HomeMy WebLinkAboutPH 1 CUP 91-10 09-03-91Oro
PUBLIC HEARING N0. 1
9-3-91
INA
r- Go ill
.TE: SEPTEMBER 31 1991
TO: WILLIAM A. HUSTON, CITY MANAGER
;'R 0FVi: COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
SUBJECT: APPEAL OF CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 91-10, DESIGN REVIEW 91-07
AND AMENDMENT TO CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 89-25
RECOMMENDATION
Pleasure of the City Council.
BACKGROUND
On June 3, 1991, during the course of hearing testimony for an
appeal of Conditional Use Permit 91-01 and Variance 91-08, the City
Council, recognizing that the applicant had an alternative plan
that the Commission had not seen, directed the applicant to submit
their revised proposal back for the Planning Commission's
consideration.
Consequently, On July 22, 1991, the Planning Commission opened a
public hearing and received testimony concerning Conditional Use
Permit 91-10, Design Review 91-07 and Amendment to Conditional Use
permit 89-25 for the properties located at 135 South Prospect
Avenue and 240 East First Street. The co -applicants, Mr. Stephen
Paquette and Mr. Henry Kumagai, were requesting approval of the
following:
1. Approval of various development bonuses pursuant to
requirements under the Lot Consolidation Program of the First
Street Specific Plan,
2. Approval of a 7% reduction in the amount of required parking
pursuant to the requirements under the Consolidated
Parking/Access Bonus Program of the First Street Specific
Plan, and
3. Authorization to establish a tire service business at the
property located at 135 South Prospect Avenue with related
site improvements.
The requests were denied by the Planning Commission. Copies of the
July 22, 1991 minutes and the denial Resolution Nos. 2926, 2927 and
2928 have been attached for the Council's reference.
City Council Report
Appeal of CUP 91-10, DR 91-07 & Amendment to CUP 89-25
September 31 1991
Page 2
On July 24, 1991, the Community Development Department received an
appeal request from the co -applicants, a copy of which has been
provided as Attachment G. Consequently, in accordance with Section
9294 et seq, of the Tustin City Code, a public hearing and notice
identifying the proposed location and time of the hearing was
published in the Tustin News. Property owners within 300 feet of
the site were also notified by mail and notices were posted on the
property, City Hall and the Police Department. The applicants were
informed of the availability of a staff report on this matter.
DISCUSSION
Project Summary
The submitted plans propose a consolidated development scheme.
This includes a provision for one 35 -foot -wide ingress/egress
driveway along First Street, providing reciprocal access between
the tire service and office businesses and the car wash business
with shared parking lot areas, and providing a coordinated
landscape and architectural theme. The co -applicants are proposing
this approach to qualify for various development bonuses, thereby
reducing stated parking lot development standards and to qualify
for reductions in the amount of required parking spaces. Pursuant
to the bonus program sections of the First Street Specific Plan, an
applicant can request the discretionary approval of development
bonuses when it is demonstrated that the consolidation and
reciprocal access result in achieving design objectives of the
First Street Specific Plan and the development proposal is found to
be a desirable design solution.
The car wash is maintained on the east side of the development
proposal and is presently under construction pursuant to the
previously approved improvement plans. The necessary modifications
to accommodate the consolidation include the elimination of a
portion of the six -foot -high perimeter wall, a seating area and
landscaping along the shared property line between the two sites.
The improvements proposed to accommodate the tire service business
on the west side of the development proposal include upgrades to
the parking lot area by restriping, installing wheel stops,
constructing a trash enclosure and providing additional
landscaping. These improvements will result in nineteen parking
spaces being provided, centrally located between the tire service
business and office uses, to be combined with the nine parking
spaces located at the rear of the car wash site. Total parking
provided would equal 28 spaces, to be shared between all of the
businesses, instead of the 30 spaces required by the Tustin City
City Council Report
Appeal of CUP 91-10, DR 91-07 & Amendment to CUP 89-25
September 3, 1991
Page 3
Code. A more detailed discussion of this item follows on the
applicant's request for participation in the Consolidated
Parking/Access Bonus Program.
Other improvements proposed for the west side of the development
(or the tire service site) incorporate many of the architectural
features noted on the car wash site. The elements include the use
of the same color palette, accent tiles, windows, doors, trim and
the column "plant -on" treatment at the service bays and at the
entrances to the buildings. Landscaping elements will be
coordinated to match species and the trellis structure will utilize
the same design.
Conditional Use Permit
Pursuant to Section 9291 et seq of the Tustin City Code,
consideration of the proposed tire service use and amendments to
the car wash site require that positive findings be made that the
uses would not, under the circumstances, be detrimental to the
health, safety, morals, comfort and general welfare of the persons
residing or working in the neighborhood of the proposed use and
that uses would not be detrimental to the property and improvements
in the neighborhood or general welfare of the City. This action is
considered discretionary and entails consideration for the
appropriateness of the use requested.
During discussions held previously on a previous appeal request,
heard by the City Council on June 3, 1991, concerning the tire
service business at this location, it was indicated that an
automotive use at this location might be considered appropriate if
technical issues could be resolved relative to parking, traff is and
design. A copy of those June 3, 1991 minutes has been provided as
Attachment D. As it is now proposed, the applicant has represented
that one consolidated design approach resolves some of the concerns
previously raised. They believe the positive aspects of the
project include bringing an existing site into closer conformance
with current City Codes, providing a fresher appearance to the
property, establishing a revenue source where currently none exists
and reducing the number of ingress/egress points on First Street
from two to one.
However, the Planning Commission, in reviewing the revised proposal
at their meeting of July 22, 1991, identified several reasons why
the use was still considered inappropriate at this location and
denied the requests. As indicated previously, the minutes have
been attached for the Council's reference and the following
provides a summary of the Commission's statements on the record:
City Council Report
Appeal of CUP 91-10, DR 91-07 & Amendment to CUP 89-25
September 3, 1991
Page 4
The property was considered to be inadequate in size and shape
to accommodate the existing office uses in conjunction with
the proposed tire service business because this area of First
Street is already congested, there is not enough parking being
provided, and the noise generated by the tire service business
would be disruptive to an office environment.
° The facility cannot be accommodated on the site without the
approval of deviations; whether approved as variances or
granted as development bonuses.
Overall, the use does not enhance or further the goals of the
First Street Specific Plan, which is still in its early years
of development and the approval of another automotive use
would further deteriorate the First Street corridor.
While it was identified that the Amendment to the car wash CUP
itself would potentially .improve traffic on First Street due to the
elimination of a driveway, the Commission maintained concerns for
potential on-site circulation conflicts between the properties and
the loss of a perimeter wall/landscaping area that left an
undesirable view of the car wash site.
Design Review
In considering making a recommendation of approval to the
Redevelopment Agency concerning the Design Review, the Commission
was required to make a finding that the location, size,
architectural features and general appearance of the proposed
development would not impair the orderly and harmonious development
of the area, the present or future development therein, and the
occupancy as a whole. Section 9272 et seq of the Tustin City Code
identifies a number of items for evaluation of a project. Of these
items, the Commission identified problems with the project's
setbacks and site planning; landscaping, parking area design and
traffic circulation; physical relationships of proposed structures
to existing structures and the Development Guidelines and Criteria
as adopted by the City Council. These findings were included in
Resolution No. 2927, Section II, a copy of which is attached.
Many of the concerns identified by the Commission are relative to
the acceptance of the development proposal under the Lot
Consolidation Program and the Consolidated Parking/Access Bonus
Program. The following discussion provides an analysis of the
project relative to these two programs:
City Council Report
Appeal of CUP 91-10, DR 91-07 & Amendment to CUP 89-25
September 3, 1991
Page 5
Lot Consolidation Program - The First Street Specific Plan
encourages the consolidation of lots to provide for functional
developments and development bonuses can be granted, such as
a reduction in required development standards. However,
granting these development bonuses are completely
discretionary and in considering approval, consideration
should be given as to how well the design of the project
addresses the Design Guidelines stated in the Specific Plan.
The development bonuses being requested include and affect the
west side of the project:
Reduction in the minimum of a standard parking stall of
one foot resulting in a standard space measuring 8' x
201.
The elimination of the requirement for continuous curbing
to instead utilize wheel stops.
A reduction of between three feet and four feet in the
required perimeter landscaping in various locations of
the parking lot area.
While these requests are minor when considered individually,
the concern that the Council expressed previously on June 3,
1991, for the resolution of technical issues or constraints
overall for the project should be weighed.
Consolidated Parking/Access Bonus Program - The First Street
Specific Plan states that projects providing reciprocal access
are entitled to apply for a reduction, 20% maximum, in the
amount of required parking combined. The City Code states
that the uses proposed for these properties provide 3 0 parking
spaces. The co -applicants are requesting approval of a 7%
reduction, which results in the loss of two parking spaces
from the west side of the development that serve the tire
service business and the offices.
The parking demand study, prepared by the traffic consultant
(KHR Associates) indicates that 17 parking spaces would be
required for the tire service business alone in a worse -case
scenario. During the course of the public hearing held on
July 22, 1991, it was indicated that this demand study could
be considered misleading because its basis stemmed from
looking at larger automotive facilities where retail
automotive and service automotive were combined. This base
line data affects two areas in the report:
- City Council Report
Appeal of CUP 91-10, DR 91-07 & Amendment to CUP 89-25
September 3, 1991
Page 6
trip generation - The applicant has clarified that only
f ive service bays can be utilized simultaneously, rather
than the eight as indicated on the submitted plans. This
would in effect reduce the trip generation calculations
somewhat. However, as noted in the consultant's report,
trip generation was not considered an adverse impact.
Therefore, an adjustment would be insignificant to the
conclusions drawn.
parking generation - Both of the studies utilized for
comparison of parking demand to parking required to
parking provided utilized parking rates significantly
higher than the Tustin City Code requirements. Rather
than make assumptions that parking will be deficient
based on calculated demand, it would be more appropriate
to state that parking is deficient relative to what is
required by City Code. The reason for this is that the
applicant, in this particular case, should not be held
accountable for potential deficiencies in the City Code.
Environmental Determination
A negative declaration has been prepared for the project and, where
potential impacts were identified, corresponding mitigation.
measures were included and these measures have been incorporated
into the proposal or will be included as conditions of approval.
Many of these measures were identified in the traffic/parking
analysis prepared by KHR Associates and include such items as
providing designated parking spaces for the office uses,
directional arrows and signage and requiring a supplemental study
should traffic or parking problems result from the project. Should
the City Council approve the subject project, certification of the
negative declaration would be appropriate.
CONCLUSION
Based upon the analysis provided in this report, there are several
options available to the City Council.
1. Uphold the Planning Commission's actions denying Conditional
Use Permit 91-10, Design Review 91-07 and Amendment to
Conditional Use Permit 89-25 by adopting Resolution No. 91-
110-A; or
City Council Report
Appeal of CUP 91-10, DR 91-07 & Amendment to CUP 89-25
September 3, 1991
Page 7
2. Adopt the following:
a. Resolution No. 91-109 certifying the negative declaration
for the project,
b. Resolution No. 91-110-B approving Conditional Use Permit
91-10,
C. Resolution No. 91-111 recommending approval of Design
Review 91-07 to the Redevelopment Agency, and
d. Resolution No. 91-112 approving an Amendment to
Conditional Use Permit 89-25.
QeWE- Bonner Christine A. Shinglet
Associate Planner Assistant City Manager
Community Development
Attachments: A - Initial Study
B - Traffic Analysis
C - Proposed Improvement Plans
D June 3, 1991 City Council Minutes
E - July 22, 1991 Planning Commission Minutes
F - Planning Commission Resolution Nos. 2926, 2927
and 2928
G - Applicant's Appeal Request
City Council Resolution Nos. 91-109 through
91-112
NEGATIVE DECLARATION
CITY OF TUSTIN
300 CENTENNIAL WAY, TUSTIN, CA. 92680
Project Title: Conditional Use Permit 91-10, File No.
Design Review 91-07 and Amendment to Conditional Use Permit 89-25
Project Location:
135 South Prospect Avenue & 240 East First Street
Project Description: Authorization to establish a tire service business
combined with an existing car wash business.
Project Proponent: Stephen Paquette and Henry Kumagai
Contact Person: Anne E. Bonner Telephone: 544-8890 Ext. 255
The Community Development Department has conducted an initial study for the
above project in accordance with the City of Tustin's procedures regarding
implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act, and on the basis of
that study hereby find:
That there is no substantial evidence that the project may have a
significant effect on the environment.
That potential significant affects were identified, but revisions have
been included in the project plans and agreed to by the applicant that
would avoid or mitigate the affects to a point where clearly no
significant effects would occur. Said revisions are attached to and
hereby made a part of this Negative Declaration.
Therefore, the preparation of an Environmental Impact Report is not required.
The initial study which provides the basis for this determination is on
file at the Community Development Department, City of Tustin. The public
is invited to comment on the appropriateness of this Negative Declaration
during the review period, which begins with the public notice of a
Negative Declaration and extends for seven calendar days. Upon review by
the Community Development Director, this review period may be extended if
deemed necessary.
REVIEW PERIOD ENDS 4:30 p.m. on
DATED: July 1, 1991
July 22, 1991
Community Development Director
CITY OF TUSTIN
Community Development Department
ENVIRONMENTAL INITIAL STUDY FORM
I. Background
1. Name of Proponent Stephen Paquette and Henry Kumagai
2. Address and Phone Number of Proponent
3. Date of Checklist Submitted June 28, 1991
4. Agency Requiring Checklist City of Tustin
5. Name of Proposal, if applicable CUP 91-10/DR 91-07/Amend CUP 89-25
II. Environmental Impacts
(Explanations of all "yes" and "maybe" answers are required on
attached sheets.)
Yes Maybe No
1. Earth. Will the proposal result in:
a. Unstable earth conditions or in
changes in geologic substructures? X
b. Disruptions, displacements, compaction
or overcovering of the soil? X
C. Change in topography or ground surface
relief features? X.
d. The destruction, covering or
modification of any unique geologic
or physical features? X
e. Any increase in wind or water erosion
of soils, either on or off the site? X
f. Changes in deposition or erosion of
beach sands, or changes in siltation,
deposition or erosion _.which may modify
the channel of a river or stream or the
bed of the ocean or any ban, inlet or
lake? X
2.
3.
Yes Maybe No
g. Exposure of people or property to
geologic hazards such as earthquakes,
landslides, mudslides, ground failure,
or similar hazards? X
Air. Will the proposal result in:
a. Substantial air emission or
deterioration of ambient air quality? X_
b. The creation of objectionable odors? X
C. Alteration of air movement, moisture,
or temperatures, or any change in
climate, either locally or regionally?
Water. Will the proposal result in:
a. Changes in currents, or the course
of direction of water movements,
in either marine or fresh water? X
b. Changes in absorption rates,
drainage patterns, or the rate and
amount of surface runoff? X
C. Alterations to the course or flow
of flood waters? X
d. Change in the amount of surface
water in any water body? X
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? —.�
4.
5.
CR
7.
Yes Maybe No
i. Exposure of people or property to
water related hazards such as flooding
or tidal waves?
Plant Life. Will the proposal result in:
a. Change in the diversity of species, or
number of any species of plants (including
trees, shrubs, grass, crops, and aquatic
plants)? x
b. Reduction of the numbers of any unique,
rare or endangered species of plants?
C. Introduction of new species of plants
into an area, or in a barrier to the
normal replenishment of existing
species?
d. Reduction in acreage of any
agricultural crop?.
Animal Life. Will the proposal result in:
a. Change in the diversity of species, or
numbers of any species of animals (birds,
land animals including reptiles., fish and
shellfish, benthic organisms or insects)?
b. Reduction of the numbers of any unique,
rare or endangered species of animals?
C. Introduction of new species of animals
into an area, or result in a barrier to
the migration or movement of animals?
d. Deterioration to existing fish or
wildlife habitat?
Noise. Will the proposal result in:
a. Increases in existing noise levels?
b. Exposure of people to severe noise
levels?
Light and Glare. Will the proposal produce
new light or glare?
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
Yes Maybe No
8. Land Use. Will the proposal result in
a substantial alteration of the present
or planned land use of an area?
9. Natural Resources. Will the proposal
result in:
a. Increase in the rate of use of any
natural resources?
b. Substantial depletion of any
nonrenewable natural resource?
10. Risk of Upset. Will the proposal involve:
a. A risk of an explosion or the release
of hazardous substances (including, but
not limited to, oil, pesticides, chemicals
or radiation) in the event of an accident
or upset conditions?
b. Possible interference with an
emergency response plan or an
emergency evacuation plan?
x
x
x
x
x
11. Population. Will the proposal alter
the location, distribution, density, or
growth rate of the human population of
an area? x
12. Housing. Will the proposal affect
existing housing, or create a demand
for additional housing? x
13. Transportation/Circulation. Will the
proposal result in:
a. Generation of substantial additional
vehicular movement? x
b. Effects on existing parking facilities,
or demand for new parking? x
C. Substantial impact upon existing
transportation systems? x
d. Alterations to present patterns of
circulation or movement of people
and/or goods? x
Yes Maybe No
e. Alterations to waterborne, rail or
air traffic? —_
f. Increase in traffic hazards to motor
vehicles, bicyclists or pedestrians? X
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? _X_
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? X
b. Substantial increase in demand upon
existing sources of energy, or require
the development of new sources of
energy? X
16. Utilities. Will the proposal result in a
need for new systems, or substantial
alterations to the following utilities:
a. Power or natural gas? X
b. Communications systems? X
C. Water? . X
d. Sewer or septic tanks? X
e. Storm water drainage? _x_
f. Solid waste and disposal? _X
Yes Ma be No
17. Human Health. Will the proposal
result in:
a. Creation of any health hazard or
potential health hazard (excluding
mental health)? x
b. Exposure of people to potential
health hazards? X
18. Solid Waste. Will the proposal create
additional solid waste requiring disposal
by the City? _X
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
a. Will the proposal result in the
alteration of or the destruction of
a prehistoric or historic archaeological
site? X
b. Will the proposal result in adverse
physical or aesthetic effects to a
prehistoric or historic building,
structure, or object? X_
C. Does the proposal have the potential
to cause a physical change which
would affect unique ethnic cultural
values? x
d. Will the proposal restrict existing
religious or sacred uses within the
potential impact area? x
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? x
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) . x
C. Does the project have impacts which are
individually limited, but cumulatively con-
siderable? (A project may impact on two
or more separate resources where the impact
on each resource is relatively small, but
where the effect of the total of those
impacts on the environment is significant.)
x
d. Does the project have environmental effects
which will cause substanti4l adverse effects
on human beings, either directly or
indirectly? x
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 x
I find the proposed project MAY have a significant effect
on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
is required.
Date Signature
-- EXHIBIT A
DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAEVALUATION
CUP 89-25
CUP 91-10, DR 91-07 AND
AMENDMENT
July 16, 1991
PROJECT DESCRIPTION SUPPLEMENT: The applicant, Mr. Stephen
Paquette, is requesting authorization to establish t Avenue which
tire service
business at the property located at 135 South Prois als. seeking
ec
includes minor site improvements. The applicant
authorization to combine his proposal with the property Tustin uto Wash,
daat
240 East First Street, commonly known are located within the
nd
owned by Mr. Henry Kumagai. Both properties are
First Street Specific Plan project area and the
co- considered one
requesting that their project sites be
development to be eligible for both the Lot consolidation
c�ns
r
and the Consolidated Parking/Access sPogrambenefits,am
provided by the First StreetSpecific Plan
Use Permit
The discretionary authority- for the Conditional uses derived
applications including the determination above rests w th the Planning
from the benefit programs mentioned
Commission. The Planning Commission will also
i on to the
recommending body for the Design. Review applicat
Redevelopment Agency, which maintains final discretionary
authority.
Both properties are surrounded by an existing urban nvero men .
Surrounding uses include a restaurant
the and automotisouth, a United States
epair
business to the north, office uses
Post office to the east and a pre-school to the uderc
west. The property
located at 240 East First Street is presently
1. EARTH - Items A through G - "No"
The proposed project site is free from any toot graphical
features. The required site improvements will n
create a
need for additional grading as the parcel located at 135 South
Prospect Avenue maintains an existing hard surface
a c e Eastking lot
and the grading for the parcel located t
Street has already been completed.
Sources: Submitted Plans
Field Verification
Mitigation/Monitoring Reauired: None required.
2. AIR - Items A through C - "No"
TheP roject would not result in the degradation of the
existing air quality.
Exhibit A - Discussion of Environmental Evaluation
CUP 91-10, DR 91-07 and Amendment to CUP
July 16, 1991
Page 2
Sources: AQMD Standards for preparing
documentation
Mitigation/Monitoring Required: None required.
3. WATER - Items A through I - "No"
environmental
The project would not result in significantthis impacts resource awes
ter
run-off or supply. An wash
evaluation
nof ot this project in that
completed for the car portion
project's initial study. The characteristics of this project
would not alter that analysis.
Sources: City of Tustin Public Works/Water Department
Mitigation/Monitoring Reguired: None required.
4. PLANT LIFE - Item A "Yes", Items B through D - "No"
The project would introduce landscaping and specimen trees on
to the site in conformance with the First Street Specific
Plan.
Sources: Submitted Plans
Field Observation
First Street Specific Plan Design Guidelines
Mitigation /Monitoring Required: At building plan check
submittal, plans will be required to be reviewed for adequate
irrigation and for sizes and quantities of plants to assure
compliance.
5. ANIMAL LIFE - Items A through D - "No"
The project site is located within an existing commercial area
and is, therefore, free from any significant population of
animals, fish or wild life.
Sources: Submitted Plans
Field Observation
Mitigation/Monitorinq Required: None required.
6. ;-NOISE - Items A - "Yes" Item B - "No"
The project would add a new noise source into the
area
e
occupy proposed tire service business use will presently
Exhibit A - Discussion of Environmental Evaluation
CUP 91-10, DR 91-07 and Amendment to CUP -89-25
July 16, 1991
Page 3
vacant building. However, the servicing of vehicles will be
contained entirely within this building reducing the potential
noise impacts of mechanical equipment operation.
Sources: Submitted Plans
Tustin City Code, Section 4600 et seq
Mitigation/Monitoring Required: All development and
operations related to noise generation shall be in accordance
with the City's Noise Ordinance which limits noise generation
to a maximum of 60 dBa.
7. LIGHT AND GLARE - "No"
The project site is presently developed with a portion
currently under construction. There will not be any
significant introduction of additional light or glare to the
area. The addition of any exterior lighting will be limited
to that required by the City's Security Code.
Sources: Submitted Plans
Field Observation
Mitigation/MonitoringRequired: All exterior lighting shall
be arranged so as.not to direct light or glare onto adjacent
properties.
8. LAND USE - "No"
The project maintains a zoning designation of "Commercial as
a Primary Use" pursuant to the First Street Specific Plan. A
tire service business is a conditionally permitted use within
this designation. The car wash use has previously been
authorized by the approval of Conditional Use Permit 89-25.
The goals --and objectives of the Specific Plan encourage the
development of properties with primary uses. This is
particularly encouraged for the subject site since the site
has been determined to be a "Use Change" site, recognizing the
obsoletness of the current building and uses. However, as
mentioned, the use is identified among the list of
conditionally permitted uses.
Source: First Street Specific Plan
Mitigation/Monitoring Required: None required
Exhibit A - Discussion of Environme0 CUPE89-25tion
CUP 91-10, DR 91-07 and Amendment to
July 16, 1991
Page 4
9. NATURAL RESOURCES - Items A and B - "No"
The project would not result in any increased use of natural
resources given the scale of the project.
Source: City of Tustin Public Works Department
Mitigation/Monitoring Required: None required
10. RISK OF UPSET - Items A and B - "No"
The project would not result in any significant risk of upset
given the scale and nature of the proposed uses.
Source: Orange County Fire Department
Mitigation/Monitoring Required: None required
11. POPULATION - "No"
The project would not result in any direct increase din
population in that no additional dwelling units are
Source: Submitted Plans
Mitigation/Monitoring Required: None required
12. HOUSING - "No"
The project is commercial and small in scale and would not
result in any direct need for housing.
Source: Submitted Plans
mitigation/Monitoring Required: None required
13. TRANSPORTATION/ CIRCULATION - Items E and Fa "be l' and Items A
throug�h D M v
The project proposes a tire service business
use will have
currently been used asbuilding.
an effect on transportation and circulation on the site as
well as onto the adjacent street system, t which
sbee
designed to accommodate commercial developmeConsequently,
a Traffic and Circulation Impact -Analysis was prepared for
this project to address specific concerns. A copy of this
report has been attached. As a result of the report, impacts
Exhibit A - Discussion of Environmental Evaluation
CUP 91-10, DR 91-07 and Amendment to CUP 89-25
July 17, 1991
Page 5
to the existing street system were found to be insignificant
related to Levels of Service; however, a parking problem could
be anticipatedtherefore, corresponding mitigation measures
have been recommended and included as conditions of approval.
Source: KHR Associates Traffic Study
City of Tustin Public Works Department
Submitted Plans
Field Observations
Mitigation/Monitoring Required: Those measures and
recommendations provided in the traffic study will become
conditions of approval.
14. PUBLIC SERVICES - Items A through F - "No"
All services are existing and area adequate to serve the
project.
_ Source: Orange County Fire Department
Tustin Police Department
Tustin Unified School District
City of Tustin community Services Department
City of Tustin Public Works Department
MitigationlMonitoring Required: None required
15. ENERGY - Items A and B - "No"
The project would not result in any significant change in the
current use of energy given the scale of the project.
Source: City of Tustin Public Works Department
Mitigation/Monitoring Required: None required
16. UTILITIES - Item A through F - "No"
The project site is located within an existing commercial area
with all utilities available to the site from First Street.
The project will not require any new utility service.
Source: City of Tustin Public Works Department
Mitigation/Monitoring Required: None required
Exhibit A - Discussion of Environmental Evaluation
CUP 91-10, DR 91-07 and Amendment to CUP 89-25
July 16, 1991
Page 6
17. HUMAN HEALTH - Items A and B - "No"
The project would not result in any effect on human health
given the proposed uses for this project.
Source: Submitted Plans
Mitigation/Monitoring Required: None required
18. SOLID WASTE - "No"
The project entails the re -use of an existing commercial site
for the operation of the tire service business and is not
anticipated to generate an extraordinary amount of waste
determined for commercial uses. Additionally, the car wash
business was previously approved as a use and any evaluation
for solid waste was addressed during previous project
approvals.
Source: Submitted Plans
City of Tustin Public Works Department
Mitigation/Monitoring Required: None required
19. AESTHETICS - "No"
The First Street Specific Plan and related Design Guidelines
identify certain criteria and standards that must be achieved
and maintained for project approval. Portions of this project
require deviations from these standards; and, therefore, the
co -applicants are seeking development bonuses through two
benefit programs to lessen some of the requirements. These
deviations are subject to the approval of the Tustin Planning
Commission. Other site related improvements and design
require the approval of the Redevelopment Agency.
Source: Submitted Plans
First Street Specific Plan
First Street Specific Plan Design Guidelines
Tustin City Code, Section 9272 et seq
Mitigation/Monitoring Required: Conditions of Approval for
Design Review 91-07 shall be approved by the Redevelopment
Agency and shall be incorporated into the submitted final
working drawings for the project.
Exhibit A - Discussion of Environmental EvaluationCUP 91-10, DR 91-07 and Amendment to CUP 89-25
July 16, 1991
Page 7
20. RECREATION - -"NO"
project does not include any resi
therefore, would not result in any dential development; and,
afor
The prod additional
recreational facilities.
Source: Submitted Plans
City of Tustin Community Services Department
Mitigation/Monitoring Required: None required
h D "No"
21. CULTURAL RESOURCES - Item A throug
The project would not result in any
effect on existing
1 resources in that the General Plan does not identify
cultura
any cultural resources on this property.
Y.
Source: City of Tustin Historic Resources Survey
City of Tustin General Plan
Mitigation/Monitoring Required: None required
FINDINGS - Item A throu h D
- "No"
22. MANDATORY
' ect to establish a tire service business witsite l
sting
The pro�could
with a car wash
office uses to be combined e environment, most specifically
potentially have effects on th
project design,
to traffic/circulation. However, due to the prroval, these
scale of the project and condions r reduced of to approval, level of
potential impacts would be
insignificance.
Source: Previously noted
mitigation/Mo tori,n,Re uired: Previously noted
AEB:nm\cup91-10.env
CITY OF TUSTIN
TUSTIN TIRE & BRAKE SERVICE
TRAFFIC & PARKING IMPACT ANALYSIS
July 11, 1991
Prepared For:
City of Tustin
15222 Del Amo Avenue
Tustin, California 92680
Prepared By:
KHR Associates
18500 Von Karman Avenue
Suite 300
Irvine, California 92175
Table of Contents
INTRODUCI'ION............................................1
...........................................................................
PROJECT SITE & DESCRIPTION.........................................................................................1
PROJECT GOALS & OBJECTIVES......................................................................................1
STUDY METHODOLOGY......................................................................................................4
STUDY TERMINOLOGY & DEFINITIONS....................................................................... 4
AverageDaily Traffic...................................................................................................................4
Capacity..........................................................................................................................................5
Levelof Service.............................................................................................................................5
LOCALROADWAY SYSTEM................................................................................................ 5
EXISTING TRAFFIC CONDITIONS..................................................................................... 7
ExistingTraffic Volumes ..........................................................................................................7
ExistingLevels of Service............................................................................................................ 7
TRAVELDEMAND FORECAST........................................................................................... 9
TripGeneration............................................................................................................................ 9
TripDistribution.........................................................................................................................10
TripAssignment..........................................................................................................................11
TRAFFICIMPACTS.................................................................................................................11
PARKINGGENERATION.....................................................................................................11
SITEPLAN REVIEW...............................................................................................................15
STUDY FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS........................................................................16
RECOMMENDATIONS..........................................................................................................17
REFERENCES..........................................................................................................................19
APPENDIX
List of Figures
Figure 1 -Vicinity Map................................................................................................................
2
Figure 2 - Proposed Site Plan .........................................................
Figure 3 - Existing Traffic Volumes..:........................................................................................ 8
Figure 4 - Existing Plus Car Wash Traffic Volumes..............................................................12
Figure 5 - Existing Plus Project Plus Car Wash Traffic Volumes........................................13
Tables
Table I - Levels of Service, Volume -to -Capacity Ratios & Service Volumes
for Urban Arterial Highways................................................................................................ 6
Table II - Intersection Level of Service Definitions................................................................ 6
Table III - Existing Levels of Service......................................................................................... 7
Table IV - Project Trip Generation.........................................................................................10
Table V - Existing Plus Car Wash Levels of Service.............................................................14
Table VI - Existing Plus Project Plus Car Wash Levels of Service......................................15
Table VII - Parking Generation & Requirements.................................................................15
-i-
TUSTIN TIRE & BRAKE SERVICE
TRAFFIC & PARKING IMPACT ANALYS I S
JULY 117 1991
INTRODUCTION
The Tustin Tire and Brake Service is proposed to be located on the southeast corner of
First Street and Prospect Avenue, at 135 South Prospect Avenue in the City of Tustin,
California, as illustrated in Figure 1.
Prior reviews of the several preliminary site plans for the proposed Tustin Tire and Brake
Service have indicated that potentially adverse impacts to existing and future traffic
conditions on adjoining streets, and at the intersection of First Street and prospect Avenue,
may result from the proposed project. The adequacy of the number of stalls has also been
questioned. Subsequently, a traffic and parking impact analysis was prescribed in order to
determine the nature and magnitude of these potential impacts. The firm of KHR As-
sociates, Irvine, California was selected by the City to undertake this analysis.
PROJECT SITE & DESCRIPTION
The project site currently contains a vacant 3,966 square foot building and a 2,400 square
foot medical/office building, located on the northwest corner of the site. A car wash located
to the east of the proposed project is currently under construction. The Tustin Tire and
Brake Service will utilize the existing vacant building. The building will house 8 service
bays, a tire repair and storage area, and an office facility. Figure 2 illustrates the proposed
site plan.
The proposed project will be accessed via two driveways, one to the north on First Street,
and one to the west on Prospect Avenue. The northerly access is located approximately
180 feet east of the intersection of First Street and Prospect Avenue. Access to this driveway
is proposed to be shared by the tire and brake service and the car wash, currently under
construction, located to the east of the project. A raised landscaped median is located on
First Street which precludes any left turns in or out of the site at this location. The westerly
entrance, located approximately 110 feet south of the First Street/Prospect Avenue inter-
section, allows all turn movements into and out of the site. "U-turns" are prohibited for
westbound traffic on First Street at Prospect Avenue.
PROJECT GOALS & OBJECTIVES
The primary goals of this analysis are to systematically identify potentially adverse and
"significant" traffic -related impacts, if any, that may be brought about as a result of the
proposed project, and to identify appropriate mitigation measures to reduce such potential
impacts to a level of "insignificance," if possible. In order to meet these goals, the following
objectives were: formulated:
1. investigate and quantify, where possible, existing and projected future traffic conditions
within the project vicinity;
2. investigate and quantify, where possible, projected future parking demands on the
project site;
-1-
SC)
T 14
'- rVlrr� i
I
VICINITY MQBBoO°A799
TRANSPORTATION/ENVIRONMET'TAL/URBAN SYSTEMS
16500 Tom X.ra%.e AKsw. Suite 300• b+tos. Wilemla 07716 • (714) 966-64+0
9PA
32'
F --
W
W
F --
(n
i—
(n
1Y
Im
CAR WASH
(UNDER CONSTRUCTION)
L 1
25'
PROSPECT AVENUE El
SCALE: NONE
TUST1RE2.DWG
PROPOSED SITE PLAN TUSTIN
TIRE AND BRAKE SERVICE
-3-
I ► IGUKt 7
►.._ � ►` KHR ARROCCA7mm
TRANSPORTATION/ENVIRONMENTAL/URBAN SYSTEMS
I95M '%m K..v..s %wow. suite ,00 - IrAne. wu.rele VMS - (714) 7M-0, W
3. identify and determine significance of potential impacts to existing traffic and/or parking
conditions from additional traffic generated by the proposed development, also taking
into consideration cumulative traffic growth in the vicinity, and additional parking
demands created by the project; and
4. determine appropriate mitigation measures to reduce potential impacts to acceptable
levels, and identify unavoidable impacts, if any.
STUDY METHODOLOGY
The methodology employed in this traffic impact analysis included the following steps:
1. Discussions were held with the City of Tustin Planning Department and others in order
to gather and review technical data, and to verify key information.
2. Data concerning existing conditions were accumulated from various sources.
3. Traffic counts were taken as part of the field data gathering process. Twenty-four traffic
counts were taken for the roadway segments of First Street and Prospect Avenue
immediately adjacent to the project site, and A.M. and P.M. peak hour turn movement
counts were taken at the intersection of these two roadways.
4. The project site and adjacent areas were visited at various times, and existing traffic
conditions were observed along roadways and at intersections in the vicinity of the
project study area.
S. A review and analysis of existing circulation patterns; land uses; traffic volumes; and
traffic generation were undertaken. The project study area was analyzed and evaluated
for intersection and street segment levels of service and operation capacities under the
Intersection Capacity Utilization method.
6. A review of the proposed site plan was conducted which focused on access, internal
circulation, parking provisions and the potential impacts of these conditions on ad-
jacent streets. '
7. Conclusions were drawn based on analyses findings, and recommendations were formu-
lated from these conclusions.
STUDY TERMINOLOGY & DEFINITIONS
In order to provide the reader with a clearer understanding of key terminology used
throughout this report, the following definitions are provided.
Average Daily Traffic
The term average daily traffic (ADT) refers to an estimate of the number of vehicles
typically counted on a roadway segment during a 24-hour period of time. The ADT volume
is often based on an actual count of traffic, taken over 24 consecutive hours, during a
mid -week day. Unless otherwise specified, ADT volumes are an expression of the total for
both directions of travel. However, ADT volumes may be separated by direction when such
-4-
information is useful. Seasonal influences on the ADT may be taken into account by
collecting data during different months of the year. Separate summer and winter counts
may be warranted on roadways which serve large educational institutions, regional shop-
ping malls, and major sports, amusement, and recreational facilities.
Ca a ci
The capacity of a roadway segment or intersection is the maximum rate of vehicular traffic
flow under prevailing traffic, physical design, and operational conditions. Factors affecting
capacity include the type and frequency of traffic controls; lane widths; horizontal and
vertical grades; horizontal and vertical clearances from obstructions; the amount of truck
and/or bus traffic; the availability of on -street parking and the rate of parking turnover;
restrictions on mid -block access; and the volume of turn movements at adjacent intersec-
tions and driveways.
Capacity is most commonly defined for hourly periods of time, and most analyses rely on
peak 15 -minute count increments to establish capacity values. However, for generalized
planning purposes, it is useful to define capacity as the maximum volume of traffic that a
roadway may be expected to carry continuously throughout the day, under the least
desirable conditions (e.g., with heavy congestion during the A.M. and P.M. peak hours).
This "ADT capacity" figure is derived under the assumption that the highest peak hour
volume is typically around 10% of the total maximum ADT for a given roadway.
Level of Service
The level of service (LOS) of a roadway segment or intersection is a qualitatively defined
measure of prevailing traffic, design, and operational conditions. The LOS, denoted
alphabetically from "A" to "F," best to worst, is an evaluation of the degree of congestion,
roadway design constraints, delay, accident potential, and driver discomfort experienced
during a given period of time - typically during the peak hour or on a daily basis. While
LOS "A" is the most desirable operational state for a roadway segment or intersection, LOS
"D" is considered by the City of Tustin to be a benchmark for planning purposes (i.e., LOS
"D", although an undesirable condition, is considered acceptable, while LOS "E" is con-
sidered unacceptable by City standards).
The LOS may be quantitatively calculated by a number of methods which generally
compare traffic volumes with the physical and operational capacity of a roadway section
or intersection to carry the traffic demands placed on it. For roadway segments, the
volume -to -capacity (V/C) ratio is indicative of LOS. Table I lists typical service volumes,
along with corresponding V/C ratios, for various types of urban highways at LOS ranging
from "A' to "F" (as defined in the Highway Capacity Manual). Table II provides similar
V/C ratios and LOS definitions for intersections based on the ICU method. In this analysis,
a capacity of 1,700 vehicles per lane is assumed per hour, as well as a.05 clearance interval
and minimum V/C ratio of .05 for individual turning movements.
LOCAL ROADWAY SYSTEM
First Street is an east -west secondary arterial which provides two through lanes in each
direction, a raised landscaped median and left turn pockets in the project vicinity. Prospect
Avenue is a north -south minor arterial which provides one through lane in each direction
and left turn in the area of the project site. The intersection of First Street and Prospect
-5-
TABLE I - LEVELS OF SERVICE & SERVICE VOLUMES
FOR URBAN ARTERIAL HIGHWAYS
Average Daily Traffic Service Volumes
Level of V/C 6 -Lane 4 -Lane 4 -Lane 2 -Lane
eryicC Ratio Desc ' tion DividedDivided* Undivided j ndivided
A <0.60 Free Flow -low volumes; little or 33,800 22,500 141400 9,000
39,400
no delay throughout the day or during
16,800
peak hours.
B <0.70
Stable Flow - relatively low volumes;
19,200
acceptable delays experienced through-
50,700
out the day; some peak hour congestion.
C _<0.80
Stable Flow - but some delays through-
C 0.71 to 0.80
out the day and during peak hours.
(This level of service is considered the
D 0.81 to 0.90
standard for urban designs.)
D 50.90
Approaching Unstable Flow - poor,
yet tolerable delays experienced through-
E 0.91 to 1.00
out the day. Peak hours may experience
significant congestion and delays.
E :51.00
Unstable Flow - heavy congestion and
delays experienced throughout the day
F > 1.00
and during peak hours. Volumes at or
near capacity.
F > 1.00 +
Forced Flow - both speeds and flow of
KHR Associates, 1991.
traffic can drop to zero. Stoppages may
Rcf.TTIRTB02.KMw
occur for long periods with vehicles backing
up from one intersection through another.
(Referred to as a "gridlock" condition.)
39,400
26,300
16,800
10,500
45,000
30,000
19,200
12,000
50,700
332800
211600
13,500
56,300 37,500 24,000 15,000
This condition represents system
breakdown and does not
have a specific
relationship to service volumes.
SOURCE: Highway Capacity Manual, Special Report 209; Orange County Environmental Management Agency;
KHR Associates, 1987.
Ref. TMT 1.KMW
TABLE II - INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE DEFINITIONS
Critical
Level of Volume
SeryjcC qty
A 0.00 to 0.60
Interpretation
Uncongested operation; all vehicles clear in a single
signal cycle.
B 0.61 to 0.70
Light congestion; occasional back-ups on critical
approaches.
C 0.71 to 0.80
Some congestion on approaches, but intersection
functional.
D 0.81 to 0.90
Traffic required to wait through more than one cycle
during short peaks. However, no long-standing lines
formed.
E 0.91 to 1.00
Severe congestion with some long-standing lines on
criticla approaches. Blockage of intersection may
occur if traffic signal does not provide for protected
left turn movements.
F > 1.00
Total breakdown with "stop-and-go"operation.
Back-up may occur at nearby intersections.
SOURCE: Highway Capacity Manual,
1985; Orange County Congestion Management Program, 1991;
KHR Associates, 1991.
Rcf.TTIRTB02.KMw
I IN
Avenue is characterized by crosswalks in each direction and is currently controlled by a
two-phase signal. All approach legs to this intersection include separate left turn lanes, and
the southbound leg includes a separately delineated right turn lane.
EXISTING TRAFFIC CONDITIONS
In order to properly analyze traffic flow and traffic safety conditions, and develop workable
improvement programs, it is necessary to obtain a clear understanding of the existing traffic
characteristics of the roadways and intersections near and adjacent to the proposed project
site. Relevant traffic information used for this purpose was either collected as part of this
study or provided by the City of Tustin. These data include recent 24-hour roadway traffic
counts and A.M. and P.M. peak hour intersection traffic counts.
Existing Traffic Volumes
Twenty-four hour directional traffic counts were conducted specifically for this study to
determine the average daily traffic (ADT) volumes for each of the main roadways being
investigated. During the week of June 17, 1991, new 24-hour counts were taken on the
segments of First Street, east of Prospect Avenue, and Prospect Avenue, south of First
Street, and an ADT volume was established from these counts. In addition to the average
daily traffic counts, A.M. and P.M. peak hour turn movement traffic counts were conducted
at the intersection of First Street and Prospect Avenue on Tuesday, June 18, 1991 for this
analysis. The resulting traffic data are provided in the appendix of this report and are
illustrated in Figure 3 (Existing Traffic Volumes).
Existing Levels of Service
Existing levels of service (LOS) for the key intersection and the two key roadway segments
are summarized in Table III. The HCM method was utilized to calculate the roadway
segment levels of service, based on the volume -to -capacity ratios of each segment. The
method utilized to determine the intersection LOS was the Intersection Capacity Utiliza-
tion (ICU) method, and was the desired method of analysis of the City of Tustin Traffic
Engineering personnel. The actual calculations for intersection LOS are complex and are
provided in detail in the appendix of this report.
TABLE III - EXISTING LEVELS OF SERVICE
A.M. Peak P.M. Peak
INTERSECTIONS jsll Im ilii Im
First Street/Prospect Avenue 0.471 A 0.741 C
24 - Hour
ROADWAYS V/C Ratio Ms
First Street east of Prospect Avenue 0.733 B
Prospect Avenue south of First Street 0.365 A
NOTE: See Appendix for Intersection Capacity Utilization calculation sheets.
Ref.'MRTB03.KMw
As noted in Table III, both streets segments are currently operating at an acceptable LOS
"C" or better. The intersection of First Street and Prospect Avenue is currently operating
at an acceptable LOS "C" or better during the A.M. and P.M. peak periods.
-7-
I
[El McDONALD'S I a I
RESTAURANT
SCALE: NONE I I
TUSTIRE3.DWC
r'\
i
ECONO LUBE
AND TUNE
(
PROSPECT AVENUELl
POST OFFICE
i
CAR WASH I
UNDER CONSTRUCTION i
I
- - PROJECT
:::ITSrTE
�tn
In�
f') f") V 0 N
Jif. j
if...
154 38 I I 235 )54
136---- + --- 139 158 --- + -249
81� � 22 146
S I i --�f
r
r nL�
Ln _
N
I I
A.M. PEAK VOLUMES P.M. PEAK VOLUMES
w
( LEGEND
I I (XX,XXX)= EXISTING A.D.T.
F-- BASED ON COUNT CONDUCTED
fY I I JUNE, 1991.
EXISTINGFIGURF :5
TRAFFIC VOLUMES TRANSPORTAnON/ENVIRONMENTAL/URBAN SYSTEMS
fesoo %oe Y&ro..a A..aw. SrM. aoo • it -in. CGW.rmU 97716 • M4) 7M-6440
—p—
TRAVEL DEMAND FORECAST
Future traffic conditions resulting from additional development within the study area may
be generally predicted by performing a travel demand forecast. Such forecasts vary in
magnitude and complexity, but at minimum include defining the streets and highways
network of interest; estimating the amount of traffic generated by a given development or
geographic area; determining the areawide distribution of this traffic; and assigning it to
specific portions of the streets and highways network. Trip generation rates may be found
invarious authoritative documents including thelnstitute of Transportation Engineers"Trip
Generation," 4th Edition; the San Diego Association of Governments' (SANDAG) 'Traffic
Generators," as revised June 1989; and publications by the Eno Foundation for Transpor-
tation.
In order to determine the magnitude and impact of additional traffic generated onto streets
surrounding the project site, a travel demand forecast of future traffic conditions was
undertaken for the build -out of the proposed project. The procedure entailed: 1) a
determination of future trip ends generated by the proposed project; 2) a trip distribution
of these trip ends based on regional and project -specific factors; and 3) the assignment of
these trip ends on specific routes.
Trip Generation
The trip generation component of the travel demand forecasting procedure attempts to
quantify the trip making propensities of a given land use, development type or event. In
simplified analyses, trips (or more appropriately, trip ends) generated by a given land use,
development type or event are often estimated by applying empirically pre -determined
trip generation rates. Trip generation rates may be found in a various authoritative
documents including the Institute of Transportation Engineers' 'Trip Generation," 4th
Edition; the San Diego Association of Governments' (SANDAG) 'Traffic Generators," as
revised September 1989; and publications by the Eno Foundation for Transponation. These
standard rates are often adjusted to reflect local conditions.
The SANDAG 'Trip Generators" was recommended by the City of Tustin Engineering
Services Manager as the only known source which includes trip generation information for
an automotive service business. It is also of importance to note that the information in this
source is based on one study of an automotive service center approximately 32,600 square
feet in size containing 29 service stalls. The trip generation information for the car wash
was based on a study dated July 3, 1989, conducted by Weston Pringle & Associates.
Applicable trip generation rates for an automotive service center may be expressed in trip
ends per thousand square feet of gross floor area, or in terms of the number of service stalls,
and typically include average weekday and A.M. and P.M. peak hour rates which cor-
respond with the A.M. and P.M. peak hours of commuter traffic. In comparison, applicable
trip generation rates for a car wash may be expressed in trip ends per thousand square feet
of gross floor area, or in terms of the number of wash stalls.
Utilizing -the SANDAG rates, trip generation results for the proposed project as well as
the car wash are provided in Table IV. As noted in Table IV, the proposed project is
estimated to generate a total of 154 vehicle trip ends per day. The project will generate
approximately 12 vehicle trip ends (8 in and 4 out) on an average day during the A.M. peak
N
TABLE IV - PROJECT TRIP GENERATION
12aily Trip Ends AM..Peak PPeak
Land Ilse Units. Factor" Volume Factor Volume Factor Volume
Car Wash2 1 Site 900 900 40 40 80 80
Tire Service3 8 Service Bays 19.24 154 1.517 12 2.172 17
TOTALS 1,054 52 97
1- Trip Ends Per Unit.
2 - From Weston Pringle & Associates "Tustin Plaza Carwash" Traffic Study, July 3,1989.
3 - From "Traffic Generators," San Diego Association of Governments, January 1990.
Ref.TTIRTI30410C 1W
hour, and approximately 17 vehicle trip ends (7 in and 10 out) during the P.M. peak hour.
It is also noted in Table IV that a total of 900 vehicle trip ends per average weekday, a total
of 40 vehicle trip ends (20 in and 20 out) during the A.M. peak hour, and a total of 80 vehicle
trip ends (40 in and 40 out) during the P.M. peak hour, are estimated to be generated by
the car wash.
The June 3, 1991 staff report to the City Council states: "As indicated by the applicant...,
a tire service business can serve between 30 and 60 customers in a day. This was also verified
by staff by surveying two established tire service businesses."
Assuming this to be the case, and also assuming that each customer prefers to leave their
car rather thanwait for servicing, (i.e., the "worst case condition"), then one customer would
produce four trips (two in, two out), for a total of 120 to 240 trips per day. These figures
support the daily trip generation figure of 154 trips estimated from the SANDAG report.
Trip Distribution
The trip distribution component of the travel demand forecasting procedure concerns itself
with estimating the amount of travel between different geographic areas which, presumab-
ly, produce and attract trips. Several models are available for this estimation of trip
distribution, including the gravity model, which stratifies trip distribution by trip purpose
(i.e., home -work, home -shopping, home -other, work -other, etc.).
However, in most small -area studies, the distribution of trips is difficult to model with any
degree of accuracy. Local trip distribution, or to trip assignment, requires knowledge of
the location and circulation limitations affecting direct access to the site in question. In this
instance, the existing raised landscape median, left turn and "U-turn" prohibitions have
direct and differing effects on trip distribution for the car wash and the proposed project.
It is assumed that 10% of the total trips entering the proposed project site originate from
the north and 7% from the south along Prospect Avenue, and 379o' from the west and 46510
from the east along First Street.. For the car wash, it is assumed that 16010 originate from
the north, 10% from the south, 37% from the west an 37% from the east. These distribu-
tions are based on the distribution of existing traffic along these roadways, as well as
proximity of the site and driveways to the intersection of First Street and Prospect Avenue,
traffic signal phasing, left turn prohibitions, and site accessibility from both adjoining
streets.
-10-
Trip Assignment
Trip assignment is typically the final step in travel demand forecasting (along with mode
split). This procedure attempts to identify the specific routes that vehicles will take within
a given streets and highways network. While several trip assignment techniques are
available (e.g., capacity restraint, diversion curves, "all or nothing" assignment, etc.), all rely
on an iteration process of assigning traffic to various routes which minimize travel distance
and travel time between origin and destination.
When dealing with a relatively small amount of traffic, the assignments are best ac-
complished by manually allocating trips to known travel routes (i.e., commuter routes, local
short-cuts, routes to shopping and recreational facilities, etc.). The basis for this allocation
procedure is to interpret existing traffic data and travel patterns. ADT and intersection
movements counts acquired for this study were utilized for this purpose.
Various analyses were conducted to determine the extent of the impacts which may arise
as a result of the project. Initially, the traffic estimated to be generated by the car wash was
combined with the estimated traffic volumes. Then the trips estimated to be generated by
the proposed project were combined with the existing traffic and the trips generated by the
car wash. The resulting figures were then assigned to the surrounding street segments and
intersections to determine the resulting LOS for key roadways and intersections for project
build -out.
The resulting ADT figures and turn movements for the A.M. and P.M. peak hours of traffic
for the "Existing Plus Car Wash" condition are shown in Figure 4. Figure 5 illustrates the
ADT figures and turn movements for the A.M. and P.M. peak hours of traffic for the
"Existing Plus Proposed Project Plus Car Wash" generated traffic.
TRAFFIC IMPACTS
Traffic impacts, existing and future, are directly measured by comparing changes in the
levels of service along roadway segments and at critical intersections. Tables V and VI
summarize the projected intersection and roadway LOS for the "Existing Plus Car Wash"
and "Existing Plus Project Plus Car Wash" scenarios, respectively. These LOS are based on
the assignment of trip ends generated by the car wash and the tire and brake service, and
their addition to the existing streets system. As noted in Tables V and VI, the ICU for the
intersection of First Street and Prospect Avenue will increase from its existing levels of
0.471 (A.M.) and 0.741 (P.M.), to 0.479 (A.M.) and 0.759 (P.M.) for the "Existing Plus Car
Wash" scenario, and to 0.483 (A.M.) and 0.762 (P.M.) for the Existing Plus Project Plus
Car Wash" scenario. However, the resulting LOS remain at their current acceptable LOS
"A" and "C," during the A.M. and P.M. peak hours, respectively. In addition, the roadway
segment V/C ratios for First Street and Prospect Avenue are expected to increase from
0.733 to 0.752, and 0.365 to 0.391, respectively, due to the addition of car wash and
project -generated traffic. However, the resulting LOS remain at their current acceptable
LOS "B" for First Street, and LOS "A" for Prospect Avenue.
PARKING GENERATION
Parking generation is the total amount of parking spaces expected to be utilized by a given
land use or building type. Applicable parking generation rates may be used to estimate the
-11-
I
EHI McDONALD'S
RESTAURANT
SCALE: NONE I I
TUSTIRE4.DWG
00
N
ECONO LUBE
AND TUNE
PROSPECT AVENUE a
POST OFFICE
i
CAR WASH I
UNDER CONSTRUCTION i
EXtSTtNO
OFFRCES
.A
PROJECTI
SRE
(5,766)
N _ co Zz
r^iCD
v �<nm
1
156 39 I 240 56
137 + 139 160 —�- + 250
81—; '-- 2 4 14 6-1 ` 4 4
' � ' I I ' I
Q No
N �D U1 N
.. I I N
A.M. PEAK VOLUMES P.M. PEAK VOLUMES
Li
rz
F—
(� I LEGEND
(XX,XXX)= EXISTING PLUS
F—
c/)CAR WASH A.D.T. BASED ON
CC I I COUNT CONDUCTED JUNE, 1991.
L�
EXISTING PLUS CARpppp- I FIC -URF 4
WASH TRAFFIC VOLUMES TRANSPORTATION/ENVIRONMENTAL/URBAN SYSTEMS
18500 Von Karma Avenue, SwiW 300 • lraim. California $2715 • (714) 756-6440
-12-
[Bi McDONALD'S
RESTAURANT
SCALE: NONE
TUSTIRE5.DWG
ECONO LUBE
AND TUNE
PROSPECT AVENUE )
POST OFFICE
I
I
CAR WASH
UNDER CONSTRUCTION I
PROJECTI
SITE
(5,864)
70
1, oLn
c�Ln U�'-
156 39 I I 138—x- + - I40 81 25 ^��N%D %D
A.M. PEAK VOLUMES P.M. PEAK VOLUMES
w I I
CC
F --
I LEGEND
(XX,XXX)= EXISTING PLUS PROJECT
F—
Ln PLUS CAR WASH A.D.T. BASED ON
ry I I COUNT CONDUCTED JUNE, 1991.
Lr_
FIGURE 5
EXISTING PLUS PROJECT PLUS
TRANSPORTATION/ENVIRONMENTAL/URBAN SYSTEMS
CAR WASH TRAFFIC VOLUMES
18500 Von Korman Avenue. Suite 900 • lrwim. Calilornis 02715 • (714) 756-6440
-13-
TABLE V - EXISTING PLUS CAR WASH
LEVELS OF SERVICE
INTERSECTIONS
First Street/Prospect Avenue
ROADWAYS
First Street east of Prospect Avenue
Prospect Avenue south of First Street
A.M. Peak P.M. Peak
Mu LM Ilii Imo.
0.479 A 0.759 C
24 - Hour
YJC Ratio im
0.750 B
0.384 A
NOTE See Appendix for Intersection Capacity Utilization calculation sheets.
Ref.TTIRTB05.KMW
TABLE VI - EXISTING PLUS PROJECT PLUS
CAR WASH LEVELS OF SERVICE
A.M. Peak P.M. Peak
INTERSECTIONS I -Qu id?- ICU LM
First Street/Prospect Avenue 0.483 A 0.762 C
24 - Hour
ROADWAYS VIC Ratiq Id2S
First Street east of Prospect Avenue 0.752 B
Prospect Avenue south of First Street 0391 A
NOTE: See Appendix for Intersection Capacity Utilization calculation sheets.
Ref.TTIRTB06.KMW
number of parking spaces necessary for a land use or building type of a specified size. Such
rates are typically found in various documents, including the Institute of Transportation
Engineers' (=) "Parking Generation," 2nd Edition. However, the rM does not include
information for automotive services or similar uses. Therefore, the parking generation
rates for this study are based on a previous study conducted by KHR Associates in August
of 1989 for the Ambassador. Automotive Service Center located in Anaheim. This report
supports a parking demand ratio of 4.18 parking stalls per 1,000 square feet of gross floor
area. The number of required parking stalls calculated based on this rate do not include
the parking spaces located inside the building.
Utilizing this rate, the estimated required number of parking stalls for the 3,966 square
foot tire and brake service is 16.58 or 17 stalls, not including the 8 service bays. The City
of Tustin development code requires 2 parking spaces per 1,000 square feet of gross floor
area for the tire and brake center, which is calculated to be 8 required parking spaces. For
the existing medical office, accounting and retail uses, the City requires a 13 parking spaces,
for a total City code requirement of 21 parking spaces for the entire site. The proposed site
plan provides a total of 19 parking spaces for the site, which satisfies only the parking
-14-
demand for the tire service, and which is 2 spaces less than City requirements. Therefore,
the proposed number of parking spaces on the site plan appears deficient based on both
City code requirements and empirically determined parking demand for the tire and brake
service. Table VII provides a comparison of the number of parking spaces required per
City code, the number provided and the total estimated parking demand.
Please note that the Wilson Auto Center (study nuinber AC -1 of the SANDAG report)
• . w .. ww n n .... w • •• . •
provides llu parking spaces for me.54600 square toot faculty, for an aS-ouut parxing ratio
TABLE VII - PARKING GENERATION & REQUIREMENTS
Parking Required Parking Parking Demended
Land Use i nits �T Spaces Provided Spaces
Tire Service 3,866 SF2 2 8 N/A 4.183'4 17
Customer Waiting 100 SF 5 1 N/A N/AS N/A
Medical Office 1,343 SF 8 8 N/A 4.116 6
General Office 1,050 SF 4 4 N/A 2.796 3
TOTALS 6,393 SF 21 19 26
1- Parking Spaces Per Thousand Square Feet.
2 - Square Feet
3 - From KHR Associates "Ambassodor Automotive Service Center Parking Impact Study, August, 1987.
4 - Based on Total Facility (i.e., 3,966 SF)
5 -Although the City of Tustin requires parking spaces for the customer waiting area, this area does not generate parking
demand.
6 - From Institute of Transportation Engineers' "Pari:ing Generation," 2nd Edition, 1987.
Rcf.TTIRT807.KMW
of 3.68 parking spaces per 1,000 square feet. This ratio is greater than the City of Tustin
parking requirement of 2 spaces per 1,000 square feet. Utilizing the Wilson Auto Center
parking ratio for the Tustin Tire Service yields a total parking requirement of 14.59 or 15
parking spaces, in comparison to the 8 spaces required by the City of Tustin.
Based on the limited empirical data, it appears that current City parking code requirements
n= be understated. However, resolution of this apparent deficiency may not be resolved
without a more detailed analysis of current code requirements.
It is understood that the applicant is seeking a consolidated parking/access bonus which
would allow for an overall reduction in required parking of 20% in accordance with the
First Street Specific Plan. It is further understood that the co -applicants are requesting a
7% reduction in required parking. This is reported to result in a reduction from 21 spaces
to 19 spaces on the tire center property with no reduction on the car wash site. If accepted,
this mechanism would resolve the discrepancy with City Code requirements, but would not
resolve the discrepancy with the empirically derived parking generation data presented.
SITE PLAN REVIEW
A review of the proposed site plan indicates that adequate on-site parking and circulation
are provided, and that the access strategy is acceptable, given the physical constraints of
the site. The northerly driveway accessing the site is located 180 feet east of the intersection
of First Street and Prospect Avenue and is 35 feet in width. The westerly driveway is located
approximately 110 feet south of the intersection of First Street and Prospect Avenue and
-15-
is approximately 25 feet in width. The driveways appear to be of adequate width for safety
and circulation purposes.
Although internal circulation appears to be adequate, the design of the raised landscaped
median on First Street encourages illegal and potentially unsafe vehicle movements.
Drivers ultimately wanting to proceed westbound on First Street are immediately aware
of the left turn pocket leading to McDonald's. While u -turns are prohibited from that
pocket, drivers are encouraged to cross two eastbound travel lanes to use the left turn
pocket, enter the McDonald's site, proceed around the restaurant, exit the McDonald's
and then proceed westbound on First Street. While driver familiarity with the availability
of cross -lot access to the Prospect Avenue driveway will reduce the occurrence of this
activity, additional "right turn only" signage is suggested at the driveway located on First
Street.
The on-site drive isles are approximately 25 feet wide and allow for two-way traffic
movement. The proposed site plan will allow for cross -site circulation. Vehicles traveling
to and from the car wash and the tire and brake service will be able to access both driveways
due to the proposed site configuration. It is suggested that the conditions of approval for
the proposed project incorporate a requirement for City approved ingress/egress ease-
ments.
STUDY FINDINGS & CONCLUSIONS
Based on the results of this traffic impact analysis, the following findings and conclusions
are reached regarding the proposed project:
1. The intersection of First Street and Prospect Avenue currently operates at acceptable
levels of service (i.e., level of service "C' or better) during the A.M. and P.M. peak hours
of traffic.
2. The roadway segments of First Street and Prospect Avenue adjacent to the site currently
operate at acceptable levels of service (i.e., level of service "C" or better).
3. The levels of service at the intersection of First Street and Prospect Avenue are
projected to remain at current acceptable levels for the "Existing Plus Car Wash" and
"Existing Plus Project Plus Car Wash" conditions during the A.M. and P.M. peak hours
of traffic.
4. The roadway LOS for First Street and Prospect Avenue are expected to remain at their
current levels for the "Existing Plus Car Wash" and "Existing Plus Project Plus Car
Wash" conditions.
5. A review of the proposed site plan indicates that the design for vehicular access and
parking stalls as proposed are in accordance with City code requirements. The site is
adequately accessed and will accommodate emergency vehicles. The on-site circulation
patterns for the general public areas were found to provide for the orderly movement
of traffic without unsafe on-site turning or parking maneuvers.
6. Vehicles leaving the site from the northerly driveway located, and desiring to travel in
the westbound direction on First Street are encouraged, due to the design of the raised
landscaped median on this roadway, to cross the two eastbound travel lanes of First
-16-
Street in order to access the left turn pocket. This condition is considered to be
potentially unsafe, but can be partially mitigated through the installation of appropriate
traffic control signage.
7. The proposed 19 on-site parking stalls appear to be inadequate based empirical parking
demand data and analysis which indicates that a total of 26 parking spaces should be
provided. However, City code requirements of 21 parking spaces can be met through
approval of the requested parking/access bonus.
RECOMMENDATIONS
Based on the above study findings and conclusions, the following recommendations are
made:
1. Due to the cross -lot driveway configuration for the First Street drive approach and drive
aisles, appropriate ingress/egress easements are necessary. It is recommended that such
easements be required for conditions of approval and that the form and content are
approved by the City Attorney and the City Engineer.
2. Due to parking demand and parking lot configuration, assigned parking, with ap-
propriate signage, is recommended. Stalls 8, 9, and 10 as shown on the proposed site
plan should be reserved for the medical use, and stalls 15 and 16 should be reserved
for the office use. Sign :design and location should be approved in conjunction with
other site signage.
3. "Fire-Lane/No Parking" striping and text should be placed and maintained along service
bay frontage to preclude blockage of the service aisle. Design and materials should be
approved by the City Engineer.
4. A "Right Turn Only" sign should be placed at the First Street driveway as approved by
the City Engineer.
5. Traffic direction arrows should be painted onto the drive aisle surface at locations as
shown on Figure 2 and as approved by the City Engineer.
6. Approval of the site plan should be made contingent upon approval of corresponding
site plan changes for the car wash.
7. Any free standing signs and vegetation should be reviewed for line -of -site considera-
tions.
8. Some form of recourse is needed should parking become a problem. The following
condition, placed on other projects in similar circumstances, is recommended:
"The ownershall be required to prepare a comprehensive parking demand study
anytime within the fust three years from the approval of a Final. Building Permit
for the site alterations requested as part of (Case No.), at the request and
discretion of the Director of Community Development if it is determined that a
parking problem exists on the site or the site exacerbates traffic or parking issues
on adjacent streets. If said report indicates inadequate on-site parking, the
owner at the discretion of the City shall provide additional mitigation to offset
-17-
parking impacts by implementing one of the following alternatives, with the
determination of the acceptable alternate subject to review and approval by the
City
A. Secure off-site parking and execute a recordable parking agreement from
adjacent property owners;
B. Reduce the number of service bays in order to correspondingly reduce
required parking for the use."
-18-
REFERENCES
"Ambassador Automotive Service Parking Impact Study," KHR Associates, August 1987.
"City Council Report," City of Tustin, Community Development Department, June 3,1991.
"Congestion Management Program for Orange County," County of Orange, January 1991.
"Highway Capacity Manual - Special Report 209," Transportation Research Board, Nation-
al Research Council, 1985.
"Parking Generation," 2nd Edition, Institute of Transportation Engineers, 1987.
"Report to the Planning Commission," City of Tustin, April 22, 1991.
"Request for Variance," Donley -Bennett Architects, May 24, 1991.
Response to the traffic report conducted by Weston Pringle and Associates dated July 3,
1989, from Mastro and Associates to Mr. Stephen Paquette, May 14, 1991.
'Transportation and Traffic Engineering Handbook, 2nd Edition, Institute of Transpor-
tation Engineers, 1982.
'Trip Generation," 4th Edition, Institute of Transportation Engineers, 1987.
'Trip Generators," San Diego Association of Governments, January, 1990.
'Tustin Plaza Car Wash," Traffic Study, Weston Pringle and Associates, July 3, 1989.
-19-
APPENDIX
KHR ASSOCIATES
INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS
COUNT DATE: 6/18/91 KHR CODE: TTICU-1 A.XLS
DAY: TUESDAY INPUT BY: K. WOODS
LOCATION: CITY OF TUSTIN COUNTY: ORANGE
NORTH-SOUTH STREET: PROSPECT AVENUE SURVEY PERIOD: 7:00 TO 9:00 A.M.
EAST-WEST STREET: FIRST STREET PEAK HOUR: 7:45 TO 8:45 A.M.
COMMENTS:
PEAK HOUR VOLUME
VOLUMEICAPACITY RATIO
EXISTING +
EXISTING +
DIRECTION
NUMBER
CAPACITY
OF
LANE
OF
(VEH/HR)
EXISTING +
PROJECT +
EXISTING +
PROJECT +
TRAVEL
MOVEMENT
LANES
ON GREEN
EXISTING
CAR WASH
CAR WASH
EXISTING CAR WASH
CAR WASH
LEFT TURN
1
1700
22
24
25
0.013 0.014
0.015
NORTHBOUND
THROUGH"
1
1700
139
139
140
0.104 t 0.105
0.105
RIGHT TURN
0
0
38
39
39
0.000 0.000
0.000
LEFT TURN
1
1700
154
156
156
0.091 0.092
0.092
SOUTHBOUND
THROUGH
1
1700
136
137
138
0.080 0.081
0.081
RIGHT TURN
1
1700
81
81
81
0.050 0.050
0.050
LEFT TURN
1
1700
147
147
147
0.086 0.086
0.086
EASTBOUND
THROUGH"
2
3400
615
622
523
0.200 � 0.203 �
0.204 r
RIGHT TURN
0
0
66
67
69
0.000 0.000
0.000
LEFT TURN
1
1700
44
51
55
0.026 + 0.030 *
0.032 +
WESTBOUND
THROUGH'•
2
3400
399
402
402
0.128 0.129
0.129
RIGHT TURN
0
1 0
1 37
1 37
1 37
0.000 1 0.000
0.000
EXISTING ICU & CLEARANCE INTERVAL
0.471
Mir=.
EXISTING LEVEL OF SERVICE
A
EXISTING PLUS PROJECT ICU & CLEARANCE INTERVAL0.479
WA
EXISTING PLUS PROJECT LEVEL OF SERVICE
CUMULATIVE ICU & CLEARANCE INTERVAL
,,
0.483
CUMULATIVE LEVEL OF SERVICE
A
DENOTES CRITICAL MOVEMENT
DENOTES SHARED LANE
KHR ASSOCIATES
INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS
COUNT DATE: 6/18/91 KHR CODE: TTICU-1 P.XLS
DAY: TUESDAY INPUT BY: K. WOODS
LOCATION: CITY OF TUSTIN COUNTY: ORANGE
NORTH -SOUTH STREET: PROSPECT AVENUE SURVEY PERIOD: 4:00 TO 6:00 P.M.
EAST -WEST STREET: FIRST STREET PEAK HOUR: 5:00 TO 6:00 P.M.
COMMENTS:
PEAK HOUR VOLUME
VOLUME/CAPACITY RATIO
EXISTING +
EXISTING +
DIRECTION
NUMBER
CAPACITY
OF
LANE
OF
(VEH/HR)
EXISTING +
PROJECT +
EXISTING +
PROJECT +
TRAVEL
MOVEMENT
LANES
ON GREEN
EXISTING
CAR WASH
CAR WASH
EXISTING
CAR WASH
CAR WASH
LEFT TURN
1
1700
42
44
48
0.025
0.026
0.028
NORTHBOUND
THROUGH••
1
1700
249
250
251
0.178 "
0.180
0.181
RIGHT TURN
0
0
54
56
56
0.000
0.000
0.000
LEFT TURN
1
1700
235
240
240
0.138 *
0.141 *
0.141
SOUTHBOUND
THROUGH
1
1700
158
160
161
0.093
0.094
0.095
RIGHT TURN
1
1700
146
146
146
0.086
0.086
0.086
LEFT TURN
1
1700
157
157
157
0.092
0.092
0.092
EASTBOUND
THROUGH`
2
3400
1215
1227
1227
0.361 *
0.365
0.366
RIGHT TURN
0
0
11
14
17
0.000
0.000
0.000
LEFT TURN
1
1700
23
38
41
0.014
0.022
0.024
WESTBOUND
THROUGH`
2
3400
555
561
561
0.221
0.223
0.223
RIGHT TURN
1 0
1 0
1 198
198
198
0.000
0.000
0.000
EXISTING ICU & CLEARANCE INTERVAL
0.741
EXISTING LEVEL OF SERVICE
C
EXISTING PLUS PROJECT ICU & CLEARANCE INTERVAL
0.759
EXISTING PLUS PROJECT LEVEL OF SERVICE
C
CUMULATIVE ICU & CLEARANCE INTERVAL
0.762
CUMULATIVE LEVEL OF SERVICE
C
DENOTES CRITICAL MOVEMENT
* DENOTES SHARED LANE
H
z
/0
0
z
CcD
z
0
0
LU
C/)
LUz
z
F-
U
LU
O
cc
a
R
O
O
n
0
m
LU
CL
F-
D
U
0
0
cn
w
D
h'
Q
D
in `r-
F -
M
N m
CC
Li cD
Z LU
O Q
F- p
U
w
N
m
w
f"
z
O
OQ
mdCD
w p
CL !-
O
M
m
M
d
qt
Ln
m
O
w
M
st
n
w
N
w
Ln
t
N
n
m
1--
=
C7
rn
N
a)
r
N
N
O
N
O
m
Ln
•-
rn
�
o)
N
st
.-
n
n
w
�..
M
00
p
z
O
N
D O
_
O
N
oo
m
O)
m
0
n
N
�-
co
co
N
n
r-
co
cD
Ln
M
w
N
N
C
w
w
ca
LU
3
1-
W
n
st
�t
�-
�
cD
cD
N
a
N
J
F-
=
C7
N
.-
M
N
co
Ln
M
Ln
qt
n
�-
to
M
to
V-
z
O
CO
m
S
M
M
Ln
n
CD
Mr-
a)
r-
M
00
M
M
.-
.--
M
r-
n
r-
rn
M
N
W-
L[)
Ln
m
N
m
QN
W
F-
W
J
.-
m
M
N
N
N
.--
W
M
M
co
d'
co
d'
ch
M
W
N
~
i
C7
et
.-
N
n
•-
M
NW
to
O
-it
N
ItG7
M
n
w
M
C„)
r„
r -
co
p
z
D
m
_
OC
=
Ln
N
m
N
CO
tt
V-
d
m
m
N
M
CD
m
n
N
N
r,
Ln
N
to
M
D
O
N
W
J
COV
N
M
Oo
'd'
V-M
CV)
co
CD
M
00
Lr)
t0
N
�
H
_M
C7
w
N
M
N
. -
Lf)
co
Ln
M
•-
to
co
M
at
p
z
D
O
m
cc
�-
co
n
M
O
LLi
CV)�
cD
et
M
rn
CV)
Ln
•-
oo
N
a)M
CV)
O
z
LL
M
Wt
LC)
to
r
to
n
tD
.�
N
N
00
CV)
N
N
J
O z
m z
LU w
m
o
O
n
Ln
•-
r
O
M
n
Ln
4
n
0
m
N
o
O.-
oo
Ln
co
O
M
co
m
it
co
O=
F..
m
:)
N
O=
Ly
LU
O
a
H
Z
Z)
O
U
z
Z
O
p
U
W
cc
W
Z
w
Q
�c
G
D
w
O
m
1-
�c
0
W
M
N
ztz_ a
H
N
f" CC
Lt- y r
M
} N co
_ S
t% c0
Z z Lu
0. O Q
VW
O N
J �
W
z
~c0
WO
t0
t0
O
N
n
to
to
d
O
O
M
w
w
O
cn
F "
S
C7
d
d
d
M
to
LE)
to
d
c0
N
!)
c0
0
�o
O
co=
f..
M
r
N
N
co
d
M
an
O
n
M
•-
to
n
M
0
M
Lt)
U)
O
to
LC)
W
3
W
Ln
co
cfl
d
M
M
co
cD
N
�
N
J
H
n
M
M
t0
Cl
M
d
N
N
.-
to
co
.-
z
m
N
O—
=
~
N
N
LA
•-
N
c0
M
N
to
n
N
Q)
M
O
d
N
M
Ln
O
M
00
O
M
00
r-
to
j
d
N
Lf)
N
WIt
It
d
d
0�0
M
d
N
It
Lf)
00
M
r -
LA
F-
S
C7
M
.-
d
r
N
M
N
o
d
M
N
O
It
n
M
ca
N
�..
0
z
D
o
M
S
w
S
n
N
r-
M
M
M
c)
�--
a0
M
d
M
M
n
M
�
�..
^
N
�
V-
H
F-
D
N
LL
J
M
M
•-
d
t0
d
V-
d
n
c0
co
d
M
N
t0
_
M
to
N
N
Lf)
N
=
(7
1�
r
^
Ln
N
M
r
00
Lfl
M
•-
O
N
N
r
tri
d
to
N
04
Ln
Z
D
O
m
cc
Ln
d
M00
d
M
M
ca
to
M
LC)
�
r %
n
t0
to
Ln
N
tt
N
crO
Z
U.
J.-
O
to
q-
M
•-
LA
d
00
.--
to
r-
N
N
d
n
00
N
d
0 z
Z
?
a co=
m
CL
o
O
d
a
to
r-
d
a
O
M
d
a
to
d
d
Q
F'
O
m
N
a.
o
O
to
a
to
a
to
a
L
to
Q
O
m
CC
Q
O
0 O
W~
S
F-
a
O
0 O
Y~
a.
SITE CODE :
00000001
TUSTIN
:PAGE:
1
Location :
1ST E/0 PROSPECT E/B
FILE:
tustin-1
Weather :
GOOD
Operator :
TB
DATE:
6/18/91
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
T.
TUESDAY
-18
WEDNESDAY
-19
THURSDAY
-20
Daily Average
BEGIN
AM
PM
AM
PM
AM
PM
AM
PM
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
12:00
*
359
22
*
*
*
22
359
12:15
*
324
17
*
*
*
17
324
12:30
*
327
16
*
*
*
16
327
12:45
*
310
10
*
*
*
10
310
1:00
*
335
4
*
*
*
4
335
1:15
*
315
9
*
*
*
9
315
1:30
*
283
9
*
*
*
9
283
1:45
*
300
12
*
*
*
12
300
2:00
*
279
8
*
*
*
8
279
2:15
*
284
5
*
*
*
-5
284
2:30
*
285
6
*
*
*
6
285
2:45
*
280
4
*
*
*
4
280
3:00
*
304
4
*
*
*
4
304
3:15
*
264
3
*
*
*
3
264
3:30
*
291
4
*
*
*
4
291
3:45
*
271
5
*
*
*
5
271
4:00
*
281
6
*
*
*
6
281
4:15
*
299
8
*
*
*
8
299
4:30
*
339
13
*
*
*
13
339
4:45
*
341
21
*
*
*
21
341
5:00
*
386
15
*
*
*
15
386
5:15
*
373
38
*
*
*
38
373
5:30
*
348
58
*
*
*
58
348
5:45
*
278
77
*
*
*
77
278
6 —
*
309
89
*
*
*
89
309
*
254
133
*
*
*
133
254
6:,,,
*
216
127
*
*
*
127
216
6:45
*
191
128
*
*
*
128
191
7:00
*
188
104
*
*
*
104
188
7:15
*
183
135
*
*
*
135
183
7:30
*
172
133
*
*
*
133
172
7:45
*
142
170
*
*
*
170
142
8:00
184
116
*
*
*
*
184
116
8:15
173
129
*
*
*
*
173
129
8:30
196
127
*
*
*
*
196
127
8:45
180
110
*
*
*
*
180
110
9:00
179
106
*
*
*
*
179
106
9:15
188
92
*
*
*
*
188
92
9:30
198
75
*
*
*
*
198
75
9:45
203
98
*
*
*
*
203
98
10:00
228
70
*
*
*
*
228
70
10:15
212
57
*
*
*
*
212
57
10:30
241
41
*
*
*
*
241
41
10:45
249
43
*
*
*
*
249
43
11:00
237
38
*
*
*
*
237
38
11:15
272
36
*
*
*
*
272
36
11:30
296
31
*
*
*
*
296
31
11:45
338
17
*
*
*
*
338
17
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TOTALS
3574
10297 13871
1393
* 1392
*
*
-2 4967
10297 15:
PEAK HOUR
11:00
4:45
7:00
*
*
*
11:00
4:45
VOLUME
1143
1448
542
*
*
*
1143
1448
P
0.85
0.94
0.80
*
*
*
0.85
0.94
SITE CODE :
00000002
TUSTIN
PAGE:
FILE:
1
TUSTIN-2
Location :
1st E/0 PROSPECT W/B
Weather :
GOOD
DATE:
6/18/91
Operator.
TB
------------------------------------------------------------------•--
------
• -•--------------------------------------------
1
TUESDAY
-18
WEDNESDAY
-19
THURSDAY
-20
Daily Average
BEGIN
AM
PM
AM
PM
AM
PM
AM
PM
----------------------------------------------'
12:00
*
289
22----------*--------
*
22
289
12:15
*
282
10
*
*
*
10
282
12:30
*
286
6
*
*
*
6
286
12:45
*
316
8
*
*
*
8
316*
1:00
*
284
6
*
6
284
1:15
*
276
6
*
*
6
276
1:30
*
258 .
7
*
*
7
258
1:45
*
261
8
*
*
8
261
2:00
*
239
6
*
6
239
2:15
*
244
3
*
*
3
244
2:30
*
201
2
*
*
*
*
2
1
201
219
2:45
*
219
1
*
*
*
3
208
3:00
*
208
3
*
*
*
6
198
3:15
*
198
6
*
*
*
4
212
3:30
*
212
4
*
*
*
3
205
3:45
*
205
3
*
*
*
4
197
4:00
*
197
4
*
*
*
7
206
4:15
*
206
7
*
*
*
10
214
4:30
*
214
10
*
*
*
9
190
4:45
*
190
9
*
*
*
8
197*
5:00
*
197
8
*
*
25
223
5:15
*
223
25
*
*
25
223
5:30
*
223
25
*
*
*
*
33
193
5:45
*
193
33
34
162
162
34
*
165
50
*
*
*
50
165
*
168
70
*
*
*
70
168
6:45
*
133
102
102
133
7:00
*
143
124
*
*
*
124
143
7:15
*
157
174
*
*
*
174
157
7:30
*
134
231
*
*
*
231
134
7:45
*
qg
231
*
*
*
231
98
*
*
*
211
111
8:00
211
111
*
*
*
*
*
238
89
8:15
238
89
*
*
*
239
95
8:30
239
95
*
*
*
*
221
83
8:45
221
83
*
*
*
211
97
9:00
211
97
*
*
*
*
*
202
59
9:15
202
59
*
*
*
*
199
62
9:30
199
62
*
*
*
*
172
61
9:45
172
61
*
*
*
*
200
43
10:00
200
43
*
*
*
*
192
33
10:15
192
33
*
*
*
*
189
36
10:30
189
36
*
*
*
*
174
26
10:45
174
26
*
*
*
*
182
34
11:00
182
34
*
*
*
223
23
11:15
223
23
*
*
*
*
*
*
223
18
11:30
223
18
*
*
*
249
13
11:45
249
13
*
-------------------------------•--------------*-------
TOTALS 3325
7664 10989
1238
1237
*
*
-2 4563
7664 12.
PEAK HOUR
8:00
12:00
7:00
*
*
*
7:45
12:00
VOLUME
909
1173
760
*
*
*
*
*
919
0.96
1173
0.93
P -
0.95
0.93
0.82
*
SITE CODE :
00000004
TUSTIN
PAGE:
1
Location :
PROSPECT
AVE. SOUTH
OF FIRST
FILE:
TUSTIN-4
Weather :
GOOD
Operator :
TB
DATE:
6/18/91
- -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
T,
.......
SB -------
-------
NB -------
-----
COMBINED
-----
DAY:
TUESDAY
BEGIN
AM
PM
AM
PM
--------------------
AM
-
PM
----------------------
12:00
*
-------------------------------------------
59
*
--------------
65
*
124
12:15
*
65
*
40
*
105
12:30
*
59
*
51
*
110
12:45
*
*
75
258
*
*
55
211
*
*
130
469
1:00
*
67
*
46
*
113
1:15
*
55
*
22
*
77
1:30
*
54
*
44
*
98
1:45
*
*
68
244
*
*
41
153
*
*
109
397
2:00
*
60
*
20
*
80
2:15
*
50
*
38
*
88
2:30
*
56
*
36
*
92
2:45
*
*
75
241
*
*
30
124
*
*
105
365
3:00
*
67
*
39
*
106
3:15
*
65
*
48
*
113
3:30
*
80
*
22
*
102
3:45
*
*
57
269
*
*
37
146
*
*
94
415
4:00
*
75
*
46
*
121
4:15
*
68
*
39
*
107
4:30
*
85
*
29
*
114
4:45
*
*
76
304
*
*
54
168
*
*
130
472
5:00
*
82
*
49
*
131
5:15
*
110
*
55
*
165
5:30
*
81
*
48
*
129
5:45
*
*
75
348
*
*
64
216
*
*
139
564
6 —.
*
54
*
38
*
92
*
44
*
31
*
75
6:,v
*
28
*
33
*
61
6:45
*
*
28
154
*
*
25
127
*
*
53
281
7:00
*
32
*
18
*
50
7:15
*
30
*
23
*
53
7:30
*
37
*
27
*
64
7:45
*
*
17
116
*
*
27
95
*
*
44
211
8:00
45
28
40
25
85
53
8:15
51
22
68
16
119
38
8:30
47
23
36
19
83
42
8:45
40
183
13
86
30
174
24
84
70
357
37
170
9:00
36
18
35
32
71
50
9:15
51
10
27
7
78
17
9:30
40
11
31
13
71
24
9:45
45
172
15
54
26
119
11
63
71
291
26
117
10:00
51
10
39
17
90
27
10:15
76
8
31
6
107
14
10:30
59
4
38
7
97
11
10:45
48
234
5
27
28
136
3
33
76
370
8
60
11:00
48
8
29
9
77
17
11:15
64
4
35
3
99
7
11:30
53
2
40
3
93
5
11:45
54
219
2
16
46
150
1
16
100
369
3
32
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TOTALS
808
2117
579
1436
1387
3553
DAY TOTALS
2925
2015
4940
SPLIT %
58.3
59.6
41.7
40.4
F )UR
10:00
4:30
8:00
5:00
10:00
5:00
VOLUME
234
353
174
216
370
564
P.H.F.
0.77
0.80
0.64
0.84
0.86
0.85
SITE CODE :
00000004
TUSTIN
PAGE: 2
FILE: TUSTIN-4
Location :
PROSPECT AVE.
SOUTH
OF FIRST
Weather :
0000
DATE: 6/19/91
OpeAtor .
TB
- --------------------SB•------------------------------
--------•----------------•---------------------------------•----------•---
NB •------
-----
COMBINED
-----
DAY: WEDNESDAY
T,
BEGIN
----•--
AM
PMAM
PM
AM
PH
----•----------•
--•--
•-----•--•-•-----------------------------------------------------------------
.................................
--- ------------------*-•-
--•-
12:00 2
1
*
3
12:15
6*
1
*
*
12:30
1
*
0
*
1
1
12:45
1
10
*
*
1
3
*
*
2
13
*
*
1:00
0
*
0
*
0
*
1:15
1
*
1
*
*
2
1
1:30
1
*
*
*
0
1
2
*
*
1
4
*
*
1:45
0
2
*
0
2:00
0
*
0
*
2:15
0
*
0
*
p
2:30
0
*
1
*
*
*
1
1
2
2:45
1
1
*
*
0
1
3:00
0
*
0
*
0
3:15
0
*
0
*
0
3:30
0
*
0
*
0
3:45
0
0
*
*
2
2
*
*
2
2
4:00 ,
3
*
1
*
4
4:15
0
*
2
*
2
_
4:30
4
*
0
*
4
4:45
0
7
*
*
0
3
*
*
0
10
5:00
2
*
2
*
4
5:15
0
*
2
*
2
5:30
1
*
*
*
5
12
21
*
*
*
6
20
32
5:45
8
11
5
*
5
*
10
12
*
24
*
36
*
16
*
23
*
39
6:45
17
50
*
*
30
82
*
*
47
132
7:00
25
*
33
*
58
7:15
40
*
48
*
88
7:30
50
*
46
*
96
7:45
53
168
*
*
52
179
*
*
105
*
347
*
8:00
*
*
*
*
*
*
8:15
*
*
*
*
*
*
8:30
8:45
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
9:00
*
*
*
*
*
9:15
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
9:30
*
*
*
*
*
9:45
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
10:00
10:15
10:30
10:45
11:00
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
11:15
*
*
*
*
*
11:30
*
*
*
*
11:45
*
*
*
*
*
--------------------------------------------
*
*
*
---- ----------
TOTALS
-----------
249 '
-------
-----------
*
--------------
293
*
542
DAY TOTALS
249
293
542
SPLIT %
45.9
*
54.1
1 OUR
7:00
*
7:00
*
7:00
VOLUME
168
*
179-
*
347
P.H.F.
0.79
*
0.86
*
0.83
ll
0 9z 1Io onl I -AQ ha MvJ h[ ri[
\W J 1• nua uy�
11jr \ • uua+l . anua y Inxl� IINI I
MIl�A>y 1 oAd 'S SC I hu3 : • Q • ,
XuuaaulNUIUUcld . atn»atV
331MOS 3)lVa8 V 3aLL NLLSrU sl
I -;3 I Ir
av3Ao*00�Ad 113NN39•W1NOO vii, O' 1 '
0
C
C
U
e���ri
rn « «
Wel z 91
F
F111111111,
� � � : • _ i � f e
Z«-
.3
Y5 Yy! Y� Y� is
0
- S:
IL. . . . . . .
ll
0 9z 1Io onl I -AQ ha MvJ h[ ri[
\W J 1• nua uy�
11jr \ • uua+l . anua y Inxl� IINI I
MIl�A>y 1 oAd 'S SC I hu3 : • Q • ,
XuuaaulNUIUUcld . atn»atV
331MOS 3)lVa8 V 3aLL NLLSrU sl
I -;3 I Ir
av3Ao*00�Ad 113NN39•W1NOO vii, O' 1 '
L Y
rr
anN3Ad 103dSOUd
N
0
C
C
U
I - -
rn « «
Wel z 91
F
� � � : • _ i � f e
Z«-
.3
Y5 Yy! Y� Y� is
0
- S:
IL. . . . . . .
:--r __---_- ....
_
........
L Y
rr
anN3Ad 103dSOUd
N
0
C
C
U
I - -
F
� � � : • _ i � f e
0
- S:
W
O
0
a
W
5
U.
Z
L Y
rr
anN3Ad 103dSOUd
N
0
C
U
_
V-
0
- S:
O
5
U.
Z
§�
at
{t
W�
V.
•
>i r
� ]
f
t A
L Y
rr
anN3Ad 103dSOUd
N
0
C
U
_
V-
- S:
L Y
rr
anN3Ad 103dSOUd
N
oliillll!Lffl��
099L6Y7 'Wll*nl
m,nu41A11 1aWsom 'S stl
331AH3S 3NVUS 4 3afl Nusni
:p**odoid
Ujo-ltt1s'l. .IOQ 11U1.1L
(workswtu+W,Irl • UIn" 2 • anuawy WXi 3T4 Iiltil
Vuuaaulyu3 • Sutuurld - a2ro3a"43JV
JA3NN38-AMNOQ If L
q f
Imijz
/
I�ilfE� p
7 Of76�0o �'
I
• II
II II
U
II
•III
®®
I �i
! �
uxx
1
�
i SII
0
J
W
.
F-
Q�
> o�
�
F-
W
LU
ui
W
F.
M
O �
Z
¢
LL
y�
.i
J
�r
r � ,
�
p
s
I also
ON111
ossae WO viral UiQAEL,. X09,;tu.0
—AV 1-00oad 'S 5 C L ONq:h 14UJOPIe, . ulnnl . anuany IJO(J^Jat4 IZRZ!
auuaaulSu3 8uiuueld • »ni»ny3jy
3�IAa3S 3�V2i8 32iLL NLLSfI I
av3Aaoo9 &73. JK)HV ,. 1, , r
�.L
..odo,d L3NN38 •AgINOQ SIN
l O fl
a i
z _ c z r
< : l 0
3 , 1°' t l
n
J
' I I
! I O I I c l
� I Ili II
!� II II '• II I!
•� ' � II � Illi, � �l
O I 'i I• (III
�o o
ill 1 ,I it . w o !
Ul
N oo f
w0
o:ii 3� l l I
(,,iil o
III;, !i i
I l f
O I
I �
i � � z
z
' ( �I ' :Il' z
! I �0 I I l !' i i F
+ F
w
}wo Ifl II, wW
IOE:E
►- o
cc IL n
it z ¢ ! i. I N a
I'I ,
!
1 I l
it I: �! �� � : i •
II � � 1 z . 1 ;! •.
iI O
w�
o n
ilk, Q o .1
!i•:I , :i w a
OT 5
1
III,,-
-
l O fl
a i
z _ c z r
< : l 0
3 , 1°' t l
n
J
' I I
! I O I I c l
� I Ili II
!� II II '• II I!
•� ' � II � Illi, � �l
O I 'i I• (III
�o o
ill 1 ,I it . w o !
Ul
N oo f
w0
o:ii 3� l l I
(,,iil o
III;, !i i
I l f
O I
I �
i � � z
z
' ( �I ' :Il' z
! I �0 I I l !' i i F
+ F
w
}wo Ifl II, wW
IOE:E
►- o
cc IL n
it z ¢ ! i. I N a
I'I ,
!
1 I l
it I: �! �� � : i •
II � � 1 z . 1 ;! •.
iI O
w�
o n
ilk, Q o .1
!i•:I , :i w a
OT 5
Ems
091,ge VC) Iny RL *I! -Iliw IU 4,1.'
utont - inuA%Y Irin'l
om*Av 1*odsojd IS SCIr
wulj.l,)uliu3 - -4.-luulld - 4Jn)3,)1143JV
3:)IAU3S 3NVUS V 3kill Nusn.L &03 1 IK38V ur,
uv3AGOO!D InNN39-A31NOO kill 31
:p000dOAd
W
-j
co
Z
w
W,
CC
-4
0
LL CC
U
z
0
-K
0
0 2 o 0
w
to
M
4n x
>
e%
O#A
W to
CA 0 w
LL. X
0
ui
-j
6
z
-K 0 a¢
A
W
W=
w
w
0
w w
w 0000000
LLJ
0
z0
co
w
2
Ch
:)
>
LL
U.
>
w
co
W0
W
w
a
�-
z
w
F-
z
z
1—
cc
0
ow
I
M
cc
LL
Uj x
w
=
I
LL
CITY COUNCIL MINT -S
Page 2, 6-3-91
AS ADEQUATE FOR ZONE CHANGE 90-01, TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 90-292,
TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 90-293 AND DESIGN REVIEW 90-40 INCLUDING
REQUIRED FINDINGS PURSUANT TO THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL
QUALITY ACT
It was moved by Edgar, seconded by Pontious, that Ordinance No.
1072 have first reading by title only. Motion carried 5-0.
Following first reading by title only of Ordinance No. 1072 by
the City Clerk, it was moved by Edgar. seconded by Pontious,
that the following Ordinance No. 1072 be introduced:
ORDINANCE NO. 1072 - AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING ZONE CHANGE 90-01 TO
MODIFY EXISTING IRVINE INDUSTRIAL COMPLEX AND ADOPT NEW JAMBOREE
PLAZA DISTRICT REGULATIONS IN THE PC -IND DISTRICT LOCATED ON
19.1 ACRES AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF EDINGER STREET AND
JAMBOREE ROAD
otion carried
It was moved by Pontious seconded by Edgar, to approve
Tentative Parcel Map 90-292 by adoption of the following
Resolution No. 91-76:
RESOLUTION NO. 91-76 - A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO.
90-292
otion carried 5-0.
It was moved by Edcxar. seconded by Pontious, to approve
Tentative Parcel Map 90-293 by adoption of the following
Resolution No. 91-77:
RESOLUTION NO. 91-77 - A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO.
90-293
Motion carried 5-0.
2. APPEAL OF CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 91-01 AND VARIANCE 91-08'
(PAQUETTE, 135 SOUTH PROSPECT AVENUE)
(Comments by the City Council during this portion of the Minutes
are verbatim.)
Dan Fox, Senior Planner, reported the Conditional Use Permit was
an application for a tire sales and service business located at
135 S. Prospect Avenue and the variance was a request to deviate
from various lot standards in conjunction with the operation of
that business. He stated the applicant had submitted a new plan
including design review aspects of the project which
substantially deviated from the plans previously reviewed by the
Planning Commission and explained it would be inappropriate for
the Council to consider design review aspects of the site before
review by the Planning Commission. Mr. Fox gave a slide
presentation of the various office, retail and restaurant uses
on First Street; summarized the Planning Commission's decision
of denial of the Conditional Use Permit and variance; and
highlighted the. First Street Specific Plan goals and objectives.
He also distributed and read a letter received from Roy E. Daly
Company supporting denial of the Conditional Use Permit and
variance.
Mayor Puckett opened the public hearing at 7:30 p.m.
The following members of the audience spoke in support of the
proposed project:
Ronald M. Casaga, 17671 Shadel Drive, Tustin
Ava Matthews, 10542 Greenbrier Road, Santa Ana
:ITY COUNCIL MINUTES
?age 3, 6-3-91
Patricia Champion, 17965 Fiesta Way, Tustin
Norman Fritz, property owner, 135 S. Prospect Avenue, Tustin
Steven Paquette, co -applicant (read letter from Mr. Altman)
Greg Bennett, Donley -Bennett Architects
The following member of the audience spoke in opposition to the
proposed project:
Kathy Weil, 1702 Summerville Avenue, Tustin
There were no other speakers on the subject and the public
hearing was closed at 8:00 p.m.
Mayor Pro Tem Pontious: I believe very firmly in the goals of
the First Street Specific Plan and I am very concerned about the
nature of the development throughout our Old Town areas and the
First Street area. As a member of the Planning Commission I
voted against approval of the carwash. While I feel that the
applicant has obviously gone to a great deal of time and
trouble, I cannot support the auto service use. Each granting
of such a use continues to erode the First Street Plan. I'm
unable to make the necessary findings to overturn the Planning
Commission's decision.
Councilmember Edgar: The concern I have is that traffic and
parking are clearly identified issues and although there is a
rationale that the applicant has given as to why perhaps in his
judgement the standards don't apply, nevertheless, one of the
things I have felt very critical in every project we have in our
City is to make sure we do the very best technical job we can to
understand traffic, to understand parking and not to have a
project that's going to have built-in deficiencies along that
line.
Dan Fox, in response to previous public comments, explained the
trip generation formula; scheduling timelines; and use of the
photoboard.
Mayor Puckett reopened the public hearing at 8:10 p.m.
The following member of the audience spoke in support of the
proposed project:
Steve Paquette, co -applicant
There were no other speakers on the subject and the public
hearing was re -closed at 8:12 p.m.
Councilmember Prescott: After almost 45 minutes of comment, I
think that what we're looking at here is a problem of usage. I
think once we can establish a usage which we're comfortable
with, the staff and the applicant could design whatever were
necessary. I have no problem with automotive usage on that
corner and I would like to see the Planning Commission revisit
the whole subject with..I don't know how the rest of the Council
thinks on this issue, but if there were a majority up here that
were open to an automotive usage, we could send it back to the
Planning Commission and they can go at it again. But I don't
think we have the right to do tonite what the applicant
suggested and overrule the Planning Commission and do enactment
of his proposed resolutions, okay the project.
Councilmember Potts: My comments are, I'm not willing to just
dump a business like that without sending it back to the
Planning Commission as Councilmember Prescott suggested. As
Paul Harvey said, there's the rest of the story. Right now,
I've been to First Street. McDonald's and Jalepenos is on First
Street so my kids and I and my wife get out there. Those are
-- the two thriving businesses besides the Post Office. The Post
Office might be moving, in fact they said they are going to move
out to the east end of the City, I don't know where, I don't
think they know where. Right now, the rest of the story is, you
have an old building there. You have a building that's being
used for storage, there's absolutely no revenue being generated
CITY COUNCIL MIw" `ES
Page 4, 6-3-91
from this building. You have an opportunity where they are
going to come in and make an old building look newer, they are
going to do a lot to improve the area, they are going to put in
25 trees from looking at this and what I've been told. They are
going to generate tax revenue in an economic time that, yes,
it's down, and it's starting to pick up, but, if there was
another business that was going to go in there I'd entertain
that idea, I think another business would be great but we don't
have another business, this is the only business that I can see
that's ever been offered for that area and since he's the owner
of the property and has already started this, I think it would
be appropriate to send it back to the Planning Commission and
review it and see what we can work out. If it can't be worked
out, fine, but I'm not willing to just tell them good -night,
that's all there is, and all your hard work is for naught. I'd
like to work something out to where it's a win-win situation,
the City needs the revenue. I can agree with Kathy Weil as far
as this being the First Street project and what they tried to
plan, but I know that even she would say that the improvements
to that building now are better than what they plan. It's
better than what it is now and so maybe she can give some input,
other people can give some input to the Planning Commission, and
we can work something out. .
Mayor Puckett: Christine, question. If the Planning
Commission's ruling is upheld, what are the alternatives for the
applicant, can he go back to the Planning Commission with the
new proposal?
Christine Shingleton: If he has a new proposal as I think has
been .represented in your packet, he could take that back as a
new proposal and open up the issue again with the Commission.
One caution to that is, I 'think that Councilman Prescott is
correct in that the real issue ought to be the use issue here
and you can refer it back to the Commission relative to the
design, but if the Council, really hasn't really resolved use
issue and you're comfortable with seeing automotive services on
this site, you're not going to give enough direction back to the
Commission to allow them to, I think, be comfortable with taking
an action that might have been different than what they
originally recommended. I think I'd like to see you provide
direction on that area and then as the applicant has represented
and, as Councilman Prescott suggests, the design issues we would
work in any event with the applicant on, depending upon the
direction that the Council provided.
Councilmember Potts: I think I have a problem with the parking
and if that could be addressed. It's already in the Conditional
Use Permit to allow that type of business there even though it's
in the First Street corridor, the Specific Plan, it is addressed
under the Conditional. Use Permit. So now we have problems with
parking, I don't think with the aesthetics, if they do what they
say they're going to do.
Christine Shingleton: I might clarify because there is..as Dan
Fox mentioned, there's kind of a confusion about the Conditional
Use Permit process and law, and what that means is it's a use
that's authorized, that's not correct. It's not a use that's
merely authorized under condition, it's a use that you do have
complete discretion over, you have the ability to deny, you have
the ability to approve and it's within the purview of the
Council to make those determinations. It is not an out -right
permitted use.
Mayor Puckett: I was on the Planning Commission when the First
Street Specific Plan was adopted and had I been on the Planning
Commission when the carwash was approved, I would have voted
against the carwash because I don't see that as an appropriate
use for that area. I was contacted by Mr. Paquette, went out
and looked at the project and my thought going in was that it
was not an appropriate use. When I looked at the project I came
away with not as strong of feelings that I might have had, but
I still have to go back to the First Street Specific Plan and
that was instituted for a reason. This is not, in my feeling,
:ITY COUNCIL MINUTES
'age 5, 6-3-91
an appropriate use for First Street as the Plan states and so I
would have to vote to uphold the Planning Commission as much as
I hate to see the efforts of the applicant thwarted at this
time.
Councilmember Edgar: One of the things that I understood a
little bit and I didn't see any amplification on it at all and
I was looking for it, and that is that the proposition that the
applicant presently has is that they can have a joint
utilization with the carwash, and in particular to take one of
the driveways off of First Street and to have a much larger
driveway that would be jointly used by the carwash and their
facility. On the surface, my feelings are that that very
possibly might have an affect of mitigating some of the problems
that we felt uncomfortable with when we approved the carwash and
if that's true that would be an element that would significantly
enhance the value of the project. The data that I've seen up to
now doesn't really in a very sophisticated way address that, but
I just have the feeling that it might, but again it might not,
and so I would certainly want to see that issue explored because
if we could make traffic on First Street better by having that
type of a jointly used facility that would be a plus in favor of
the applicant. If it isn't true and again I don't know the
details that well, then of course that would be a negative
factor.
Councilmember Potts: You can look at the Times or the Register,
I forget which paper today on the front page about businesses
moving out of California, I hate to sound like a broken record
but that's what's happening and that's what I've said in the
past and that's what's ... I'm not just willing to dump this
immediately. If it can't meet the standards, then dump it. But
at least work and try to work with them one more time before
it's dumped.
Councilmember Prescott: I'd like to poll the Council whether or
not there's a consensus of at least .three members up here to
tentatively approve of the concept of automobile usage on that
corner, and if so, how could we send it back to the Planning
Commission and in which manner.
Mayor Puckett: I would be opposed to automotive usage on that
corner.
Councilmember Potts: Under the circumstances, I would be in
favor of it.
Mayor Pro Tem Pontious: I would be opposed.
Councilmember Edgar: I think that I'm going to support that;
however, with the admonition that there are many technical
things that need to be addressed and I would then be willing to
support a use if these technical things, particularly in terms
of traffic and parking, couldn't be mitigated. Because if we
build a project that is doomed to degrade the community then I
think we have to depend on our staff to be clever enough to make
sure that we are informed of that, so I guess I'd be willing to
support it, but with those conditions.
Councilmember Prescott: I'd like to make a motion then that we
deny Resolution No. 91-78 and send this project back to the
Planning Commission with the caveats attached as we have just
discussed and ask Chris Shingleton if there's anything else she
would like me to add to that motion in terms of direction.
Christine Shingleton: I think that's clear.
Councilmember Potts: I'll second it.
Mayor Puckett: Alright, it's been moved and seconded. Do you
have any further discussion? All in favor signify by saying
aye.
otion carried 3-2, Puckett, Pontious opposed.
Planning Commi__ion Minutes
July 22, 1991
Page 6
to the center; and that he is in favor of the color d design of
�64e proposal.
Comm ioner Kasalek noted that she likes a proposal; that it
ties the olors of the Market Place toget r.
m' s'on une noted that he elt that something could be
done with the mono 'ths, but tha a did not feel this was it.
Commissioner Shaheen lik proposal.
Commissioner Baker ag d that a monoliths need something, but
was not sure this it.
C mm'ss'o e asparian noted that the mo iths were very bare and
huge, bu eeded something.
om 'ss'o a Kasiparian moved. Shaheense co d d approve the
amendment to Conditional Use Permit 88-15 by adopting Resolution
No. 2924, as submitted. Motion carried 3-2 with Commissioners Le
Jeune and Baker opposed.
5. Conditional Use Permit 91-10, Design Review 91-07 and
Amendment to Conditional Use Permit 89-25
APPLICANTS: STEPHEN D. PAQUETTE HENRY KUMAGAI
10542 GREENBRIER ROAD 19021 CANYON DRIVE
SANTA ANA, CA 92705 VILLA PARK, CA 92667
OWNERS: NORMAN FRITZ HENRY KUMAGAI
15734 NEWTON STREET 19021 CANYON DRIVE
HACIENDA HEIGHTS, CA 91745 VILLA PARK, CA 92667
LOCATION: 135 SOUTH PROSPECT AVENUE & 240 EAST FIRST STREET
ZONING: FIRST STREET SPECIFIC PLAN - COMMERCIAL AS A
PRIMARY USE
ENVIRONMENTAL
STATUS: A NEGATIVE DECLARATION HAS BEEN PREPARED FOR THIS
PROJECT PURSUANT TO THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE
CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT
REQUEST: 1. APPROVAL OF VARIOUS DEVELOPMENT BONUSES
PURSUANT TO THE REQUIREMENTS UNDER THE LOT
CONSOLIDATION PROGRAM OF THE FIRST STREET
SPECIFIC PLAN,
2. APPROVAL OF A 7% REDUCTION IN THE AMOUNT OF
REQUIRED PARKING PURSUANT TO THE REQUIREMENTS
UNDER THE CONSOLIDATED PARKING/ACCESS BONUS
PROGRAM OF THE FIRST STREET SPECIFIC PLAN, AND
3. AUTHORIZATION TO ESTABLISH A TIRE SERVICE
BUSINESS AT THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 135 SOUTH
PROSPECT AVENUE WITH RELATED SITE
IMPROVEMENTS.
Recommendation - Pleasure of the Commission.
Presentation: Anne E. Bonner, Assistant Planner
Staff addressed the applicants' request for clarification of Item
3.3 of Page 3 of Exhibit A of Resolution 2926 by noting that the
applicant does not intend to do heavy line work; noted that only
five (5) of the service bays would be used for service; that the
trip generation was based on the number of service bays shown, but
that the reduction was insignificant and that the traffic study did
- not show a problem in this area.
Planning Commission Minutes
July 22, 1991
Page 7
Commissioner Le Jeune asked if there would be a lift in each of the
working bays.
Staff replied that there would be four (4) lifts and that the fifth
bay would be used for balancing.
The Director noted that Condition 3.4 would restrict bays 5 and 6
based upon a review of the parking layout; and that these two
easterly bays would be for storage and balancing.
Commissioner Le Jeune asked if each bay holds two cars.
Staff replied that bays 1 through 4 could accommodate two (2) cars,
but that while f ive ( 5) are being worked on, three ( 3 ) would be
stacked or stored.
Commissioner Shaheen asked if they would be working on more than
tires and brakes and light service.
Staff replied that they would not be doing heavy automotive repair
.work, only general service, tune-ups, oil changes and tires.
Commissioner Shaheen asked if there were eight (8) bays.
Staff replied that there were eight (8) , but only five would be for
servicing, and the rest for storage and stacking.
Commissioner Shaheen noted that the area would be crowded and posed
a fire hazard.
Commissioner Kasalek asked how many employees were working at the
adjacent building.
Staff recommended asking the applicant.
The Public Hearing was opened at 7:46 p.m.
Stephen Pactuette, applicant, thanked staff; noted that the
podiatrist only had one person in the office, and that the tax
accountant had two employees three days per week. He also stated
,that the two east bays were for tire storage, wheel balancing and
the brake drum lathe; that the building was built for bus servicing
and storage and was forty (40) feet deep; that there would be five
(5) hoists without center posts which would alleviate parking
problems within the building. He continued with offering
comparable data from other stores regarding trip generation; and
noted that the :report suggested that the trip generation would be
higher than it probably would be; that the building color would be
changed to match the car wash and the office building.
Commissioner Le Jeune asked if there had been a survey of the
Goodyear facility on Red Hill Avenue.
Mr. Pacruette replied that he knew the operator and that he believed
that they work on 20-25 vehicles on Saturday, about 18 vehicles
daily, and that they would now be open Sundays.
Commissioner Kasparian asked how many bays that location had.
Mr. Paquette replied that they now had six (6) bays and nine (9)
hoists.
Planning Commission Minutes
July 22, 1991
Page 8
Commissioner Kasalek asked how many employees would be at the
Tustin/First Street location.
Mr. Paquette replied that they would have five (5) employees.
Commissioner Le Jeune asked if the employees would be parking in
the same lot.
Mr. Paquette affirmed.
Commissioner Kasalek asked how many customers leave their car for
service during the day.
Mr. Paquette replied that approximately 50% leave their cars for
the day, and 50% remain with their vehicles.
Commissioner Le Jeune noted that he recently counted 33 cars
waiting at the Goodyear on Red Hill Avenue.
Mr. Paquette replied that he felt that not all of the cars were
waiting for service; that it would be almost impossible for them to
work on 33 cars; that he .does not anticipate 33 cars at his
proposed location, and it would be rare to get 30 cars per day.
Steve Donnelly, Donnelly Bennett Architects, stated that they took
a survey of three (3) Goodyear Stores and created a parking ratio
of one (1) stall per 450-500 square feet that works well.
- Greg Bennett, Donnelly Bennett Architects, stated that the project
now needs no variances due to the lot consolidation; that Big O
Tire Store had a peak generation of 102 trips; that the trip
generation study for this building was based on a 32,000 square
foot building in a retail automotive center; that the report states
.that there will be no significant impact at the intersection; and
that parking is not an issue. He continued with noting that there
will be a single drive aisle on First Street; that additional
landscaping will screen First Street; and that 3-2 the City Council
felt that the car wash was an acceptable use for the site.
The Public Hearing was closed at 8:04 p.m.
Commissioner Shaheen stated that he felt that the size, shape and
configuration of the plot plan was not adequate for this use; that
it would be difficult for a fire vehicle to obtain access to the
facility; that the traffic study recommends seventeen (17) spaces
for the tire store, six (6) spaces for the medical building and
three (3) for the office building, but there is only eighteen (18)
spaces provided; that the parking would be crowded and might create
a fire hazard; that traffic in the vicinity will be worsened; that.
approval this evening would create problems in the future; and that
he does not feel it belongs at this location.
Commissioner Kasparian noted that of all of the -.examples presented
by the applicant, not one noted that the facility was butted on one
side by a car wash and the other by an office building which
requires sharing of the parking and the driveway; that there is a
bus stop on the corner which hampers traffic turning into the
facilities; that this area is already crowded; that he feels they
are trying to cram this into this location which indicates there is
something wrong with the entire project; and that nowhere was the
First Street Specific Plan mentioned; and that based on his belief
in the Specific Plan, he does not believe this is the place for
this facility.
Planning Commiss.Ljn Minutes
July 22, 1991
Page 9
Commissioner Kasalek agreed and stated that her position was that
they are trying too hard to fit this facility into this location;
and that this does not meet the intent of the Specific Plan.
Commissioner Baker agreed.
Commissioner Le Jeune felt that this is a use that is discouraged
under the Specific Plan; that the office building is approximately
45-50 feet away from the tire store which will create a lot of
noise and would be an inappropriate location. He continued that
even though the City Council feels that consideration should be
made regarding tax revenues, he does not feel that that should have
any bearing on the project. He also noted that they did not
approve of the car wash and that combining the applications would
only compound the problems; that they are early into the years of
the Specific Plan which should be implemented over a period of
about 15-20 years; that another use will arise; that a Specific
Plan has to be built by individual lots; and this project does not
merit the Commission's approval.
mmissioner Kasalek moved. Kasparian seconded to adopt Resolution
No. 2926-D denying Conditional Use Permit 91-10. Motion carried 5-
0.
Commissioner Le Jeune moved. Kasparian seconded to deny Design
Review 91-07. Motion carried 5-0. Staff instructed to bring back
a resolution of denial to ttie Commission on the Consent Calendar at
the August 12 Planning Commission meeting.
Commissioner Le Jeune moved. Shaheen secondSd to adopt Resolution
No. 2928-D denying an amendment to Conditional Use Permit 89-25.
Motion carried 5-0.
OLD BUSINESS:
NEW BUSINESS:
STAFF CONCERNS:
6. Report on actions taken at July 15, 1991 City Council meeting
Staff reported on the subject agenda.
COMMISSION CONCERNS:
Commissioner Shaheen
-Expressed his enjoyment of attendance of the meetings with
the other Commissioners and staff during his term.
Commissioner Kasalek
-Asked about the status of the street behind Peppertree homes.
-Recommended that the meeting be adjourned in memory of Ed
Shaheen's son who recently passed away.
Commissioner Kasparian
-Asked what the City's policy is on the installation of
handicapped access ramps.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14I
15'
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
RESOLUTION NO. 2926-D
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF TUSTIN, DENYING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
91-10 A REQUEST TO AUTHORIZE ESTABLISHMENT OF
A TIRE SALES AND SERVICE BUSINESS LOCATED AT
135 SOUTH PROSPECT AVENUE
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, Conditional Use
Permit 91-10 has been filed on behalf of
Steven Paquette to establish a tire sales and
service business on the property located at
135 South Prospect Avenue
B. That a public hearing was duly called, noticed
and held on said application -on July 22, 1991.
C. That establishment, maintenance, and operation
of the use applied for will, under the
circumstances of this case, be'detrimental to
the health, safety, morals, comfort, or
general welfare of the persons residing or
working in the neighborhood of such proposed
use and will be injurious or detrimental to
property and improvements in the area,
evidenced by the following findings:
1. The subject site is inadequate in size,
shape and configuration to accommodate
the proposed tire service use with the
existing office uses without creating
major interface issues on-site and off-
site based upon the following facts:
a. The submitted plans show that while
the proposed tire service use would
operate in a separate building, the
offices are maintained on the same
parcel which is .42 acres in size;
maintaining approximately a 45 -foot
building separation which results in
a constricted site for the two uses
to function harmoniously.
The negative impacts are compounded
by the fact that the parking demand
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
Resolution No. 2926-D
Page 2
study prepared for this project by
the traffic consultant, KHR
Associates, anticipates 17 parking
spaces to be required for the tire
service business alone. This would
require the utilization of almost
the entire central parking lot area
maintained on the western portion of
the site or result in parking
overflow to adjacent properties or
streets.
b. The submitted plans indicate that
the service bay doors are oriented
towards the existing offices and
based upon the type of noise
generated, although in short
duratidns, combined with the need to
operate the tire service business
with the service bay doors open, it
is anticipated that the noise will
be disruptive rather than conducive
or complimentary to an office
environment.
2. The proposed use will be detrimental to
the properties and/or improvements in the
area as the project does not meet the
objectives of the First Street Specific
Plan in that:
a. The project site is located within
what is identified in the First
Street Specific Plan as Sub -Area 2
which encourages stimulation of
retail commercial uses that
specifically cater or serve the
needs of pedestrian movement and
use. The proposed auto service use
does not function primarily as a use
serving the needs of pedestrians as
its primary activity will be to
service vehicles; therefore, the
primary use by pedestrians would be
to leave a vehicle and proceed to
walk elsewhere rather than linger or
stroll on the site. Field
observations of retail centers or
uses indicate that most customers
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9i
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Resolution No. 2926-D
Page 3
use the site for a duration of time
that would be significantly shorter
than was observed of the customer
using an auto service use.
b. The project site has been identif ied
in the Specific Plan as a potential
"use change" site. This
classification recognizes that there
are buildings and/or uses on a
particular parcel that are no longer
viable and could, in some cases, be
considered non -conforming. Although
the subject building proposed to
serve as the tire sales and service
business was originally built. for
garage/automotive uses, the intent
of the Specific Plan was for this
building and the automotive use
originally associated with it to be
replaced as continued or refurbished
use of an automotive use at this
location was considered
inappropriate and obsolete.
Consequently, approval of an
automotive use at this location
would be detrimental to future and
present development within the
Specific Plan area as it is a use
that directly contradicts with the
Specific Plan objectives, which
indicated the need to remove or
replace the building(s) on the site
with a new use.
C. The Specific Plan identified this
site as a parcel that potentially
could be combined with southerly
adjacent parcels for potential "Use
Expansion Opportunities." The Land
Use Concept portion of the Specific
Plan discusses the incentives
available for use expansion areas
when combined with those parcels
maintaining a First Street frontage,
thereby gaining development that is
particularly responsive to the
Specific Plan objectives.
Consequently, approval of the
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
�I
20
211
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Resolution No. 2926-D
Page 4
proposed use would inhibit the
potential for this objective to ever
be realized which results in a
detriment to surrounding properties
by thwarting the development
opportunities that would satisfy the
long-range goals of the Specific
Plan.
II. The Planning Commission hereby denies Conditional
Use Permit 91-10 for the property located at 135
South Prospect Avenue.
PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Tustin
Planning Commission, held on the 22nd day of July, 1991.
~�.................... w v
DONALD LE JEUNE
Chairman
KATHLEEN CLANCY
Recording Secretary
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF ORANGE )
CITY OF TUSTIN )
I, KATHLEEN CLANCY, the undersigned, hereby certify that
I am the Recording Secretary of the Planning Commission
of the City of Tustin, California; that Resolution No.
2926-D was duly passed and adopted at a regular meeting
of the Tustin Planning Commission, held on the 22nd day
of July, 1991.
KATHLEEN CLANCY
Recording Secretary
AEB:nm
1
3
4
5
G
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
i
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
RESOLUTION NO. 2927-D
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING
DENIAL TO THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF DESIGN
REVIEW 91-07 FOR MINOR SITE IMPROVEMENTS
INCLUDING CERTAIN LOT CONSOLIDATION BONUSES
AND A .CONSOLIDATED PARKING/ACCESS BONUS
PURSUANT TO THE FIRST STREET SPECIFIC PLAN FOR
THE PROPERTIES LOCATED AT 135 SOUTH PROSPECT
AVENUE AND 240 EAST FIRST STREET
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, Design Review No.
91-07 was filed on behalf of Stephen Paquette
requesting approval of minor site
improvements, certain Lot Consolidation
Bonuses and Consolidated Parking/Access Bonus
in accordance with the First Street Specific
Plan.
B. That the application was discussed on July 22,
1991 and a resolution recommending denial was
brought back as requested by the Commission on
August 12, 1991.
C. Pursuant to Section 9272 of the Tustin
Municipal Code, findings must be made 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. In making such findings,
the Commission has considered at least the
following items:
1. Height, bulk and area of buildings.
2. Setbacks and site planning.
3. Exterior materials and colors.
4. Type and pitch of roofs.
5. Size and spacing of windows, doors and
other openings.
1
3
4
5
6
8
9
1(1
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Resolution No. 2927-D
Page 2
6. Towers, chimneys, roof structures,
flagpoles, radio and television antennae.
7. Landscaping, parking area design and
traffic circulation.
8. Location, height and standards of
exterior illumination.
9. 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 signing.
14. Development Guidelines and criteria as
adopted by the City Council.
II. The Planning Commission hereby recommends denial to
the Redevelopment Agency of Design Review 91-07 for
minor site improvements, including certain lot
consolidation bonuses and a consolidated
parking/access bonus pursuant to the First Street
Specific Plan for the properties located at 135
South Prospect Avenue and 240 East First Street as
the following findings• cannot be made pursuant to
City Code Section 9272:
A. Setbacks and Site Planning - The project
overall proposes awkward site planning and
requires deviations in landscaping, parking
area design and circulation that are not
Justified by the visual improvements proposed
and, therefore, does not meet the Development
Guidelines and criteria as adopted by the
First Street Specific Plan.
1
3
4
5
G
8
91,
10'
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
M
Resolution No. 2927-D
Page 3
B. Landscaping, Parking Area Design and Traffic
Circulation - The project requires approval of
development bonuses and the implementation of
these would only compound problems associated
with deficiencies in the amount of parking
provided (28 spaces overall) compared with
that required.(30 spaces overall).
C. Physical Relationship of Proposed Structures -
to Existing Structures in the Neighborhood -
The existing structures at the property
located at 135 South Prospect Avenue are
located in such close proximity that the site
is constricted and parking and on-site
circulation problems would result.
D. Development Guidelines and Criteria as Adopted
by the City Council - The project would not
result in -furthering many of the goals and
objectives of the First Street Specific Plan.
PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Planning Commission of the City
of Tustin at a regular meeting held on the 22nd day of
July, 1991.
.KATHLEEN CLANCY
Recording Secretary
1
3
4
5
G
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24,
25
26
27
28
Resolution No. 2927-D
Page 4
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF ORANGE ).
CITY OF TUSTIN )
I, KATHLEEN CLANCY the undersigned, hereby certify that
I am the Recording Secretary of the Planning Commission
of the City of Tustin, California; that Resolution No.
2927-D was duly passed and adopted at a regular meeting
of the Tustin Planning Commission, held on the 22nd day
of July, 1991.
*-TH6LEZEjNZgCLANCY
Recording Secretar
AEB:nm
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
RESOLUTION NO. 2928-D
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF TUSTIN, DENYING AN AMENDMENT TO
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 89-25, A REQUEST TO
MODIFY THE CAR WASH SITE LOCATED AT 240 EAST
FIRST STREET RELATED TO A RECIPROCAL ACCESS
DRIVEWAY
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 to amend Conditional
Use Permit 89-25 was filed on the behalf of
Henry Kumagai for the property located at 240
East First Street.
B. That a public hearing was duly called, noticed
and held on said application on July 22, 1991.
C. That establishment, maintenance, and operation
of the. use applied for will, under the
circumstances of this case, be detrimental to
the health, safety, morals, comfort, or
general welfare of the persons residing or
working in the neighborhood of such proposed
use and will be injurious or detrimental to
property and improvements in the area,
evidenced by the following findings:
1. There is a potential for on-site
circulation conflicts related to cross-
over access between the property at 240
East First Street and 135 South Prospect
Avenue.
2. The proposal results in the loss of a
perimeter wall and landscaping that would
function as a buffer and a screen looking
onto the car wash business from First
Street creating an undesirable appearance
along the First Street Specific Plan
corridor.
II. The Planning Commission hereby denies an Amendment
to Conditional Use Permit 89-25 for the property
located at 240 East First Street related to
modifications to provide a reciprocal access
driveway.
l
s
i
c
E
1
11
1'
1'
1.
1�
1'
lI
1'
1'
1'
21
2'
2'
2;
2.
2
2
2
2
Resolution No. 2928-D
Page 2
PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Tustin
Planning Commission, held on the 22nd day of July, 1991.
KATHLEEN CLANCY (57
Recording Secretary
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF ORANGE )
CITY "OF TUSTIN )
I, KATHLEEN CLANCY, the undersigned, hereby certify that
I am the Recording Secretary of the Planning Commission
of the City of Tustin, California; that Resolution No.
2928-D was duly passed and adopted at a regular meeting
of the Tustin Planning Commission, held on the 22nd day
of July, 1991.
9f
KATHLEEN CLANCY
Recording Secretar
July 24, 1991
Ms. Anne Bonner
City of Tustin Planning Department
15222 Del Alm Avenue
Tustin, CA 92680
RE: 91-10, DR 91-07 and C.U.P. 89-25
Dear Anne:
we are hereby requesting an appeal for the above three mentioned cases.
Also, we would at the same time request a fee waiver for the appeals.
In addition, we are requesting a retroactive waiver of fees for C.U.P.
91-10 and DR 91-07. We expect this appeal to be heard on August 19,
1991 as per our phone conversation.
We look forward to representing our case to the City Council. In addition
we would like to have the signage issue brouht to the Council at the
same meeting so that all related issues can be resolved at that time.
Sincerely,
D
t� •
L
He K gai
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
loll
11
12
13
14I
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
RESOLUTION NO. 91-109
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF TUSTIN, CERTIFYING THE FINAL NEGATIVE
DECLARATION AS ADEQUATE FOR CONDITIONAL USE
PERMIT 91-10, DESIGN REVIEW 91-07 AND
AMENDMENT TO CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 89-25
INCLUDING REQUIRED FINDINGS PURSUANT TO THE
CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT.
The City Council of the City of Tustin does hereby
resolve as follows:
I. The City Council finds and determines as follows:
A. The request to approve Conditional Use Permit
91-10, Design Review 91-07 and Amendment to
Conditional Use Permit 89-25 is considered a
"project" pursuant to the terms of the
California Environmental Quality,Act.
B. A Negative Declaration has been prepared for
this project and has been established for
public review.
C. Whereby, the City Council of the City of
Tustin has considered evidence presented by
the Community Development and other interested
parties with respect to the subject Negative
Declaration.
D. The City Council has evaluated the proposed
final Negative Declaration and determined it
to be adequate and complete.
II. A Final Negative Declaration has been completed in
compliance with CEQA and State guidelines. The
City Council having final approving authority over
Conditional Use Permit 91-10 and Amendment to
Conditional Use Permit 89-25, has received and
considered the information contained in the
Negative Declaration prior to approving the
proposed project and have found that it adequately
discussed the environmental effects of the proposed
project. On the basis of the initial study, the
City Council has found that the project involves no
potential for any adverse effect, either
individually or cumulatively, on wildlife resources
and therefore makes a De Minimis Impact Finding
related to AB 3158, Chapter 1706, Statutes of 1990.
In addition, there will not be a significant effect
on the environment as mitigation measures have been
incorporated into the project's approval which
mitigate any potential significant environmental
c
f
11
l:
1'
1,
1�
1g
11
1'
1�
1!
21
2:
2'
2;
2,
2'
21
2'
2'
Resolution No. 91-109
Page 2
effects. These mitigation measures are identified
in Exhibit A attached to the Negative Declaration
and initial study and are adopted as findings and
conditions of Resolution Nos. 91-111 and 91-112,
incorporated herein by reference.
PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Tustin
City Council held on the 3rd day of September, 1991.
Charles E. Puckett, Mayor
Mary E. Wynn, City Clerk
STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) .
COUNTY OF ORANGE ) SS
CITY OF TUSTIN )
CERTIFICATION FOR RESOLUTION NO. 91-109
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 5; that the above and
foregoing Resolution No. 91-109 was duly and regularly
introduced, passed and adopted at a regular meeting of
the City Council held on the 3rd day of September, 1991
by the following vote:
COUNCILMEMBER AYES:
COUNCILMEMBER NOES:
COUNCILMEMBER ABSTAINED:
COUNCILMEMBER ABSENT:
Mary E. Wynn, City Clerk
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11I
12
13
14
15!
16
17
18
19
20
21'
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
RESOLUTION NO. 91-110-A
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA, UPHOLDING THE PLANNING
COMMISSION'S DENIAL OF CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
91-10, DESIGN REVIEW 91-07 AND AMENDMENT TO
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 89-25 FOR THE
PROPERTIES LOCATED AT 135 SOUTH PROSPECT
AVENUE AND 240 EAST FIRST STREET
IThe City Council of the City of Tustin does hereby resolve as
follows:
I. The City Council finds and determines as follows:
A. That proper applications were filed as follows:
1. Conditional Use Permit 91-10 on behalf of Stephen
Paquette to establish a tire sales and service
business on the property located at 135 South
Prospect Avenue.
2. Design Review 91-07 on behalf of Stephen Paquette
requesting approval of minor site improvements,
certain Lot Consolidation Bonuses and Consolidated
Parking/Access Bonus in accordance with the First
Street Specific Plan.
3. Amendment to Conditional Use Permit 89-25 on behalf
of Henry Kumagai for reciprocal driveway access on
the property located at 240 East First Street.
B. That a public hearing before the Planning Commission was
duly noticed, called and held July 22, 1991 for the
subject requests. That an appeal was filed by the co -
applicants on July 24, 1991. That an appeal hearing was
duly noticed, called and held September 3, 1991, by the
City Council.
C. Conditional Use Permit 91-10: That establishment,
maintenance, and operation of the tire service business
applied for will, under the circumstances of this case,
be detrimental to the health, safety, morals, comfort, or
general welfare of the persons residing or working in the
neighborhood of such proposed use and will be injurious
or detrimental to property and improvements in the area,
evidenced by the following findings:
1. The subject site is inadequate in size, shape and
configuration to accommodate the proposed tire
service use with the existing office uses without
creating major interface issues on-site and off-
site based upon the following facts:
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
121
13
14'
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Resolution No. 91-110-A
Page 2
a. The submitted plans show that while the
proposed tire service use would operate in a
separate building, the offices are maintained
on the same parcel which is .42 acres in size;
maintaining approximately a 45 -foot building
separation which results in a constricted site
for the two uses to function harmoniously.
The negative impacts are compounded by the
fact that the parking demand study prepared
for this project by the traffic consultant,
KHR Associates, anticipates 17 parking spaces
to be required for the tire service business
alone. This would require the utilization of
almost the entire central parking lot area
maintained on the western portion of the site
or result in parking overflow to adjacent
properties or streets.
b. The submitted plans indicate that the service
bay doors are oriented towards the existing
offices and based upon the type of noise
generated, although in short durations,
combined with the need to operate the tire
service business with the service bay doors
open, it is anticipated that the noise will be
disruptive rather than conducive or
complimentary to an office environment.
2. The proposed tire service business will be
detrimental to the properties and/or improvements
in the area as the project does not meet the
objectives of the First Street Specific Plan in
that:
a. The project site is located within what is
identified in the First Street Specific Plan
as Sub -Area 2 which encourages stimulation of
retail commercial uses that specifically cater
or serve the needs of pedestrian movement and
use. The proposed auto service use does not
function primarily as a use serving the needs
of pedestrians as its primary activity will be
to service vehicles; therefore, the primary
use by pedestrians would be to leave a vehicle
and proceed to walk elsewhere rather than
linger or stroll on the site. Field
observations of retail centers or uses
indicate that most customers use the site for
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Resolution No. 91-110-A
Page 3
a duration of time that would be significantly
shorter than was observed of the customer
using an auto service use.
b. The project site has been identified in the
Specific Plan as a potential "use change"
site. This classification recognizes that
there are buildings and/or uses on a
particular parcel that are no longer viable
and could, in some cases, be considered non-
conforming. Although the subject building
proposed to serve as the tire sales and
service business was originally built for
garage/automotive uses, the intent of the
Specific Plan was for this building and the
automotive use originally associated with it
to be replaced as continued or refurbished use
of an automotive use at this location was
considered inappropriate and obsolete.
Consequently, approval of an automotive use at
this location would be detrimental to future
and present development within the Specific
Plan area as it is a use that directly
contradicts with the Specific Plan objectives,
which indicated the need to remove or replace
the building(s) on the site with a new use.
C. The Specific Plan identified this site as a
parcel that potentially could be combined with
southerly adjacent parcels for potential "Use
Expansion Opportunities." The Land Use
Concept portion of the Specific Plan discusses
the incentives available for use expansion
areas when combined with those parcels
maintaining a First Street frontage, thereby
gaining development that is particularly
responsive to the Specific Plan objectives.
Consequently, approval of the proposed use
would inhibit the potential for this objective
to ever be realized which results in a
detriment to surrounding properties by
thwarting the development opportunities that
would satisfy the long-range goals of the
Specific Plan.
D. Design Review 91-07: Pursuant to Section 9272 of
the Tustin Municipal Code, the Council finds that
the .location, size, architectural features and
general appearance of the proposed development will
2
3
4
5
6
71
81I
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Resolution No. 91-110-A
Page 4
impair the orderly and harmonious development of
the area, the present or future development therein
evidenced by the following:
1. Setbacks and Site Planning - The project
overall proposes awkward site planning and
requires deviations in landscaping, parking
area design and circulation that are not
justified by the visual improvements proposed
and, therefore, does not meet the Development
Guidelines and criteria as adopted by the
First Street Specific Plan.
2. Landscaping, Parking Area Design and Traffic
Circulation - The project requires approval of
development bonuses and the implementation of
these would only compound problems -associated
with deficiencies in the amount of parking
provided (28 spaces overall) compared with
that required (30 spaces overall).
3. Physical Relationship of Proposed Structures
to Existing Structures in the Neighborhood -
The existing structures at the property
located at 135 South Prospect Avenue are
located in such close proximity that the site
is constricted and parking and on-site
circulation problems would result.
4. Development Guidelines and Criteria as Adopted
by the City Council - The project would not
result in furthering many of the goals and
objectives of the First Street Specific Plan.
E. Amendment to CUP 89-25: That establishment,
maintenance, and operation of the reciprocal
driveway access for the car wash business will,
under the circumstances of this case, be
detrimental to the health, safety, morals, comfort,
or general welfare of the persons residing or
working in the neighborhood of such proposed use
and will be injurious or detrimental to property
and improvements in the area, evidenced by the
following findings:
1. There is a potential for on-site circulation
conflicts related to cross-over access between
the property at 240 East First Street and 135
South Prospect Avenue.
1
2
3
4'
5
6
7
8
9
10
]1
12
13
14
15
iG
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Resolution No. 91-110-A
Page 5
2. The proposal results in the loss of a
perimeter wall and landscaping that would
function as a buffer and a screen looking onto
the car wash business from First Street
creating an undesirable appearance along the
First Street Specific Plan corridor.
II. The City Council hereby upholds the Planning Commission's
denial of Conditional Use Permit 91-10, Design Review 91-07
and Amendment to Conditional Use Permit 89-25 for the
properties located at 135 South Prospect Avenue and 240 East
First Street
PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Tustin at a
regular meeting held on the 3rd day of September, 1991.
(Mary E. Wynn, City Clerk
IAEB:nm
Charles E. Puckett, Mayor
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
RESOLUTION NO. 91-110-B
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
TUSTIN, APPROVING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 91-10
AUTHORIZING THE ESTABLISHMENT OF A TIRE SALES AND
SERVICE BUSINESS ON THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 135
SOUTH PROSPECT AVENUE
The City Council of the City of Tustin does hereby resolve as
follows:
I. The City Council finds and determines as follows:
A. That a proper application, Conditional Use Permit
91-10, has been filed on behalf of Stephen Paquette''
to establish a tire sales and service business on
the property located at 135 South Prospect Avenue
B. That a public hearing before the Planning
Commission was duly noticed, called and held July
22, 1991 for the subject requests. That an appeal
was filed by the co -applicants on July 24, 1991.
That an appeal hearing was duly noticed, called and
held September 3, 1991, by the City Council.
C. That establishment, maintenance, and operation of
the 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 detrimental
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 improvements overall to the site propose
upgrades which bring the project site into
closer conformance with current codes and
design standards providing a fresher
appearance.
2. The proposal will reduce the disruption in
traffic flow on First Street by providing one
ingress/egress approach where two presently
exist.
3. The use will provide a viable revenue source
where presently none exists.
4. The proposal will not have a negative impact
to existing traffic volumes.
Resolution No. 110-B
Page 2
D. A Negative Declaration has been prepared in
accordance with the California Environmental
Quality Act.
II. The City Council hereby approves Conditional Use Permit
No. 91-10 authorizing the establishment of a tire sales
and service business at the property located at 135 South
Prospect Avenue subject to the conditions contained in
Exhibit A, attached hereto.
PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Tustin City!
Council, held on the 3rd day of September, 1991.
Charles E. Puckett, Mayor
Mary E. Wynn, City Clerk
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF ORANGE ) SS
CITY OF TUSTIN )
CERTIFICATION FOR RESOLUTION NO. 91-110-B
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 5; that the above and foregoing
Resolution No. 91-110-B was duly and regularly introduced,
passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council
held on the 3rd day of September, 1991 by the following vote:
COUNCILMEMBER AYES:
COUNCILMEMBER NOES:
COUNCILMEMBER ABSTAINED:
COUNCILMEMBER ABSENT:
Mary E. Wynn, City Clerk
EXHIBIT A
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 91-10
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
RESOLUTION NO. 91-110-B
GENERAL
(1) 1.1 The proposed project shall substantially conform with the
submitted plans for the project date stamped September 3,
1991 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 determined to be
consistent with the concept plans and provisions of the
First Street Specific Plan.
(1) 1.2 Unless otherwise specified, all 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 is contingent upon
approval of Design Review 91-07 by the Redevelopment
Agency.
(1) 1.4 Conditional Use Permit approval shall become null and
void unless permits are issued within twelve (12) months
of the date of this exhibit and substantial construction
is underway.
*** 1.5 Conditional Use Permit 91-10 approval is contingent upon
approval of Amendment to Conditional Use Permit 89-25.
(1) 1.6 The applicant shall sign and return an Agreement to
Conditions Imposed form prior to issuance of any building
permits.
(1) 1.7 All conditions of approval for Design Review 91-07
contained in Exhibit A of Resolution No. 91-111 shall be
complied with prior to issuance of permits.
--------------------------------------------------------------
SOURCE CODES
(1) STANDARD CONDITION
(2) EIR MITIGATION
(3) UNIFORM BUILDING CODE/S
(4) DESIGN REVIEW
*** EXCEPTION
(5) SPECIFIC PLAN
(6) RESPONSIBLE AGENCY
REQUIREMENT
(7) LANDSCAPING GUIDELINES
(8) PC/CC POLICY
Exhibit A
Resolution No. 91-110-B
Page 2
PLAN SUBMITTAL
2.1 At building plan check, the following items shall be
submitted:
(3) A. Construction plans, structural calculations, and
Title 24 energy calculations, Requirements of the
Uniform Building Codes, State Handicap and Energy
Requirements shall be complied with as approved by
the Building Official.
(2) B. Preliminary technical detail and plans for all
(3) utility installations including cable TV,
telephone, gas, water and electricity.
Additionally, a note on plans shall be included
stating that no field changes shall be made without
corrections submitted to and approved by the
Building Official.
(1) C. A separate 24" x 36" street improvement plan shall
be prepared showing all proposed construction
within the public right-of-way which shall include,
but not be limited to, curb and gutter, sidewalks,
drive aprons, undergrounding utility connections
and construction of all missing or damaged public
improvements adjacent to this development.
(1) D. Prior to the issuance of any building permits
(6) for combustible construction, evidence that a
water supply for fire protection is available shall
be submitted to and approved by the Fire
Department. fire hydrants shall be in place and
operational to meet the required fire flow prior to
commencing construction with combustible materials.
(1) E. All doors, locks and entryways, including air
conditioning air ducts, shall be secured with
locking devices in accordance with the Tustin
Security Code.
OPERATIONS
*** 3.1 The operation of the tire service business shall at all
times be in compliance with the City's exterior noise
-- standard pursuant to Section 4100 et seq of the city Code
which limits noise generation to a maximum of 60 dBa.
- Exhibit A
Resolution No. 91-110-B
Page 3
*** 3.2 All servicing of vehicles must be performed within the
service bays and all vehicles not being serviced must be
parked in a designated parking space.
*** 3.3 All servicing of vehicles shall be restricted to brake
and/or tire repair/ replacement. The approval of this use
permit for this property shall not constitute
authorization for other automotive repair work, including
heavy line or body work.
*** 3.4 The approval of this use permit shall only authorize the
bays 1 through 4 as service -bays and shall restrict bays
5 and 6 to tire balancing and storage.
PARRINGICIRCULATION
*** 4.1 A reciprocal parking and ingress/egress easement between
135 South Prospect Avenue and 240 East First Street shall
be executed and recorded, subject to approval by the
Community Development Department Director and the City
Attorney prior to the issuance of any permits.
(1) 4.2 Improvement plans for parking lot, landscaping
modifications and driveway closure on the property to the
west shall be prepared and submitted at the time of plan
check. Said plans shall be prepared in accordance with
the City's Parking Lot and Landscaping Development
Standards with the exception of those development bonuses
granted.
(2) 4.3 Parking stalls 8, 9 and 10 shall be reserved for use by
the medical office and stalls 15 and 16 for the other
office uses. The design of such designation shall be
included in submitted construction drawings for approval
by the Community Development Department.
(2) 4.4 "Fire-Lane/No Parking' designation shall be shown on the
submitted construction drawings along the service bay
frontage. Design shall be reviewed and approved by the
Community Development department and Engineering
Department.
(2 ) 4.5 A "Right Turn Only" sign should be placed at the First
Street driveway as approved by the City Engineer.
(2 ) 4.6 Traf f is direction arrows should be painted onto the drive
aisle surface at locations, as shown on Figure 2 of the
Exhibit A
Resolution No. 91-110-B
Page 4
traffic consultant's report, and as approved by the City
Engineer.
(2) 4.7 The owner shall be required to prepare a comprehensive
parking demand study anytime within the f irst three years
from the approval of a building permit for the site
alterations requested as part of Design Review 91-10, at
the request and discretion of the Director of Community
Development if it is determined that a parking problem
exists on the site or the site exacerbates traffic or
parking issues on adjacent streets. If said report
indicates inadequate on-site parking, the owner at the
discretion of the City shall provide additional
mitigation to offset parking impacts by implementing one
of the following alternatives, with the determination of
the acceptable alternate subject to review and approval
by the City.
A. Secure off-site parking and execute a recordable
parking agreement from adjacent property owners;
B. Reduce the number of service bays in order to
correspondingly reduce required parking for the
use.
FEES
(1) 5.1 The applicant shall pay all applicable fees prior to the
issuance of permits, including, but not limited to:
A. Building Permit and Plan Check fees to the
Community Development Department.
B. 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, 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 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.
-- Exhibit A
Resolution No. 91-110-B
Page 5
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 $1,250 (one
thousand, two 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.
AEB:nm
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
RESOLUTION NO. 91-111
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING APPROVAL
TO THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF DESIGN REVIEW
91-07 FOR SITE IMPROVEMENTS AND APPROVING
CERTAIN LOT CONSOLIDATION BONUSES AND A
CONSOLIDATED PARKING/ACCESS BONUS PURSUANT TO
THE FIRST STREET SPECIFIC PLAN FOR THE
PROPERTIES LOCATED AT 135 SOUTH PROSPECT
AVENUE AND 240 EAST FIRST STREET
The City Council of the City of Tustin does hereby
resolve as follows:
I. The City Council finds and determines as follows:
A. That a proper application, Design Review No.
91-07 was filed on behalf of Stephen Paquette
requesting approval of minor site
improvements, certain Lot Consolidation
Bonuses and Consolidated Parking/Access Bonus
in accordance with the First Street Specific
Plan.
B. That the application was discussed on July 22,
1991, before the Planning commission. That
the coapplicants filed an appeal on July 24,
1991. That the application was discussed on
September 3, 1991 before the City Council.
C. Pursuant to Section 9272 of the Tustin
Municipal Code, the Council finds that the
location, size, architectural features and
general appearance of the proposed development
will not impair the orderly and harmonious
development of the area, the present or future
development therein, the occupancy as a whole.
In making such findings, the Council has
considered at least the following items:
1. Height, bulk and area of buildings.
2. Setbacks and site planning.
3. Exterior materials and colors.
4. Type and pitch of roofs.
5. Size and spacing of windows, doors and
other openings.
1
2
3
4
5'
61
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Resolution No. 91-111
Page 2
6. Towers, chimneys, roof structures,
flagpoles, radio and television antennae.
7. Landscaping, parking area design and
traffic circulation.
8. Location, height and standards of
exterior illumination.
9. 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 signing.
14. Development Guidelines and criteria as
adopted by the City Council.
D. A Negative Declaration has been prepared in
accordance with the California Environmental
Quality Act.
II. The City Council recommends approval to the
Redevelopment Agency of Design Review 91-07 for
site improvements, subject to the conditions in
Exhibit A, attached hereto and incorporated herein
by reference.
III. The City Council approves subject to all conditions
in Exhibit A attached hereto and incorporated
herein by reference the following Lot Consolidation
Bonuses and Consolidated Parking/Access Bonuses:
1. Reduction in the minimum width of a standard
parking stall of one foot resulting in a
standard space that measures 81x 201. This
affects parking spaces 8, 9, 10 and 11 on the
property located at 135 South Prospect Avenue.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8'
9
10I
11'
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Resolution No. 91-111
Page 3
2. The elimination of the requirement for
continuous curbing to instead utilize wheel -
stops. This affects all parking stalls on the
western portion of the site at 135 South
Prospect Avenue.
3. A reduction of between three feet and four
feet in the required perimeter landscaping at
various locations in the parking lot for the
property located at 135 South Prospect.
4. Reduction of required on-site parking from 30
spaces to 28 spaces for the properties located
at 135 South Prospect and 240 East First
Street. This two parking space reduction will
be taken on the property located at 135 South
Prospect Avenue.
PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of
Tustin at a regular meeting held on the 3rd day of
September, 1991.
Mary E. Wynn, City Clerk
Charles E. Puckett, Mayor
EXHIBIT A
DESIGN REVIEW 91-07
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
RESOLUTION NO. 91-111
GENERAL
(1) 1.1 The proposed project shall substantially conform with the
submitted plans for the project date stamped September 3,
1991 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 determined to be
consistent with the concept plans and provisions of the
First Street Specific Plan.
(1) 1.2 Unless otherwise specified and as applicable, all
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 approval shall become null and void unless
building permits are issued within eighteen (18) months
of the date of this Exhibit.
(1) 1.4 Each applicant shall sign and return an Agreement to
Conditions Imposed form prior to issuance of any building
permits.
*** 1.5 Design Review 91-07 shall become null and void unless
Conditional Use Permit 91-10 and Amendment to Conditional
Use Permit 89-25 related to this project are approved.
(1) 1.6 Design Review 91-07 shall become null and void unless
approved by the Redevelopment Agency.
(1) 1.7 All conditions of approval for Amendment to Conditional
Use Permit 89-25 contained in Exhibit A of Resolution No.
91-112 shall be complied with prior to issuance of
permits.
SOURCE CODES
(1)
STANDARD CONDITION
(5)
SPECIFIC PLAN
(2)
EIR MITIGATION
(6)
RESPONSIBLE AGENCY REQUIREMENT
(3)
UNIFORM BUILDING CODE/S
(7)
LANDSCAPING GUIDELINES
(4)
DESIGN REVIEW
(8)
PC/CC POLICY
***
EXCEPTION
Exhibit A
Resolution No. 91-111
Page 2
(1) 1.8 All conditions of approval for Conditional Use Permit 91-
10 contained in Exhibit A of Resolution No. 91-110 shall
be complied with prior to issuance of permits.
BUILDING SITE AND CONDITIONS - 135 SOUTH PROSPECT AVENUE
(4) 2.1 Pavement materials in the pedestrian areas shall be
decorative in design consistent with the architectural
treatment approved for the property located at 240 East
First Street. Details of such treatment shall be subject
to review and approval by the Community Development
Department during review of the final working drawings.
(4) 2.2 Parking lot lighting fixtures shall be decorative in
design consistent with the architectural treatment.
Details of such fixtures shall be subject to review and
approval by the Community Development Department during
review of the final working drawings.
(4) 2.3 Final exterior colors and materials shall be subject to
approval of Community Development Department and shall be
coordinated to match those approved for the car wash at
240 East First Street. Details such as windows, doors
and trims shall be consistent also for both the tire
service business building and the existing office
building.
LANDSCAPING - 135 SOUTH PROSPECT AVENUE
(1) 3.1 Submit at plan check complete detailed landscaping and
(7) irrigation plans for all landscaping areas, consistent
with adopted City of Tustin Landscaping and Irrigation
Submittal Requirements. Provide a summary table applying
indexing identification to plant materials in their
actual location. The plan and table shall list botanical
and common names, sizes, spacing, actual location
details, soil preparation., staking, etc. Show planting
and berming 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
Department of Community Development may request minor
substitutions of plant materials or request additional
Exhibit A
Resolution No. 91-111
Page 3
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.
(4) 3.2 Landscaped berms up to a maximum of 30" in height shall
be incorporated into the landscaped area along First
Street.
AEB:nm
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19�
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
RESOLUTION NO. 91-112
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
TUSTIN, APPROVING AN AMENDMENT TO CONDITIONAL USE
PERMIT 89-25 AUTHORIZING MODIFICATIONS TO THE CAR
WASH SITE LOCATED AT 240 EAST FIRST STREET RELATED
TO A RECIPROCAL ACCESS DRIVEWAY
The City Council of the City of Tustin does hereby resolve as
follows:
I. The City Council finds and determines as follows:
A. That a proper application to amend Conditional Use
Permit 89-25 was filed on the behalf of Henry
Kumagai for the property located at 240 East First
Street.
B. That a public hearing before the Planning
Commission was duly noticed, called and held July
22, 1991 for the subject requests. That an appeal
was filed by the co -applicants on July 24, 1991.
That an appeal hearing was duly noticed, called and
held September 3, 1991, by the City Council.
C. That establishment, maintenance, and operation of
the 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 detrimental
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 proposal will reduce the disruption in
traffic flow on First Street by providing one
ingress/egress approach where two presently
exist.
2. The proposal will not have a negative impact
to existing traffic volumes.
D. A Negative Declaration has been prepared in
accordance with the California Environmental
Quality Act.
II. The City Council hereby approves an Amendment to
Conditional Use Permit 89-25 authorizing modifications to
the car wash site located at 240 East First Street
related to a reciprocal access driveway, subject to the
conditions contained in Exhibit A, attached hereto.
1
21'
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21'
22
23
i
24
25'
26
27'
28'
Resolution No. 91-112
Page 2
PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Tustin Cityli
Council, held on the 3rd day of September, 1991.
Charles E. Puckett, Mayor
Mary E. Wynn, City Clerk
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF ORANGE ) SS
CITY OF TUSTIN )
CERTIFICATION FOR RESOLUTION NO. 91-112
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 5; that the above and foregoing'
Resolution No. 91-112 was duly and regularly introduced,
passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council
held on the 3rd day of September, 1991 by the following vote:
COUNCILMEMBER AYES:
COUNCILMEMBER NOES:
COUNCILMEMBER ABSTAINED:
COUNCILMEMBER ABSENT:
Mary E. Wynn, City Clerk
- EXHIBIT A
AMENDMENT TO CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 89-25
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
RESOLUTION NO. 91-112
GENERAL
(1) 1.1 The proposed project shall substantially conform with the
submitted plans for the project date stamped September 3 ,
1991 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 determined to be
consistent with the concept plans and provisions of the
First Street Specific Plan.
(1) 1.2 Unless otherwise specified, all 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 Amendment to Conditional Use Permit approval is
contingent upon approval of Design Review 91-07 by the
Redevelopment Agency.
(1) 1.4 Amendment to Conditional Use Permit approval shall become
null and void unless permits are issued within twelve
(12) months of the date of this exhibit and substantial
construction is underway.
*** 1.5 Amendment to Conditional Use Permit 89-25 approval is
contingent upon approval of Conditional Use Permit 91-10.
(1) 1.6 The applicant shall sign and return an Agreement to
Conditions Imposed form prior to issuance of any building
permits.
(1) 1.7 All applicable conditions of approval of City Council
Resolution No. 89-139 remain in full force and effect.
--------------------------------------------------------------
SOURCE CODES
(1)
STANDARD CONDITION
(5)
SPECIFIC PLAN
(2)
EIR MITIGATION
(6)
RESPONSIBLE AGENCY REQUIREMENT
(3)
UNIFORM BUILDING CODE/S
(7)
LANDSCAPING GUIDELINES
(4)
DESIGN REVIEW
(8)
PC/CC POLICY
***
EXCEPTION
Exhibit A
Resolution No. 91-112
Page 2
*** 1.8 Should the c
related to
improvements
the property
of occupancy
installed on
inspection.
PLAN SUBMITTAL
.r wash site complete construction entirely
their site including required street
and construction is not yet completed for
at 135 South Prospect Avenue, a certificate
may be issued subject to barricades being
the shared property line verified by field
2.1 At building plan check, the following items shall be
submitted:
(3) A. Revised construction plans, structural
calculations, and Title 24 energy calculations,
Requirements of the Uniform Building Codes, State
Handicap and Energy Requirements related to the
reciprocal access drive area shall be complied with
as approved by the Building Official.
(1) B. A revised separate 24" x 36" street improvement
plan for the reciprocal access drive area shall be
prepared showing all proposed construction within
the public right-of-way which shall include, but
not be limited to, curb and gutter, sidewalks,
drive aprons, undergrounding utility connections
and construction of all missing or damaged public
improvements adjacent to this development.
PARKINGICIRCULATION
*** 3.1 A reciprocal parking and ingress/egress easement between
135 South Prospect Avenue and 240 East First Street shall
be executed and recorded, subject to approval of both
Community Development Director and the City Attorney
prior to the issuance of permits for the property at 240
East First Street for the revisions related to the
reciprocal access drive.
(1) 3.2 Improvement plans for parking lot, landscaping
modifications and closure of the reciprocal access on the
property to the west shall be prepared and submitted
prior to the issuance of certificate of occupancy. Said
plans shall be prepared in accordance with the City's
Parking Lot and Landscaping Development Standards.
- Exhibit A
Resolution No. 91-112
Page 3
FEES
(1) 4.1 The applicant shall pay all applicable fees prior to the
issuance of permits, including, but not limited to:
A. Building Permit and Plan Check fees to the
Community Development Department.
B. 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, 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 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
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 $1,250 (one
thousand, two 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.
AEB:nm
ASE GUNY
y�so ticrdrN�t �Y�►. fit.. �,..._._.__._.._,..
Moorpark, California 93021 7-. —
LD
(805) 523WO
• FAX (805) 523-0�----.-.
R Y
AWZ 8�
r 99f
L) ! E S TRA TI 0
N
August 26, 1991
City of Tustin
Mayor Chuck Puckett and All Coucilmembers
of the City of Tustin
15222 Del Amo Avenue
Tustin, CA 92680
Honorable Mayor and Councilmembers:
My name is Abe Guny, and I amthe owner of the post office located
at 340 East 1st Street in Tustin. This is my second letter in
protest to the Conditional Use Permit 91-10, Design Review 91-07
and Amendment to Conditional Use Permit 89-25, by co -applicants,
Mr. Stephen Paquette and Mr. Henry Kumagai.
I strongly appose the above project. It will not contribute to
the area to upgrade itself. I think subject usage should all be
in one area. Also, I think that it is environmentally not
suitable for this location and we already have a parking problem
with the post office.
This project will increase the traffic and I do not think they
have enough parking and will end up using the post office lot.
There will be a lot of unhappy citizens not be able to park in
the post office lot.
Please do deny their application. If I can assist in any way
please do not hesitate to call me at (805) 523-0890.
Thank you for your consideration in this matter.
You s truly,
Abe Gun
6
AG: j s
0
}
2 81991
t 3
August 27, 1991
City of Tustin
15222 Del Amo
Tustin, California 92680
Attention: Members of City Council
RE: Appeal of Conditional.use permit 91-10, Design review
91-07 and amendment to Conditional use permit 89-25.
We again wish to express our objection to the approval
of the subject conditional use permit, amendments, etc. and
hereby restate our position.
We are the owners of the Big O Tire Store, located at 131
East First Street, Tustin. We do not operate the tire business,
but as owners, we lease the land and improvements to Big O Tire
Company.
We do not object to the competition of additional tire
stores within the trade area of our location. Free enterprise
is healthy.
However, in regard to the above referenced appeal, we
believe all development should conform to city standards without
exception, unless there is a just cause.
Thank you for your consideration in this matter.
Very truly yours, ,
Alice D. Pieper
Iris E. Schroeder, Owners
13122 Laurinda Way
Santa Ana, California 92705
714-633-0844