Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutRDA D.R. 88-29 03-06-89REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY · TO: FROM: SUBJECT: ¥ILLIAM A. HUSTON, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR COMHUN['I~' DEVELOPIqENT DEPARTMENT DESIGN REVIEii 88-29 APPLICANT/ OILER: REQUEST: SOLIqAR DEVELOPMENT COMPANY 1201 EAST HUNTER AVENUE SANTA ALIA, CALIFORNIA 92705 APPROVAL TO CONSTRUCT A 12,390 SQUARE .FOOT LIGHT INDUSTRIAL BUILDING. '- . REC01~IENDATION iiii I ii It is recommended that the Redevelopment Agency' 1) Adopt Resolution No. RDA 89-8, certifying the final Negative Declaration as adequate for the project. 2) Approve Design Review 88-29 by adoption of Resolution No. RDA 89-6 as subml:ted or revised. BACKGROUND The Community Development Department has completed a review of the site plan and architectural design of the proposed project. The design review process emphasized the following issues- o Architectural compatibility with surrounding facilities; o Design of on-site parking and circulation; and o Conformance with Zoning Code and development standard requirements. As required by the South Central Redevelopment Plan, the final site plan and architectural design is subject to the review and approval of the Redevelopment Agency. With the exception of the specific items noted in the draft resolution of approval, staff considers the submittal to be complete and recommends that the Agency approve the project as presented. Redevelop.ment Agency Report Destgn Review 88-29 March 6, 1989 Page two DISCUSSION Submitted plans propose the development of an approximate 12,390 square foot industrial building on a .70 acre stte located Immediately east of the Champion Foods factltty on Industrial Drive, between Red Hill Avenue and Woodlawn Avenue. The subject stte, is currently zoned lq (Tndustrlal) and Is surrounded by stnfilartly zoned properties to the north, south, east and west. Surrounding developments Include: Pacific Bell office, buildings across Tndustrlal Drive to the north, an Industrial building Immediately to the south, a strawberry field to the east (a 40,000+ square foot office building ts proposed on this stte) and the Champion Foods factlity to the west. The sub~itted development plans propose a'maxlmum 30 foot tall, concrete tilt-up butldlng with 5,387 square, feet of office space (in two levels) and approximately 7,003 square feet of warehouse space. The building is located towards the northwest corner of the slte, with a 25 foot landscaped front setback proposed on Industrial Drtve. A total of 36 parking spaces are provided as required by the lq-Zoning District. Proposed parking ts located along the east and south property lines and around the rear of the bulldlng. Additional features of the project Include: Natural concrete finish with bands of exposed aggregate (the natural ftnish wtll be painted If' there are significant blemishes). o A 5.5 foot wide landscape perimeter around the edges of the parking lot. ° Glass blocks at the front entry and second level stairway. A landscape "arcade" a't the front of the building providing a sense of depth at the front elevation. Exposed aggregate concrete walk at building entrance. Access to the site is via a 27 foot wide concrete 'drive apron on Industrial Drive. A 6' - 0" high concrete screen wall along the east, north and west property lines, stepping down to 3' - 0" at the 25 foot building setback line. Future. tenants will be required to comply with the provisions of the Tustin Si gn Code. Submitted landscaping plans call for a combination of 24" box and 15 gallon trees, in conjunction with a variety of shrubs and ground cover. The applicant was allowed to submit plans for building plan check, with a letter' accepting all responsibility and risk should the Agency require any changes in Corn rnunity Development DeparTment Redevelopment Agency Report Deslgn Revtew 88-29 March 6, 1989 Page three the proposed project. At thts ttme, a11 plan check corrections for Departments (Building, Fire, Plannlng, and PublJc ~/orks) have been satisfied. Agency approval ts the last process requtred prlor to 1ssuance of permits. CONCLUSIO# Staff belleves that the proposed building ts In keeping wlth the design and qualtty of surrounding buildings tn the Immediate vtctnlty and therefore recommends approval by the Redevelopment Agency. Steve Rubin Sent or Planner Christine A. Shtngleton // Director of CommunJty DeV~a~1opment SR'CAS:ts Attachments: Resolution No. RDA 89-8 and RDA 89-6 Site Plan Elevations Environmental [ntttal Study/Negative Declaration Corn rnunity Development Depar~rnent VlHl~O-' ~ ='HiJ'Sml.. ' ' 'gNma'ling a~u uvr~io.s- I lJJ! .. '~'.o · . i. .,. .."2 il!! iiii - ILI. J )--"! I [ ! . i --oToe O-it i ' J · lell I . ] J J  i' , . " ] I i · o ',ITY OF TtJSTIN Community. Development Department -ENVIRONMENTAL INITIAL STUDY FORM ii .,. e Date of Che~list Submitted Agency Recluiring Checkll~ Nm~e of Prop~aal, if ar~iicable (Expl~ims of all "yes" and "maybeS. answers are required on attached sheets.) Will the propoml result im a. Unstable earth conditions or in. changes in geologic substructures? b. Disruptla~, displacements, compaction or ov~covering of the soil? c. 'Chaxje in topography or ground surface relief features? cl. The datruction, cowring or modification of any unique geologic or physical features? e. Any Increase in wind or water erosion of soils, either on or off the site? fe Chmcjes in deposition .ar erosion of beach sands, ar changes in siltation, deposition or erosion which may modify the channel of a river or stream ar the bed of the o c eon or my bay, inlet or lake? e 3~ Exposure of people or pnq:mrly to' geolo- gic: hazards su~.as em'thquakm, landsllcl~, rnudslides, grouix:! failure, . or similar haza'ds? ' Air. Wiil the prolx~l result ir, '" Substmtlal air emi. bm or cleterioration of ambient air quality?' b. The creatlan of objectlanable odor.? Alteratlan of air movement, moisture, or ternp~re, or any dxmge in climate, either locally ar regionally?. Water. Will the propoeal result im Changes 'in currents, ar the course of di- rectlan of water movements, in either marine ar fresh waters? be ~ in absarptim rates, drainacje pat- term, ar the rate and amaunt of surface runoff?.' · c. Alteratlam to the caum ar flow of flood waters? .. d. Chaxje in the amount of ~urface water in. my water body?' Discharge into surface waters, ar in my alteratlan of surface water quality, in- cludincj but not limited to temperature, dissolved oxygen or turbidity? .. f. Alteratlan of the direction or rote of flow. of ground waters? ge C'hmcje in the quantity of ground waters, either through direct additions or with- drawals, ar through Interceptim of an aquifer by cuts or excavatlam? Substantial reductlan In the amaunt of water otherwise available far public water sugglles? i. Exposure of people ar property to water re- lated haz~ds such as flooding ar tidal waves? Ym' · . ~'. Plant Life. Wlil the prapesal result im 'Change in the diversity of species, ar · number of my species of plants. (including trees, .qTubs, grass, crops, md aquatic b. Reductlan of the numbem of my un kltie, rare or emlmxjered species of plants? Ym d. Introductlan of new species of plants into m area, or in a barrier to the normal replenishment of existing species? Reductlan in acreage of my agricultural crop? 5. Anilld Llf.. Will the prapoml result im ~ in the diversity of species, or numbers of any species of animals (birds, laml animals Including reptiles, fl,h md shellfish, benthic orgmbms-or Insects)? b~ Reductim of the nurrbem of my unique, ram or endangered specle~ of mimals? 'lntroductim' of new species of mlmals into . m area, ar result in a borrler to the migratlan ar movem~ of mirnals? cl. Deterloratian to existing fish ar wildlife habitat? Noise. Will the prapmal result Im a. Increases in existing noise levels? b. ExlxmUm of peaple to severe noise levels? 0 0 Light ami Glm'e. Wlll the p~l produce new light ar glare? Land Use. Will the pragosal result in a sub- stantlal alteratlan of the pres~;=t or planned land use of an area? · 9. Natural Resaumm. Wlll the proposal result ins ,. Increase in the rate of use of ~y natural resources? 0 $~stmti~l ~pleti~n ~f an~ handle 10. ''Risk of Upsef. Will the prapmql irM)l~ 12. '13. 14. A risk of an e~l)lostan or the release of hcm]d0u~ sub~tancm (in~luding, but not ' limited to, otl, pesti~tdm, chemicx]ls or radlaf~ in the .event of m c~ident or upset corot,? Pamible Interference Mth an emergen~ ~ pkm ar mt enmrge,~ mmaxxtlan plm? Pal~latim. Wlll the proposal alter the location, dbtribuflan, clemity, ar growth rate of the humm pogulatlan of m area? Housing. Will the prop¢~l affect ~xlstln~ ~ lng, or create a clammd far additional hcusing? Trmlpetat~Clra~latim. Wlll the pmlx)ml result im a. bo C, eneratlan of substantial additional vehicular, movement? . · Effects an existing Ix~ing' factliti.,, or demand for new parking? · ~. Substantial impc~t upan ecisting trm~l tation systems? · d- Alteratiam to present patterns of '¢ircula- tian or movement of PecPb and/or goods? e. Alteratlam to Waterix)rne~ rail ar air traffic? f, Increase in traffic hazards to motor vehicles, bicyclists ar pedestri~? Publl~ SeYa~ Will the proposal have m effect upan, ar result in a need far new ar altered govemmentol services in cr~ of the following areas~ a. Fire protection? · b. Police protectian? c. Schools? Ym 15. 17. 18. · P~kz ar other recreational foailities? 00 Maintenance of public facilities, including rock. ? o- Energy. Will the prapoeal result im Use of substantial amounts of fuel or energy?. Subst~lal Increase in demand upon exist- lng sources of energy, or require the · development of new sources of mergy? Ufllitim. Will the prapaeal result in a need far new sy~ or substmtlal alteratiom to the following utilltle~ .. _ .-- a. Power or natural gm? · b. Communications systems? cl. Sewer ar septic tanks? e. S tarm water drainage? f... Solid waste ond dimoml? . . I-Immm Health. Will the praposol result im Creation of any health hezcrd or potential health hazard (excluding mental health)? b. Exposure of peaple to potential health haz=cb? Aesthetics. Will the prapmal result in the abstructian of m~/Scenic vista or view open to . the public, ar will the prapoeal result in the creatlan of an aesthetically offensive site open to public view? F~~ian. Will the prc~msal result in an impact ~ the quality or quantity of existing recreatlanal opportunities? Will the prapmal result in the alteratian of ar the clestru~ of a prehistaric ar histarle mehemlogical site? Yes 21. ar amthetle effects to a prehistarle ar hi~aric: buikling, ~mJeWr~ or objoe~ Mi~ Flndingl et' Slgnificanm._ bo Does the project have the. potential to degrade the quality of the enviranment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish ar wildlife species, ccuse a fish ar wild- life papulatlan to drop below self su~-. talning levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number ar restrict the rmge of a mm ar endange~ plant ar animal ar eliminate Important examples of the major periods of California history ar preh,istory? Does the projmt' have the.potential to · a~hleve short-term, to the disadvantage of lamj-term, enviranmental goals? (A short-. term impc~:t an the environment Is one which occurs In a relatively brief, definitive period of time while long-term irnga~ts will endure well into the future.) · Daes the project have i~ which are individually limited, but cumulatively cen. siderable? (A project may lmpect an two ar more separate resources where the impect on each resource is relatively small, but Where the effect of the total of those impacts an the enviranment is significant.) Does the project have enviranmentol effect~ which will cause substantial adverse effects an human beings, either directly ar indirectly? Yes Ma) e No Iff. Oi~u=ian af Enviramnental E~iuatim /-~~ ~_~'A///~'/~ /~/ /~~A/~-~ IV. Detertninatian (To be completed by the Lead Agency) On the basis of this initial ev ~iam I find that the proposed project COULD NOT J~we a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that alttaxjh the prapmed project cauld have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a signifk:ont effect in this case because 'the mitigati, on measures dn~ribed on on attachec[ sheet have been added to the project. A NEGATIVE DECI. ARATION WILL BE PREPARED. _ I find the prepased project MAY he~ a significant effect on the environ- ' merit, and on ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. I___1 EXHIBIT A INITIAL STUDY RESPONSES FOR DESIGII REVIE¥ 88-29 SOLMAR R & D BUILDING Sec.t.ton II - Envlronmental..I,.mpacts 1, Earth Items A through D - "No"- 'The project site is currently flat and does not contain any sub'~ltantial geologic features based upon field verification completed by the project planner on June 17, 1988. The proposed building layout and conceptual grading plan call for minimal movement of existing soil which will not constitute a basis for altering any geological features or changes to existing topography or ground surface relief features. All on-site grading activities will be conducted in accordance with City Codes and requirements and verified by the Building Official. Sources' - Field verification, June 17, 1988 " - Proposed site plan and conceptual grading plan - Tustin Municipal Code - Uniform Building Code Monitoring Required' - Plan check and inspections through Building Division. Ite..m E ',1 "Maybe": The proposed grading activities could result in localized wind and water erosion of on-site soils if unchecked. As conditions of approval for this project, the applicant will be required to provide an erosion control plan which addresses water and soil related erosion problems during the rainy season. Wind blown soil. erosion can also be controlled through watering of the site during windy conditions and by watering down any soil removal trucks, during grading operations. Therefore, any possible impact can be mitigated to a level of i nsi gni fi cance. Sources' - City of Tustin Building Official - Standard Conditio?s of Approval Monitoring Required' Apply conditions of approval to proposed resolution for Design Review 88-29 to require' 1) Erosion Control Plan {water and site and truck watering during grading operations, and 2) Verification of adequacy of control to be completed by Duilding Inspector during required grading and foundation i nspecti ons. Items F and G - "No"' Based on the site location in relation to any streams, river~';'i'and flood control channels, it is not anticipated that this project will substantially contribute to siltation or erosion problems to local water bodies. Additionally, the site is not directly adjacent to or located on any known active earth quake fault. The site is relatively flat and therefore would not be subject to any land or mudslide activies. Exhibit A Page two Source: - City of Tustin Zoning Map - City of Tustin General Plan (Seismic Safety Element) Monttort...ng R.e. qutred: None 2. Air Items A through C - "No"' The proposed project is not considered a substantial ~ontrib~tor to '~ir emissions (less than 100 tons a year) and is not subject to specific regulation by the Air Quality Managemnt District as a stationary source of air pollution. The project is proposed for light industrial and office use and does not propose to use or nmintain on-site any substantial quantity of n~terials that by use or nature will create objectionable odors. The project is relatively stall in scale (less than 50,000 square feet) in an existing "bui~lt-up" area and will therefore not have a significant impact on the clinmte, or pose alterations in the n~venmnt of, ~isture in, or temperture of the air. Sources: - Air Quality Managenmnt District - Regulation No. 15 - Project Site, Floor and Description Monitorin. ii iii ~ Required-. As a condition of approval, the applicant will be required to file for and obtain approval- of permits from the Air Quality Managenmnt District under Regulation 15 as necessary. Monitoring is conducted by the Air Quality Managenmnt District for compliance with their requirenmnts. Item A and C through I - "No": As noted in the discussion in item number 1 I'(Eart~) above, the project site is not located adjacent to or in the vicinity of any large body of water or exposed flood control channels or devices. Therefore, it is not anticipated that the project will have an effect on currents, quality or courses of water. The project is located in a "C" District on the Tustin FIRM mp and is not considered to be a flood prone area. The proposed project involves a one story industrial building, (with two stories of office space). The water table will not be substantially affected by construction activity since soil boring reports conducted in the area show no evidence of near surface water bodies. £xhibi t A Page three The project, due to it's small size (123,390.5 square feet) and proposed use, will not significantly reduce water supply or contribute excess quantities of water to the ground water supply. Because the site was formally part of the Champion Foods parking lot, proposed developnmnt will not result in changes to absorbion rates. Therefore, no significant effects related to water are anticipated as a result of the project. Sources' - Tustin FIRM ~ - Proposed Site, Grading and Elevation Plans - Tustin Zoning Map - Field investigation, June 17, 1988 Monl.toring Required: None 4. Plant Ltfe Items A...through D - "No"- The project site was used as a parking lot. Therefore, no rare or endangered species are known to exist on the property. The proposed site plan includes landscaped areas which, as shown on the conceptual landscape plan, are con,non species used in the area. Sources: - Site Field Inspection (June 17, 1988) Monitoring Required' None $. Antma 1 Ltfe Itenm_A_.through_D- "No"' Based on review of City records and the site field inspection conducted by City staff, there are no known endangered or rare species known to inhabit the project site. Sources' - Site Plan ii -- Field Inspection (June 17, 1988) Monitoring Required' None 6. Noise Iten~ A and B - "Yes" and "No" respectively: While the proposed uses (industrial and office)-is~ not a'n~iCipated tb 'increase noise levels in the area or to expose persons to severe noise levels, the project design includes the isolation of all air conditioning equipment to .a screened roof top area; therefore minimizing impacts to surrounding properties and to on-site employees. Exhibit A Page four The construction of the proposed building may increase noise levels in the area. temporarily. To avoid possible noise impacts, the construction activities will be limited under the Tustin Noise Ordinance to reduce any impacts to a level, of insignificance. Sources: - Proposed Elevation, Site, and Roof Plans - Tustin Noise Ordinance Monitorin~ Required: As a condition 'of approval, the applicant will be required to licit~1 construction activities as per the require~nts of the Tustin Noise Ordinance. The Tustin Building Official and Police Departn~nt will monitor the site and stop any activities in .violation of the Noise Code if complaints are recel veal. 7. Light and Glare "Yes"' The proposed project will include parking lot lighting for confornmnce with the'City Security Ordinance. However, all lighting fixtures and intensities will be reviewed by City staff to ensure that light rays are contained on-site and within Security Ordinance intensity limits. Therefore, any possible impacts would be mitigated to a level of insignificance. Sources: - Tustln Security Ordinance Monitoring Required' City staff review of proposed lighting plan for project prior to permit issuance. 8. Land Use "No": The project is proposed to develop a parcel for light industrial and office use in an M-Industrial District. These are permitted uses in this district. Sources' - Tustin Zoning Code i i Monitoring Required- None 9. Natural Resources Items A and B - "No"' The proposed land use does not. involve use of any large or significant~"qu'-antities of natural resources or non-renewable natural resources. Sources- - Developn~nt Plans ii Monit.oring Required: None Exhibit A Page five 10. Rtsk of Upset Items A and B - "No"- The project does not propose the handling or.storage of any known hazardous or explosive materials. The site currently ts along a major artertal htghway and access ts easily attainable to major roads and freeways. Therefore, no anticipated risk of upset due to exposure or Interference with an emergency response plan ts. expected. If future tenants propose use of hazardous materials, additional environmental review may be necessary. Sources: - Development Plans -Clty of Tustln Master Plan of Artertal Hlghways - City of Tustin Emergency Response Plan (1981) Monitoring Required: None 11-12. Population and Heuslng "No": The project Is relatively small In size and scale (less than 50,000 square feet and less than 200 employees) and will not necessarily increase the need for houstng or substantially increase the general populatton tn the area. Therefore, no significant increase tn housing or population ts anticipated as a result of the project. Sources: - Project Stte and Floor Plan Monttortn9 R_equired: None, [3. Transportation/Ct rculatton Items A and C - "No": The project will require some denmnd for use of t~ansportalti61~' facilities and parking. However, the level of impact, based upon the size and use of the project will not create a significant increase in demand, overall based upon the City Traffic Engineer's review of the project. In order to off-set any off-site circulation and transportation demand, the project applicant, as a condition of approval, is required to deposit fees for area circulation improvements as required by Ordinance 930, adopted on May 20, 1985. Items B "Yes": The project has been designed to provide on-site parking to accomn~date "all parking demand in conformance with the Tustin Zoning Code requirements. The project includes 36 on-site parking spaces. Sources: - Ordinance No. 930 . .,, - Tustin Parking Requirements - Site Plan Monitoring Required: City Planning staff to require payment of fees and to conduct final field inspection to ensure provision of required parking spaces. Exhtblt A Page stx Items D throu~h...F - "No". The project will not require the re-routing of existing surface, water, rail or airborn transportation systems since no changes are required to facilitate the proposed use. The project applicant will be required to install sidewalks along the Industrial Drive frontage to facilitate pedestrian circulation. Sources: - Design Review Comments - Public Works Department - Site Plan - Tustin Zoning Map - Tustin Master Plan of Arterial Highways Monitoring Required' City Public Works Department to review, approve and inspect sidewalk construction for conformance with City standards. 14 and 16. Publtc Services and Utilities Items A through F - "No": The proposed use does not require substantial Con~en'tr~ltion of or increase in the provision of Public Services. This is due to · the size, type, location and condition of the property. Utilities, such as water, drainage and other services are already provided to the premises. Sources' - Code Enforcement Records - Site/Elevation Plans - Design Review Committee Comments Monitoring Required: None 15. Energy Items A and B - "No": The project will accommodate light industrial uses which, by nature, do not present a threat of reduction in or significant use of Energy Resources. The project size also is relatively small and 'should not pose a significant impact to Engery Resources. Sources: - Site/Floor Plans M..onltoring Required' None 17. )lummn Health Items A and B' "No"' As noted previously, the proposed land use does not involve use of any known hazardous materials or explosives. The project design proposes convential construction of a light industrial building which should not expose people to any health hazards. The structure will be reviewed for conformance with all applicable Building Cod. es prior to construction. Sources' - Site/Elevation Plan Exhlblt A Page seven Monitoring Required' The project will be plan checked and approved by the Building Official prior to construction. All construction activities on site will be regularly inspected by the City Building Inspector prior to occupancy. 18.. Aesthetics "No"' The project is not located along a scenic corridor or within a special design or resource district. However, the project design features have been created to make the project compatible with its surroundings by use of colors, materials, architectural features and site design elements which are common to the area. Additionally, the building is within the height limitations of the M-Industrial district. Sources' - Site/Elevation Plans i i - South Central Redevelopment Plan - General Plan (Scenic Highways Element) Monitoring Required' None 19. *Recreation "No"' The proposed project is not on or adjacent to any recreation facility. The proj---"ect will not include residential uses which could substantially increase or impact recreational needs in the area. Source: - City of*Tustin General Plan Land Use Map M.onit.oring Required' None 20. Cultural Resources Items A through D.- "No"' The project Site is not located in an area known as an ~rcheological resource. The site has been used a a parking lot .so there is no evidence (based on field inspection and City records) that any cultural resources exist on the property. Sources' - Tustin Area Historic ReSources Survey - Field Site Inspection (June 17, 1988) Mont.t..o. ring Required' None 21. Mandatory Flndtngs of Significance Item A - "No"' Based upon the responses to items 1-20 in this initial study, the review of C~ty files, records and documents and the nature of proposed project, the Exhibit A Page el ght Item C - "Maybe": In reference to the discussion in item 13 - Transportation/circulation, the project may contribute to the demand for transportation facilities in the area. However, this demand, based on the size and proposed use of the project would not substantially or significantly impact the transportation/circulation system as determined by the Tustin Design Review Committee. Fees for circulation enhancements (off-site) are required prior to issuance of building permits, therefore, mitigating any impacts to a level of i nsi gni fi cance. Sources- - Design Review Committee Comments - Ordinance No. 930 Monitoring Required' See item 13 - A through C i ii Items D - "No"- As discussed in this initial study any possible impacts associated with this project have been mitigated -to a level of insignificance and a monitoring program .for this mitigation is provided. Therefore, it is not anticipated that the Project will directly or indirectly impact human health. Sources' Discussion, items 1-21 Monitoring RequJred- Refer to items 1-21 Section I I I- The environmental evaluation provided herein, attempts to fully identify, discuss and mitigate any impacts associated with the proposed development project. Considering the sources used, the proposed level of development and the mitigation and monitoring measures incorporated herein, staff has determined that any project impacts have been 'mitigated to a level of insignificance. NEGATI ,-: ',.,, DEC,LARAT,ION CITY OF TUSTIN 300 CENTENNIAL WAY, TUSTIN, CA. 92680 · . Project Tttle: Soim~r R & D Building Ftle No. DR 88-29 Project Location: 1302 Industrial Drive Project O~scrtptton: A proposed 12,390. square foot light inddstrial building. Project Proponent: Solmar Development Company Contact Person: Steve Rubin Telephone:714/544_8890 Ext. 278 i The Community Development Department has conducted an tntttal study for the above project in accordance with the Ctty of Tusttn's procedures regarding Implementation of the California Envtr'onmental Qualtty Act, and on the basts 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. Satd revisions are attached to and hereby made a part of this Negative Oeclaratton. · .. Therefore, the preparation of an Environmental Impact Report is not required. I The tntttal study whtch provtdes the basts for thts determination ts on ftle at the Community Oevelopment Oepartment, Ct~! of Tusttn.. The publlc ts tnvtted to comment on the appropriateness of thts gegattve Oeclaratton durtng the revte~ pertod, whtch begtns wtth the publtc nottce of a Negattve Oeclaratton and extends for 'seven calendar days. Upon revtew by the Community Oevelopment 01rector, thts revtew pertod may be extended tf deemed necessary. REVIEW PER[O0 ENDS 4:30 p.m. on DATED: February 23, 1989 March 6, 1989 Communl ty e. p 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2O 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 RESOLUTION NO. RDA 89-8 A RESOLUTION OF THE COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OFTUSTIN, CERTIFYING THE FINAL NEGATIVE DECLARATION AS ADEQUATE FOR DESIGN REVIEW 88-29, INCLUDING REQUIRED FINDINGS PURSUANT TO THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT. The Community Redevelopment Agency of the City of Tustin resolves as follows: I. The Community Redevelopment Agency finds and determines as follows: A. Design Review 88-29 is considered a "project" pursuant to the terms of the California Environmental Quality Act. B. A Negative Declaration has been prepared for this project and has been distributed for public review. C. Whereby, the Redevelopment Agency of the City of Tustin has considered evidence presented by the Community Development Director and other interested parties with respect to the subject Negative Declaration. D. The Redevelopment Agency 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 Redevelopment Agency, 'having final approval authority over the project, has received and considered the information contained in the Negative Declaration prior to approving the proposed project and found it adequately discussed the environmental effects of the proposed project. On the basis of the initial study and comments received during the public review process, the Redevelopment Agency. has found that there is no substantial evidence that there will be any significant adverse environmental effects as a result of the approval of the project because mitigation measures identified in the Negative Declaration have been incorporated into the project which mitigate any potential significant environmental effects to a point where clearly no 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 21 23 25 26 27 28 Resolution No. RDA 89-8 page two significant effects wtll occur. The mitigation measures are Identified tn Exhlbtt A to the attached Negattve Declaration and tntttal study and are adopted as condttlons of approval of the subject project pursuant to Condition 5.3 of Exhibit A of Resolution RDA 89-6, Incorporated heretn by reference. PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Community Redevelopment Agency held on the _______day of , 1989. Ursula ~ 'Kennedy Chairman Mary E. wynn Secretary RESOLUTION NO. RDA 89-6 3 4 5 A RESOLUTION OF THE COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN, AUTHORIZING CONSTRUCTION OF AN APPROXIMATE 12,390 SQUARE FOOT INDUSTRIAL BUILDING AT 1302 INDUSTRIAL DRIVE (DESIGN REVIEW 88-29). 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 '14 15 IG 17 18 19 2O 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 The Community Redevelopment Agency of the City of Tustin resolves as follows: I. The Community Redevelopment Agency finds and determines as follows: A. Pursuant to the adopted South/Central Redevelopnmnt Plan, the Redevelopment Agency shall approve all site plans and architectural 'designs of any project proposed within the Redevelopnmnt Agency Project Area. B. A proper application, (Design Review 88-29) has been filed on behalf of Solmr Developmnt Company requesting authorization to construct an approximate 12,390 square foot industrial building at 1302 Industrial Drive. C. The Agency has reviewed the proposed project and determines that the project will be compatible with the surrounding area. D. A Negative Declaration has been approved by the Redevelopment Agency in conformnce with the California Environnmntal Quality Act. E. Final developnmnt plans shall require approval of the Comn~nity Developmnt Departnmnt pior to issuance of Building Permits. F. The project is. in confornmnce with the South/Central Redevelopnmnt Plan. II. The Con~nunlty Redevelopnmnt Agency of the City of Tustln, California, hereby approves the site plan and elevations for an approximte 12,390 square foot industrial building to be located at 1302 Industrial Drive subject to the conditions contained in the attached Exhibit A. PASSED AND ADOPTED at~ a regular nmeting of the Con~nunity Redevelopment Agency held on the ,. day of................. , 1989. Ursula" E. Kennedy Chairnmn Mary E. "'Wy~n ..... Secretary EXHIBIT A DESIGN REVIEW 88-29 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL RESOLUTION NO. RDA 89-6 GENERAL ('1) [.! The proposed project shall substantially conform wtth the submitted plans for the project date stamped December [4, [988 on file with the Community Development Department, as heretn modified, or as modified by the Dtrector of Community Development Department in accordance with this Exhibit. ([) 1.2 Unless otherwise specified, the conditions contained in thts Exhlbtt 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 buildtn9 permlts are Issued within twelve (12) months of the date on thts Exhlbit. SITE AND BUILDING CONDITIONS 2.1 The site plan shall be modified as follows: A. Provlde Information and details for the light bollards adjacent to the front walkway. (1) 2.2 Note on final plans that a six foot high chain linked fence shall be installed around the site prior to building construction stages. Gated entrances shall be permitted along the perimeter of the site for construction vehicles. FEES (1) 3.3 Prior to issuance of any building permits, payment shall be made of all (2) required fees including: (3) (5) A. Major thoroughfare and bridge fees to Tustin Public Works Department. B. Sanitary sewer connection fee to Orange County Sanitation District. C. New development fees to the Community Development Department. De Grading, Building, Electrical, and Mechanical permit fees to the Community Development Department. SOURCE CODES (1) STANDARD CONDITION - (2) NEGATIVE DECLARATION )lITIGATION (3) UNIFORM BUILDING CODE/S (4) DESIGN REVIEW *** EXCEPTION (S) RESI)ONSZBLE AGENCY REQUIREHENT (6) LANDSCAPING GUIDELINES (7) PC/CC POLICY ~esolutton No. RDA 89-6 Exhlbl t A Page two E. School facilities .fee to the Tustin Unified School' D~strlct. F. Circulation and Transportation Improvement fees for the Pacific. Center East Spectftc Plan area in the amount of $2.60 per sq.ft, of office space, $[.80 per sq.ft, of R & D space and $1.00 per sq.ft, of Industrial space. GRADING (2) 4.! Prior to Issuance of gradlng permits, the applicant shall submit an erosion (3) control plan to the Butldtn9 Official for review and approval. Said plan shall address both wind and water erosion. ENV ! RONMENTAL (2) $.1 The applicant shall obtain permits from the SCAQMD in compliance with AQMD Regulation No. 15, as necessary. .) $.2 Construction activities shall be limited to the hours of 7:00 a.m. - 6:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, pursuant to the City's Noise Ordinance. (2) 5.3,Compliance with all mitigation measures contained in the adopted Negative Declaration for the project.