 28 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN, APPROVING VARIANCE 93-002 TO REDUCE THE REQUIRED NUMBER OF PARKING SPACES FROM 150 SPACES TO 111 SPACES ON THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 1451 IRVINE BOULEVARD, TUSTIN. The Planning Commission of the City of Tustin does hereby resolve as follows: I. The Planning Commission finds and determines as follows: a. That a proper application, Variance 93-002, has been filed by Ms. Marie Murillo on behalf of the Church of Scientology to reduce the required the required number of parking spaces from 150 spaces to 111 spaces on the property located at 1451 Irvine Boulevard, Tustin. C . That a public hearing was duly noticed, called and held by the Planning Commission on February 13, 1995. The Planning Commission has reviewed the subject request for a variance to reduce the required number of parking spaces and has made the following findings: The granting of the Variance would' not constitute a special privilege ~as the Church would be required to limit operations such that parking demand would not be expected to exceed parking supply. Furthermore, parking demand would be monitored and additional mitigation measures would be required in the event that provided parking becomes inadequate. , There are special circumstances related to the site, particularly the location and surroundings of the parcel, which 'deprive the subject p~operty of privileges enjoyed by neighboring properties. The subject property is bordered on two sides by existing residential properties and on two sides by roadways. The existing single story buildings on the property occupy more land area than would a multi-story building of the same total square footage. Maintaining the existing structures has less of an impact on, and creates greater compatibility of scale with, the adjacent residential units to the north and west than would a newly constructed multi- story building at the same location. 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Resolution No. 3336 Page 2 D , A Negative Declaration has been prepared and certified for this project in accordance with the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act. II. The Plannin~ Commission hereby approves Variance 93-002 to reduce the required number of parking spaces from 150 spaces to 111 spaces on the property located at 1451 Irvine Boulevard, Tustin, subject to the conditions attached hereto as Exhibit A and as contained in Exhibit A of Planning Commission- Resolution No. 3335, incorporated herein by reference. PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Tustin Planning Commission, held on the 13th day of February, 1995.~ A.L. Baker Chairperson BARBARA REYES 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. 3336 was duly passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the Tustin Planning Commission, held on the 13th day of February, 1995. BARBARA REYES Recording Secretary EXHIBIT A RESOLUTION NO. 3336 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL VARIANCE 93-002 GENERAL (1) 1.1 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) 1.2 Variance 93-002 approval is contingent upon approval of Conditional Use Permit 93-011. In the event that Conditional Use Permit 93-011 is not approved or approval for Conditional Use Permit 93- 011 expires, Variance 93-002 approval shall become null and void. (1) 1.3 The applicant shall hold harmless and defend the City of Tustin for all claims and liabilities arising out of the City's approval of the entitlement process for this project. (1) 1.4 Approval of Variance 93-002 is contingent upon the applicant/property owner signing and returning an "Agreement to Conditions Imposed" form, as established by the Director of Community Development. SOURCE CODES (1) STANDARD CONDITION (5) RESPONSIBLE AGENCY REQUIREMENT (2)" CEQA MITIGATION (6) LANDSCAPING GUIDELINES (3) UNIFORM BUILDING CODE/S (7) PC/CC' POLICY (4) DESIGN REVIEW *** EXCEPTION ITEM NO. 6 , .;port to the Planning Commission DATE: FEBRUARY 13, 1995 SUBJECT: CITY COUNCIL ACTION AGENDA - FEBRUARY 6, 1995 PRESENTATION: CHRISTINE SHINGLETON, ASSISTANT CITY MANAGER ATTACF_MENT: CITY COUNCIL ACTION AGENDA - FEBRUARY 6, 1995 ACTION AGENDA CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING FEBRUARY 6, 1995 JOINT MEETING - At 5:30 p.m., the City Council will hold a joint meeting with the Audit Committee in the Council Chambers. This joint meeting is open to the public. 7:05 P.M. GIVEN POTTS ABSENT PRESENTED HELEN EDGAR: JOHN MOORLACH: ADOPTED RESOLUTION NO. 95-9 CALL TO ORDER / PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE INVOCATION - Dr. Marj Britt, Unity Church of Tustin ROLL CALL PROCLAMATIONS - Councilmember Jeffery Thomas, Finance Director Ron Nault, and Audit Committee members George Jeffries and Daniel O'Connell in recognition of withdrawing City funds from the Orange County Investment Pool. PUBLIC INPUT REQUESTED ADJOURNMENT IN MEMORY OF FORMER CITY EMPLOYEE, JEAN SMITH, WHO DIED ON DECEMBER 25TH APPLAUDED CITY, COUNCILMEMBER THOMAS AND RON NAULT FOR WITHDRAWING CITY FUNDS FROM COUNTY INVESTMENT POOL AND CHASTISED GEORGE JEFFRIES AND BILL MOSES FOR FAILURE TO HEED MR. MOORLACH'S CAMPAIGN WARNINGS REGARDING STABILITY OF THE COUNTY INVESTMENT POOL PUBLIC HEARING (ITEMS 1 THROUGH 2) I , CERTIFICATION OF A NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR ACQUISITION OF A 3.66 ACRE PORTION OF THE PROPERTY AT 3075-3097 EDINGER AVENUE (RAIL STATION SITE) The Community Development Department has prepared an Initial Study to determine if the possible acquisition of a 3.66 acre portion of the property at 3075-3097 Edinger Avenue will have significant effect on The environment. Recommendation: Certify that the Final Negative Declaration is adequate for the possible acquisition of a 3.66 acre portion of the property at 3075-3097 Edinger Avenue by adopting the Council Action Agenda 1 February 6, 1995 lowing Resolution No. 95-9 recommended by the Community Development Department: RESOLUTION NO. 95-9 - A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA, CERTIFYING THE FINAL NEGATIVE DECLARATION AS ADEQUATE FOR THE ACQUISITION OF A.3.66 ACRE PORTION OF THE PROPERTY AT 3075-3097 EDINGER AVENUE INCLUDING REQUIRED FINDINGS PURSUANT TO THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT ADOPTED RESOLUTION NOS. 95-1 95-2 AND 95-10 AS MODIFIED e TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 94-149 AND APPEAL OF VARIANCE 94-011 (DONALD LEJEUNE) The applicant is requesting authorization to subdivide subject property at 440 West Main Street into two parcels. On January 3, 1995, the City Council appealed the Planning Commission's action related to Variance 94-011; and Tentative Parcel Map No. 94-149 was also continued to February 6, 1995, to allow for public noticing of the Variance appeal so both items could be considered together. Recommendation by the Community Development Department: 1. Certify the Final Negative DeClaration as adequate for the project by adopting the following Resolution No. 95-1: RESOLUTION NO. 95-1 - A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA, CERTIFYING THE FINAL NEGATIVE DECLARATION AS ADEQUATE FOR TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 94-149 AND VARIANCE 94-011 INCLUDING REQUIRED FINDINGS PURSUANT TO THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT .. 2, Uphold the Planning Commission's approval of Variance 94- 011 by adopting the following Resolution No. 95-10, as submitted or revised: RESOLUTION NO. 95-10 - A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA, UPHOLDING THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S APPROVAL OF VARIANCE 94-011 TO REDUCE THE MINIMUM LOT WIDTH OF PARCEL 2 OF TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 94-149 FROM SIXTY (60) FEET TO 22 FEET AND TO INCREASE THE MAXIMUM FENCE HEIGHT IN THE REQUIRED FRONT YARD SETBACK AREA OF PARCEL 2 OF TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 94-149 FROM THREE (3) FEET TO 6'-8" AT THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 440 WEST MAIN STREET Council Action Agenda 2 February 6, 1995 3. Approve Tentative Parcel IV Jo. 94-149 by adopting the following Resolution No. 95-._, as submitted or revised: RESOLUTION NO. 95-2 - A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 94-149 CONSENT CALENDAR (ITEMS 3 THROUGH 17) APPROVED RATIFIED APPROVED APPROVED ADOP.-I-.ED'' RESOLUTION NO. 95-15 , 5~ e APPROVAL OF DEMANDS AND RATIFICATION OF PAYROLL Recommendation: Approve Demands in the amount of $2,975,237.41 and ratify Payroll in the amount of $730,949.59. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION AGENDA - JANUARY 23, 1995 All actions of the Planning Commission become final unless appealed by the City Council or member of the public. Recommendation. RaTify Planning Commission Action Agenda of January 23, 1995. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - JANUARY 16, 1995 REGULAR MEETING Recommendation. Approve City Council Minutes of January 16, 1995. RELEASE AND REPLACEMENT OF BONDS AND AGREEMENTS FOR TRACT 14110 (LDM DEVELOPMENT, INC. AND GREYSTONE HOMES) Recommendation: Authorize release of the following bonds for the indicated amounts: Faithful Performance Bond No. 2144225, $35,000.00; Labor and Materials Bond No. 2144225, $17,500.00; Subdivision Warranty Bond No. 2144225, $3,500.00; Monumentation Bond No. 2144235, $4,200.00; and release the Subdivision Agreement and Monumentation Agreement which were entered into with LDM Development, Inc. as recommended by the Public Works Department/Engineering Division. RESOLUTION NO. 95-15 - A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING AN APPLICATION FOR GRANT FUNDS FROM THE CALIFORNIA USED OIL RECYCLING BLOCK GRANT PROGRAM TO DEVELOP AND MAINTAIN A USED OIL RECYCLING PROGRAM Recommendation: Adopt Resolution No. 95-15 approving an application for State grant funds to establish and maintain a used oil recycling program as recommended by the Public Works Department. Council Action Agenda 3 February 6, 1995 APPROVED APPROVED ADOPTED RESOLUTION NO. 95-1 2 ADOPTED RESOLUTION NO. 95-14 APPROVED APPROVED . . 10. 11. 12. 13. ~NSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT C .I'RACT, TUSTIN RANCH TREE PARK Recommendation: Authorize the City Manager to negotiate and execute an agreement with Howard, Needles, Tammen, and Bergendorf, Inc. (HNTB) for construction and project management services for the Tustin Ranch Tree Project as recommended by the Community Development Department. APPROVAL OF MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING WITH TUSTIN POLICE OFFICERS ASSOCIATION Recommendation: Authorize the City Manager to sign and execute the Memorandum of Understanding with the Tustin Police Officers Association as recommended by Personnel Services. RESOLUTION NO. 95-12 - A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS FOR EMERGENCY POWER RETROFIT AND PORTABLE EMERGENCY GENERATOR FOR COLUMBUS TUSTIN WELL (CITY PROJECT NO. 600112) AND AUTHORIZING ADVERTISEMENT FOR BIDS Recommendation: Adopt Resolution No. 95-12 approving plans and specifications and authorizing advertisement of bids for subject project as' recommended by the Public Works Department/Water Division. RESOLUTION NO. 95-14- A RESOLUTION OF THE' CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS FOR THE ACCESS RAMP INSTALLATION/MODIFICATIONS FOR COMPLIANCE WITH THE AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT Recommendation' Adopt Resolution No. 95-14 approving plans and specifications for subject project and directing the City Clerk to advertise for bids as recommended by the Public Works Department/Engineering Division. DECLARATION OF SURPLUS STREET SWEEPERS Recommendation: Declare subject equipment surplus and not required for public use and authorize the Public Works Departm_ent to dispose of equipment in accordance with Ordinance No. 871 as recommended by the Public Works. Department/Field Services Division. WATER BOARD VACANCIES Recommendation: Direct staff to include the two Water Board vacancies with the advertisements to fill other Commission/Committee term expirations that will occur prior to July 1995 as recommended by the Finance Department. Council Action Agenda 4 February 6, 1995 RECEIVED AND FILED APPROVED APPROVED APPROVED 4 15. 16. 17. iUD CONSOLIDATED PLAN ST !S UPDATE Recommendation' Receive a[~d file subject report as recommended by the Community Development Department. REVIEW OF FRONTIER PARK CLOSING HOURS Recommendat;ion: Consider no changes in the hours of operation at Frontier Park as recommended by the Parks and Recreation Commission and Community Services Department. RENEWAL OF CALTRANS CONTRACT FOR REIMBURSEMENT OF CITY EXPENSES FOR GENERAL TRAFFIC ENGINEERING IN CONJUNCTION WITH THE CONSTRUCTION OF I-5 FREEWAY AND 1-5/SR-55 INTERCHANGE Recommendation: Approve subject contract and execute the document for reimbursement of City staff efforts in performing general traffic engineering in conjunction with Caitrans' construction of the I-5 Freeway and the I-5/SR-55 Freeway interchange pursuant to review and approval by the City Attorney as recommended by the Public Works DepartmenT/Engineering Division. REJECTION OF ALL BIDS FOR ASSESSMENT DISTRICT 86-2 IMPROVEMENTS, REMOVAL AND REPLACEMENT OF UNDERLYING ALLUVIUM AND EXISTING FILL IN LOT NOS. 10 AND 18 OF TRACT NO. 13627 AND AUTHORIZATION TO RE- ADVERTISE FOR NEW BIDS Recommendation: Reject all bids received January-12, 1995, for subject project and authorize the Public Works Department to re-advertise subject project for bid; and authorize release of all bid bonds upon rejection of all bids as recommended by the Public Works Department/Engineering Division. INTRODUCED ORDINANCE NO. 1143 ALTERNATIVE NO. II AS MODIFIED TO ALLOW SATURDAY CONSTRUCTION FROM 9 AM TO 5 PM; WILL REVIEW IN 90 DAYS; AND AUTHORIZED 2ND VIOLATION AS MISDEMEANOR REGULAR BUSINESS (ITEMS 18 THROUGH 23) 18. ORDINANCE NO. 1143, AMENDING CITY CODE SECTIONS 4616 AND 4617 - NOISE CONTROL The request by The Irvine Company for approval of Saturday construction hours was presented to the City Council at their regular meeting on January 16, 1995. Following extensive discussion with residents and an irvine Company representative, the item was continued to permit staff to respond to various requests. Recommendation by the Community Development Department: 1. Select the alternative Noise Ordinance Amendment desired. 2. Have first reading by title only' and introduction of Council Action Agenda 5 February 6, 1995 Ordinance No. 1143. ' RECEIVED AND FILED HEARD VERBAL REPORT FROM MAYOR AND CITY MANAGER ADOPTED RESOLUTION NOS. 95-16 AND 95-17 AS MODIFIED; COPIES TO BOARD OF SUPV. AND ALL CITIES TILLER DAYS TO HAVE SCHEDULING PREFERENCE OVER BALLOON FESTIVAL IF FESTIVAL HELD IN TUSTIN 19. 20. 21. 22. TUSTIN COMMUNITY FOUNDATION INAUGURAL EVENT Councilmember Thomas requested that staff agendize discussion of the February 22, 1995 Tustin Community Foundation Inaugural Event. Recommendation' Receive and file subject report as recommended by Community Services. ORANGE COUNTY BANKRUPTCY STATUS The City Manager will give a verbal presentation on the status of the Orange County bankruptcy and its impact on the City. Recommendation' Pleasure of the City Council. RESOLUTIONS RELATED TO ORANGE COUNTY BANKRUPTCY The City Council, at their meeting on January 16, 1995, requested agendizing resolutions requesting the Orange County Board of Supervisors return 100 percent of funds' to all investment pool depositors and requesting the Board of Supervisors rescind arrangements with its public relations firm. Recommendation' Pleasure of the City Council. TILLER DAYS/BALLOON FESTIVAL DATES Councilmember Doyle has requested the City Council discuss the potential conflict of the Tiller Days Festival with that of the Balloon Festival, if the Balloon Festival were to occur in Tustin in 1995. APPROVED $25,000 INTEREST FREE LOAN 23. Recommendation: Pleasure of the City Council. BOYS AND GIRLS CLUB OF TUSTIN URBAN PARKS PROGRAM FUNDING FOR THE HEIDEMAN SCHOOL BRANCH At the January 16, 1995 City Council meeting, Councilmember Thomas requested information on the cancellation of the Boys and Girls Club of Tustin's Urban Parks Program grant. Recommendation: Pleasure of the City Council. Council Action Agenda 6 February 6, 1995 P' C INPUT ~ '. AL SHIFBERG-MENCHER: REQUESTED CiTY RESOLUTION REQUESTING COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS HOLD EVENING MEETINGS AND THEIR PUBLIC INPUT SECTION BE FORMATTED SIMILAR TO TUSTIN. COUNCIL CONCURRED. DAVID BRYANT: AS RECENTLY SELECTED PRESIDENT OF HISTORICAL SOCIETY, THANKED COUNCIL FOR THEIR PAST FINANCIAL SUPPORT HUSTON: DOYLE: THOMAS: WORLEY: SALTARELLI: OTHER BUSINESS REQUESTED CONTINUANCE OF CLOSED SESSION, PERSONNEL REQUESTED STATUS OF AGGRESSIVE ENFORCEMENT OF HOUSING VIOLATIONS IN THE SOUTHWEST AREA. STAFF RESPONDED THAT "FOCUS TEAM" HAD BEEN FORMED RESULTING IN 14 MISDEMEANOR FILINGS AND MONTHLY RECAP OF ENFORCEMENT AND HOUSING REHAB PROGRESS WOULD BE SUBMITTED TO THE COUNCIL COMMENDED MAYOR SALTARELL! FOR CONSIDERABLE AMOUNT OF TIME HE HAD SPENT ON BEHALF OF THE CiTY REGARDING THE ORANGE COUNTY BANKRUPTCY . REQUESTED AGENDIZING AT 2/21 MEETING DISCUSSION OF CITY COMPUTERS LINKING WITH ON-LINE AND E-MAIL SYSTEMS REQUESTED AGENDIZING AT 2/21 MEETING DISCUSSION OF COMMITTEE APPOINTED MEMBERS AND THEIR LOYALTY TO THE CITY COUNCIL IN COMMUNITY RELATED ISSUES REQUESTED STAFF NOTIFY ROLLER HOCKEY COMPANIES OF ABANDONED BUILDING SITE ON 6TH STREET EXPRESSED APPRECIATION TO COUNCIL FOR EFFORT AND TIME SPENT TO RESOLVE THE SATURDAY CONSTRUCTION ISSUE NOTED PROGRESS IN SOUTHWEST AREA AS EVIDENCED BY DEMOLITION OF COSMOPOLITAN APARTMENTS AND SINGLE FAMILY HOMES DEVELOPED ON THE SITE ENCOURAGED SUPPORT OF COMMUNITY FOUNDATION CONTINUED CLOSED SESSION - The City Council will convene in closed session: (1) to confer with the City Attorney regarding pending litigation entitled In Re: County of Orange, U.S.B.C. Case No. SA 94-22272 JR, and In Re: Orange County Investment Pools, U.S.B.C. Case No. SA 94-22273 JR; and (2) to confer with the City Manager regarding Council Action Agenda 7 February 6, 1995 10:45 P.M. IN MEMORY OF JEAN SMITH SA ! 2273 JR; and (2) to confer with , City Manager regarding compensation for management and confidential employees. ADJOURNMENT. The City Council has scheduled a Peters Canyon Specific Plan workshop on Tuesday, February 21, 1995, at 5:30 p.m. in the Council Chambers; and the next regular meeting of the City Council is scheduled for Tuesday, February 21, 1995, at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers at 300 Centennial Way. Council Action Agenda February 6, 1995 ACTION AGENDA REGULAR MEETING ,,r: THE TUSTIN COMMUNITY REDI::VELOPMENT AGENCY FEBRUARY 6, 1995 10:45 P.M. CALL TO ORDER POTTS ABSENT ROLL CALL REGULAR BUSINESS (ITEMS 1 THROUGH 3 ) APPROVED · APPROVAL OF DEMANDS Recommendation: Approve Demands in the amount of $17,379.80. APPROVED 2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - JANUARY 16, 1995 REGULAR MEETING Recommendation: Approve the Redevelopment Agency Minutes of January 16, 1995. APPROVED STAFF RECOMMENDATION , AUTHORIZATION TO ISSUE REQUEST FOR QUALIFICATIONS/PROPOSALS, OLD TOWN PROJECT GATEWAY Staff is recommending a traditional approach to the redevelopment of the subject property, El Camino Plaza and the property between the Plaza and Newport Avenue, which calls for the solicitation and selection of a developer, negotiations of a Disposition and Development Agreement, Agency assistance in land assembly, and possible financial assistance, if deemed necessary to reach the community's goals for the property, Recommendation: Authorize the issuance of a Request for Qualifications/Proposals for the solicitation of a developer for '~the Old Town Gateway Project as recommended by the Community Development Department. NONE OTHER BUSINESS NONE CLOSED SESSION - None 10:45 P.M. ADJOURNMENT - The next regular meeting of the Redevelopment Agency is scheduled for Tuesday, February 21, 1995, at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers at 300 Centennial Way. Redevelopment Action Agenda 1 February 6, 1995