HomeMy WebLinkAboutRDA DESIGN REVIEW 89-27 7-17-89DATE: JULY 17, 1989 Inter - Corn
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
WILLIAM HUSTON, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR
CO,~I4UNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
DESIGN REVIEW 89-27
APPL I CANT:
JOHN CHAMPION
CHAMPION DEVELOFq4ENT COMPANY
100 OCEANGATE BOULEVARD
SUITE 600
LONG OEACH, CALIFORNIA 90802
LOCATION:
13662 NEWPORT AVENUE AT HAIN STREET.
ZONING'.
PC-COMM - PLANNED CO,~IVlUNITY COMMERCIAL
ENVIRONMENTAL
STATUS' A NEGATIVE DECLARATION HAS BEEN PREPARED FOR THIS PROJECT.
REQUEST:
TO CONSTRUCT A 18,200 SQUARE FOOT RETAIL CENTER ON A 1.49 ACRE
PARCEL LOCATEO AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF NEWPORT AVENUE ANO MAIN
STREET.
RECOMMENDATION
m ·
It is recommended that the Tustin ConTnunity Redevelopment Agency.:
le
Certify the Negative Declaration as adequate for the project by adoption of
Resolution No. RDA 89-17 as submitted or revised; and
e
Approve Design Review 89-21 by the adoption of Resolution No. RDA 89-18 as
submitted or revised.
BACKGROUND
The applicant proposes to construct a 18,200 square foot retail center on a 1.49
acre site located at the southeast corner of Newport Avenue and Main Street.
The site is located in the PC-C-Planned Comm,Jnity Commercial zone which requires
approval of a Conditional Use Permit prior to any development. The Use Permit
(No. 89-21) was reviewed and approved by the Planning Colnmi ssi on on June 26,
Redevelopment Agency Report
July 17-, 1959
Design Review 89-27
Page two "
1989 and was considered by the City Council on July 17, lg89. Since the project
is located in the South Central Redevelopment Area, the site plan and elevations
must be reviewed by the Agency to determine consistency with the Redevelopment
Plan.
Attached to the City Council report for Use Permit 89-21 is the report presented
on July 17, 1989 which describes the project site, the features of the proposed
development as well as a history of the projects assemhly in relation to the
Redevelopment Agency. This report includes a complete description of the site
plan and elevations to aid the Agency in making a determination on this project.
CONCLUS I ON
While the Use Permit has had some staff and public concern regarding land uses
and traffic impacts, the revised conditions contained in City Council
Resolutions No. 89-101 and 89-102 will address citizen concerns and rectify any
possible project impacts. With the changes proposed in the above mentioned
resolutions, staff suggests that the Tustin Community Redevelopment Agency
approve Design Review No. 89-27.
Senior Planner
Christine Shi ngl etSn~' - ~vve
Director of Community D l opment
LK:pef
Attachments'
Site Plan and Elevations
Negative Declaration, Initial Study.
Resolutions RDA 89-17 and RDA 89-18
Community De,velopment Department
· i
.o
oo
0 i
NE .ATIVE DECLA, .ATiON
CITY OF TUSTIN
300 CENTENNIAL WAY, TUSTIN, CA, 92680
Project, Ttt,le: Use Permit 89-21
Champion Development
Project, Locat,Jon: 13662 Newport Avenue
File NO.UP89-21 and DR89-2
Project, Descrtpt,ton: 18,200 Square Foot Retail Shopping Center
Project, Proponent,: Champion Development Company
Cont,act, Person: Laura C. Kuhn Telephone: 544-8890
Ext,. 256
The Communlt,y Development, Depart,ment, has conducted an tntt,tal study for t, he
above project, tn accordance w~t,h t,he Ctt,y of TustJn's procedures r-egardJng
implement, at'Ion of the California Env~r'onmental Qualtty Act,, and on t,he basis of
1:hat, study hereby ft nd:
That there, ts no subs~ant,tal evtdence that, the project may have a
significant, effect, on the environment.
That, potential significant affectm were Identified, but revisions have
been tncluded tn the project, plans and agreed t,o by the applicant that,
would avotd or mtt,tgate t,he affect~ t,o a potnt, where clearly no
significant effects would occur. Satd revisions are attached to and
hereby made a part, of thts Negat,tve Declaration.
Therefore, the preparation of an Environmental Impact Report, ~s not required.
The initial study whtch provtdes the bas~s for th~s determ~nat,~on is on
file at the Communtt,y Development, Depart,merit,, City of Tust,tn. The public
is tnvtt,ed t~ comment on the appropriateness of this Negative Dec,afar,ion
during the revte~ pertod, which begins w~th the public not~ce of a
Negattve Declarat,~on and ext,ends for seven calendar days. Upon review by
the Community Oevelopment Direct,or, this revle~ pertod may be ext,ended if
deemed necessary.
REVIEW PERIOD ENDS 4:30 p.m. on
DATED: J~lv 7, 1989
Jul7 17, 1989
communft, y Development, Director
for Christine Shingleton
EXHIBIT A
INITIAL STUDY RESPONSES FOR
DESIGN REVIEW 89-27 AND USE PERHIT 89-21
Section. II - Environmental Impacts
1. Earth
Items A, C and D - "No": The project site is currently flat and does not contain
any substantial ~eologic features based upon field verification completed by the
project planner on June 9, 1989. The proposed building layout and conceptual
grading plan call for minimal movement of existing soil which will not constitute a
basis for making any geological 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 9, 1989 - Proposed site plan and conceptual grading plan
- Tustin Municipal Code
- Uniform Building Code
..~ Monitorin~ Required- - Plan check and inspections through Building Division.
Item B - "Ma),be": The site is currently covered with a mixture of absorbent soils
with impervious materials (i.e. building, pavement, etc). However, the site design
will be graded and designed in a fashion so as to eliminate any impacts of water
run-off to adjacent property. Grading and on-site water channeling design (swale)
will direct run-off to appropriate storm drain facilities. Overall run-off volume
will be minimal since site size is less than 1.50 acres and grading/drainage design
will directly serve on-site needs.
Sources' - City of Tustin, Grading and Drainage Requirements - Site Field Inspection (June 9, 1989)
- Tustin FIRM
- Proposed Site, Grading and Elevation Plan
- Tustin Zoning Map
Monitoring Requirements' City of Tustin to apply standard conditions of approval
on Design Review and Use Permit to require conformance with City grading and
drainage requirements.
Item E - "No": The entire parcel is currently developed and run off conditions for
the new project would be similar. 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 if grading operations are done 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 operat ions.
Sources' - City of Tustin Building Official
- Standard Conditions of Approval
Initial Study DR 89-27
Exhibit A
Page two
Monitoring Required' Apply conditions of approval to proposed resolution for Use
Per'mit 89-21 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 Building Inspector during required grading and foundation
inspections.
Items F and G- "No": Based on the site location in relation to any streams,
rivers, and fl6od 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 on any known active earth
quake fault. The site is relatively flat and therefore would not be subject to
any 1 and or mudsl i de acti vi es.
Source:
- City of Tustin Zoning Map
- City of Tustin General Plan {Seismic Safety Element)
Miti~)atio, ln and Molnitolr, lliln~ Rec~uired' None
2. Air
Items A.ithro.u~h C - "No": The proposed ~roject is not considered a substantial
contributor to air emissions (less than 100 tons a year) and is not subject to
specific regulation by the Air Quality Management District as a stationary source
of air pollution. The project is proposed for typical retail commercial use and
does not propose to use or maintain on-site any substantial quantity of materials
that by use or nature will create objectionable odors. The project is relatively
small in scale (less than 20,000 square feet) in an existing "built-up" area and
will therefore not have a significant impact on the climate, or pose alterations in
the movement of, moisture in, or temperture of the air.
S,o.u,r,ces' - Air Quality Management District - Regulation No. 15
- Project Site, Floor and Description
Monitoring Required: As a condition of approval, the applicant will be required to
file for a6d obtain approval of any necessary permits from the Air Quality
Management District under Regulation 15. Monitoring is conducted by the Air
Quality Management District for compliance with their requirements.
3. Water
Items A through.. I - "No": As noted in the discussionthineitem number I (Earth)
above, the project site is not located adjacent to or in 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 map.
The proposed project involves a one story building. The water table will not be
substantially effected by construction activity.
Initial Study DR 89-27
Exhibit A
Page three
The project, due to it's relatively small size {18,200 square feet) and proposed
use, will not significantly reduce water supply or contribute excess quantities of
water to the ground water supply. Therefore, no significant effects related to
water are anticipated as a result of the project.
Mitigation and Monitoring re. quire.d: None
4. Plant Life
Items A through D - "No"- The project site is used for multiple family residential
and a vacant gas station. 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 common species used in the area.
Sources: - Site Field Inspection (June 9, 1989)
· - Review of City Records
- Landscape P1 an (Proposed)
Mitigation and Monitoring Required: None
5. Animal Life
Items A thrOUlglh D - "No": Based on review of City records and the site field
inspection conducted by"C'ity staff, there are no known endangered or rare species
known to inhabit the project site. Additionally, uses previously on the property
greatly limit the type, number and longevity of any substantial animal species
which would choose to inhabit the property.
Sources: - Site Plan - Field Inspection (June 9, 1989)
- Property and Code Enforcelnent Records
- Aerial Photograph of Site
Monitoring Required: None
Initial Study DR 89-27
Exhibit A
Page four
6. Noise
Items A - "No"' While the proposed use (retail center) is not anticipated to
increase noise Illevels 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.
Sources ·
- Tustin General Plan (Noise Element)
- Proposed Development Plan
- Tustin Noise Ordinance
Monit.o. rinl) Required: None.
Item BI ~ "..Ma~/be":
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
Monitoring Required: As a condition of approval, the applicant will be required to
limit' construction activities as per the requirements of the Tustin Noise
Ordinance. The Tustin Building Official and Police Department will monitor the
site and stop any activities in violation of the Noise Code if complaints are
received.
7. Light and G1 are
"Ma'be"- The proposed project will include parking lot lighting for conformance
wit~ th~ 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: - Tustin Security Ordinance
i ·
Monitoring Required' City staff review of proposed lighting plan for project prior
to permit issuance.
8. Land Use
",,Maybe": The project is proposed to develop three parcels for a retail center use
in a PC-Planned Community Commercial District. This district requires a
Initial Study DR 89-27
Exhibit A
Page fi ve
Conditional Use Permit for all uses to ensure compatibility of land uses and site
design, to reduce circulation problems and promote design features which are unique
to a particular site. However, existing land uses are different (multi-family
residences and a gas station) which are not the same as the proposed project. The
site design incorporates all requirements as established by Resolution No. 2411 to
reduce pote.qtial land use and vehicular conflicts.
Sources:
- Tustin Zoning Code
- Proposed Conditions of Approval
- Resolution No. 2411
Mitigation and Monitoring).Required.: Note conditions of approval in City Council
Res'olutio'n No" 89-102, ill items to be monitored and checked by the City of Tustin
prior to issuance of final certificates of occupancy.
9. Natural Resources
Items A and B - "No": The proposed land use does not involve use of any large or
signif'icant quantli~'6s of natural r. esources or non-renewable natural resources.
Sources: - Use Permit Application
- Site Plan
Mitil)a,tionI land Monitoring) Rec~uilredl: None
10. Ri sk ,of Upset
Items A and B - "No"' The proposed use does not require the handling or storage of
an~ k~own haz~rdou~ or explosive materials. The site currently is along a major
arterial highway and access is easily attainable to major roads and freeways.
Therefore no anticipated risk of upset due to exposure or il~erference with an
emergency response plan is expected.
Sources' - Use Permit Application - City of Tustin Master Plan of Arterial Highways
- City of Tustin Emergency Response Plan (1981)
Mit.i~)ation and Monitorin9 Required' None
11. Population
"No": The project is relatively small in size and scale (less than 20,000 square
~ and less than 100 employees) and will not necessarily increase the ..qeed
housing or substantially increase the general population in an area. Therefore,
significant increase in housing or population is anticipated as a result of the
project.
Sources: - Use Permit Application
- Project Site and Floor Plan
Initial Study DR 89-27
Exhi bi t A
Page si x
Miti.~ation and Monitoring Requi.r. ed' None
12. Housing
The project will require the removal of 13 multiple family housing units and ~n
existing gas station. ¥~hile some residents will be displaced the number of units
(13) is not considered significant based upon the availability of .~ultiple family
units in the City. Tustin has over 65% multiple family units which is the higqest
percentage of multiple family housing in all of Orange County. Additioqally,-
Tustin has over 18,900 housing units, and the 13 units being removed represents
less than .07 percent of these units.
Sources ·
- 1989 Tustin Housing Element
- Alta Survey for Project Site
Monitorin9 i.Requi.red' None
13. Transportation/Ci rculation
Items A- "Maybe" and B "Yes"' The project will require some demand for use of
transportation facillties and parking. However, the level of impact, based upon
the size and use of the project will no.t'create a significant increase in demand
overall, based upon the City Traffic Engineer's review of the project.
The Traffic Engineer conducted a study of traffic count at the Newport Avenue/Hain
Street and Newport Avenue/Andrews Street intersections to identify queing
distances, signalization cycles and stacking. Counts were made of Newport
(northbound) stacking across the Andrews Street intersection to identify the rate
of compliance with the existing "Keep Clear" pavement marker. A 50% rate of
compliance was observed.
The Traffic Engineer also studied the Andrews Street intersection at Newport to
identify stacking and left turn movements to southbound Newport Avenue. The
traffic generation rates were also compared with existing traffic rates and for
the proposed project to identify potential impacts. While the new project provides
a maximum of 80 vehicle trips at a.m. and p.m. peak hours, the Andrews left turn
exit would reach up to four vehicles stacked at a time. Also, the peak hours of
the existing traffic patterns (7-9 and 4-6) are anticipated to be different from
those of the proposed center. Additionally, special land use restrictions have
been applied to prohibit auto parts, convenience and other "peak hour" traffic
generating uses. Conditions have been applied to reduce potential traffic hazards,
these conditions include:
The project has been designed to provide on-site parking to accommodate all parking
demand in conformance with the Tustin Zoning Code requirements. The project
includes parking on-site spaces at a ratio of 200 square feet for every one parking
space.
Initial Study DR ,~9-27
Exhibit A
Page seven
Sources: - Tustin Parking Requirements - Site Plan
- Conditions of Approval
- Traffic Engineer's Report
.~lonitorin~ Required: As conditions of approval, the Traffic Engineer has suggested
that the ~,lain Street pavement markers be revised to prohibit left t~lrn movements,
from and into the Main Street access drive. Additionally, conditions of aproval
nave been applied to the project to address visibility, accessahility and turn
movements related to the project as follows:
1. The northerly access drive shall he realigned to a 90° angle access.
.
Installation of "LlO NOT F~LOCK INTERSECTION" signs at the Newport
Avenue and Andrews Street intersection are required. A minimum of two
"NOT A THROUGH STREET" signs shall be posted on Andrews Street. The
actual number and locations of these signs shall he determined ~y the
traffic engineer. All signs shall he' posted prior to building permit
issuance and the cost for these signs shall be paid for by the developer
by filing a cash deposit in the appropriate amount for such improvements
with the City Public 'Jorks Department.
.
Red curbs shall be installe~t along newport Avenue from the second
driveway south of Andrews Street (professional offi ce hui ldi ng
entry) up to the northerly access drive on I4ain Street (project entry
on Main). Additionally, red curbing along the north side of Andrews
Street between the easterly project property line to ~.4ewpor. t Avenue
shall be installed. The traffic en.qineer shall determine whether or
not some limited parking will be provided on the north side of Andrews
Street either for vehi cl e 1 oadi ng purposes (maximum 2~) mi nut,
parking) or unlimited parking. All red curbing shall be installed
prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy and all costs for the
work shall be paid for by the developer by filing a cash deposit in
the appropriate amount for such improvements with the City Public
~lorks Department.
.
"KEEP CLEAR" markings and 12 inch wide boundary bars shall he placed
on the north and south bound lanes on Newport Avenue prior to building
permit issuance and the cost for such shall he the responsibility of the
developer by filing a cash deposit in the appropriate amount for such
improvements with the City Public Works Department.
Be
The applicant shall provide a construction traffic routing plan to the
City Public Works Director for review and approval prior to issuance
of building permit.
Initial Study DR 89-27
Exhi bi t A
Page eight
0
To ensure that the proposed traffic enhancements are effective, the
Public Works Department shall review the traffic patterns periodically to
determine whether or not illuminated caution lights or signs are needed
to protect the left turn movements at Andrews Street. Periodic police
enforcement of the "Keep Clear" signs may also be required if determined
to be necessary by the Traffic Engineer. Any required improvement costs
shall be the responsibility of the developer and deposited in the
appropriate amount for such improvements with the City Public Works
Department.
Items 0 th, lrOiUg~l F - "No"' The project will nol~ require the re-routing of existing
surface, water, rail or airborn transportation systems since no changes are
required to facilitate the proposed use.
Sources' - Site Plan - Tustin Zoning Map
- Tustin Master Plan of Arterial Highways
Moni,torinO ii,Re(tulir,e, dl: None requi red.
14 and 16. Public Services and Utilities
Items A thro, u~h E - "No,"- The prdpo~ed use does not require substantial
conc'entration of or increase in the provision of Public Services. This is due to
the size, type, location and condition of the property. Many utili-ties such as
water, drainage and other services are already provided to the premises.
Sources' - Code Enforcement Records - Site/Elevation Plans
- Design Review Committee Con~nents
Mon, it,orin~ Required' None
Item F - "Maybe",,,,: While it is apparent that an existing visibility and access
hazard exists at Andrews Street and since numerous driveways enter the site, the
proposed project will by mitigation as in item 13 above or by design (reducing the
number of driveways) reduce or eliminate potential traffic hazards.
Source-
- Traffic Engineer
- Site Plan
Moni,torilng Required- See Items A and B above.
15. Energy
Items A and B - "No"' The project includes retail commercial use which, by nature,
does 6o"present a l~hreat 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.
Initial Study DR 89-27
Exhibit A
Pa ge ni ne
Sources' - Use Permit Application
- Site/Floor Plans
Mitigation and ~lonitorin~) Rec[uilred' None
17. Human Health
Items A and B - "No"' As noted previously, the proposed land use does not involve
use of any know'n 'hazardous materials or explosives. The project design proposes
convential construction of a retail center which should not expose people to any
health hazards. The structure will be reviewed for conformance with all applicable
Building Codes prior to construction. Since one of the existing properties on the
proposed site contain an abandoned gas station, the County Health Department will
require a clearanceof the soil conditions and clean up of any hazardous wastes and
contaminated soils on the site to meet State and Federal law.
Sources' - Site/Elevation Plan.
- Use Permit Application
Monitorin~ Required: As a condition of approval, the project will be plan checked
a6d approved ~y the Building Official prior to construction. All construction
activities on site will be regularly insp. ected by the City ~Suilding Inspector prior
to occupancy. Prior to releasing a grading permit, a soil report will be required
with clearance from the County Health Department that there are no hazardous wastes
or contaminated soils on the property.
18. Aesthetics
"No": The project is not located along a scenic corridor or within a special
desi§n 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 con, non to the
area.
Sources' - Site/Elevation Plans - South Central Redevelopment Plan
- General Plan (Scenic Highways Element}
Miti.~ation and MonitorinQ iRequi r.ed' None
19. Recreati on
"No"' The proposed project is not on or adjacent to any recreation facility. The
project will not include residential uses which could substantially increase or
impact recreational needs in the area.
Source-
- Use Permit Application
- City of Tustin General Plan Land Use Map
Initial Study DR 89-27
Exhibit A
Page ten
rqiti~ation and ,Monitolrin~ .Req.uirle. d..: None
20. Cultural Resources
Items A through D - "No"' The project site is not located in an area known as an
archeological resource. Existing land uses, as well as the project design would
preclude disturbance of any underground resources.
Sources: - Property Building Permit Fees - Temporary Use Permits
- Tustin Area Historic Resources Survey
- Field Site Inspection {June 9, 1989)
Monitorin!) Required' None
21. Mandatory Findings of Si gni ficance
Item A - "No": Based upon the responses to items 1-20 in this initial study, the
.review of City files, records and documents and the nature of proposed project, the
project is not anticipated to impact wildlife, fish, flora, fauna or cultural
(historic) resources.
Sources' - All sources listed in items 1-20 of this study
Mitigation and Monitoring Required: None
Item B - "No: The proposed project, due to its proposed size, location and la'nd
use, ils iQ confor,qance with all applicable City Codes, requirements and
regulations. The General Plan, South Central Redevelopment Plan and anticipated
development in the area support development of such a pro..iect, l~ith the proposed
design elements, the project will he compatible with its surroundings.
Sources- - Tustin Zoning Code and Development Requirements - Tustin General Plan
- South Central Redevelopment Plan
Mi,tigation and Mo,nitoring Required' None
Initial Study DR 89-27
Exhibit A
Pa ge eleven
Item C - "Maybe": In reference to the discussion in item 13 -
Tra'nsportation/circulation, the project will not significantly increase the demand
for transportation facilities in the area, based on the size and proposed use of
the project. However, certain existing traffic hazards will be corrected as much
as feasibly possible as noted in item 13.
Sources' - Design Review Committee Comments
i
- Use Permit Application
- Mitigation and Conditions Proposed
~onitorin9 Required' See item 13 - A through C
Items D - "No": As discussed in this initial study any possible impacts associated
with t'his '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
Moinitorin~l .R. equired' Refer to items 1-21
Section III'
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.
LCK'pef
Rpts/25
CITY OF TUSTIN
)mmunity Development Depar'
ENVIRONMENTAL INITIAL STUDY FORM
Name of Proponent Champion Development
Address and Phone Number of Proponent
100 Oceangate Blvd. Suite 600
e
Date of Checklist Submitted
Agency Requiring Checklist
Name of Proposal, if applicable
Lon~ Beachp California 90802
213-437-8046
July 7, 1989
City of Tustin
Retail Shopping Center
II. Envirannmntal Impcmts
(Explanations of all "yes" and "maybe" answers are required on attached sheets.)
Ecrth. Will the. proposal result im
No
a. Unstable earth conditions or in changes
in geologic substructures?
b. Disrt~tians, displacements, compaction.
or overcovering of the soil?
c. Ch(rM:je in topography or ground surface
relief fecrtums?
d. The destruction, covering or modification
of any unique geologic or physical features?
e. Any increase in wind or water erosion of
soils, either on or off the site?
fe
Changes in deposition or erosion of beach
sands, or changes in siltation, deposition or
erosion which may modify the channel of a
river or stream or the bed .of the ocean or
ony bay, inlet or lake?
g. Exposure of people or property to geolo.
gic hazards such as earthcluakes, landslides,
muclslides, ground failure, or similar hazards?
Air. Will the proposaJ result in;
a. Substantial air emissions or deterioration
of ambient air quality?
b. The creation of objectionable odors?
c. Alteration of air movement, moisture, or
temperature, or any change in climate,
either locally or regionally?
Will the proposal result in=
a. Cl~nges in currents, ar the course of di-
rection of water movements, in either
marine or fresh waters?
b. Chaxjes in absorption rates, drainage pot-
terns~ ar the rate and amount of surfc~e
runoff?
c. Alterations to the course or fl~w of flood
waters?
· d. Chcr~je in the amount of surface water in.
any water body?
e. Discharge inZo surface waters, or in my
alterationot',,surface water quality, in-
cluding 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 with-
drawals, or through interception of an
aquifer by cuts or excavations?
h. Substantial reduction in. the amount of
water otherwise available for public water
supplies?
i. Expasum of people or property to water re-
lated hazards such as flooding or tidal waves?
e
Se
Pictor Life. Will the proposal result in.'
a.. Change in the diversity of species, ar
number of my species 4~f plants (including
trees, shrubs, gross, 'crops, and aquatic
plants)?
b. Reduction of the numbers of any unique,
rare or endangered species of plants?
c. Introductian 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. Charx~ in the diversity of species, or
numbers of any species of animals (birds,
land animals including reptiles, fish and
shellfish, benthic organisms ar insects)?
b. Reduction of the numbers of any unique,
rare or enclar~ered specie~ of mimals?
Ce
Introduction of new species of anirn~ls into
an .area, ar result in a beerier to the
migratian ar movement of m'imals?
cL. Deterioration to existing fish or wildlife
habitat? · ·
Noise. Will the proposal result in.-
a. Incr~ in existing noise levels?
b. Exposure of people to severn noise levels?
Light and Glare. Will the proposal produce
new light ar glare?
Land Use.- Will the proposal result in a sub-
stantial alteration of the prese:,t or planned
land use of an area?
Natural Resources. Will the proposal result in:
a. Increase in the rate of use of any natural
resources?
X
b. Substantial depletion of any nonrenewable
natural resource?
I0. Risk of ~.. 11till tl~ ~1 in~lv~
a. A risk of an explosian or the release
of hazardous substarx=es (including, but not
limited to, oil, pesticides, chemicals or
radlatian) in the event of an accident or
upset candltiam?
b. Possible interference with m emeegency
reqxx~ plan or an emergenay evacuation
plan?
II. Populatian. Will the proposal alter the location,
distribution, density, or growth rate of the
humon population of a~ area?
12. Housi~ Will the proposal affect existing hous-
ing, or create a demand for additional housing?
13. Trmsportafian/Circulatian. Will the proposal
result in;
a. Generation of substantial additional
vehicular, movement?.
b. Effects on existing parking facilities, or
demand for new parking?
j ~
c. Substantial impact upon existing transpor-
tation systems?
d. Alteratians to present patterns of circula-
tion or movement of people and/or goods?
e. Alterations to waterborne, rail or air
traffic?
f. Increase in traffic haza~ls to motor
vehicles, bicyclists or pedestrians?
14. Public Services. Will the proposal have an
effect upon, or result in a need for new or
altered governmental services in any of the
following areas:
a. Fire protection?
b. Police protection?
c. Schools?
Y~
·
d. Porks or other recreational facilities?
Ye~
'e. Maintenance of public facilities, including
roods?
f. Other governmental services?
15. -Energy. Will the proposal result in.-
a. Use of substantial amounts of fuel or energy?
b. Substantial increase in demand upon exist-
ing SOUrces of energy, or require the
development of new sources of energy?
Utilities. Will the proposal result in a need
for new systems, or substantial alterations to
the following utilities;
Power or natural gas?
b. Communications systems?
·
c. Water?
cl. Sewer or septic tanks? '
e. Storm water drainage?
f. Solid waste and disposal?
17. I-ksrmm Health. Will the proposal ~sult in-.
a. Creation of any health hazard or potential
health hazard (excluding mental health)?
b. Exposure of people to potential health
haz~ds?
X
X
18. 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?
19. Recreatian. Will the proposal result in an
impact upon the quality or quantity of existing
recreational opportunities?
20. Cultural Resources.
Will the proposal result in the aiteratian
of ar the destruction of a prehistoric or
historic archaeological site?
b. Will the praposal result in adverse physical
or aesthetic effects to a prehistoric ar
historic building, ~tructure, or object?
Does the proposal hmm the potential to
cause a phys~ ~ which wauld affect
unique etl~ cultural values?
d, ~'Jll the propaml restrict existing religtaus
ar sacred uses within the potential impact
area?
21. Mandator~ 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, ca~se c~ fish or wild-
life populatian to drop below self sus-
taining levels, threaten to eliminate a
plant or animal community, reduce the
number ar restrict the range of .a rare or
endangered plant or animal or eliminate
important examples of the major periods
of California history ar prehistory?
b. Does the pmjecf have the I~otential 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 lang-term impacts
will endure well into the future.)
c. Does the project have' impacts which are
individually limited, but cumulatively con-
siderable? (A project may impact on two
or more separate resources where the impact
on each resource is relatively small, but
where the effect of the total of those
impacts on the environment is significant.)
d. Does the project have environmental effects
which will cause substantial adverse effects
on hum~ beings, either directly or indirectly?
II!. Discussion of Enviranmentai Evaluation
Y~
x
IV. Determination
(To be completed by the Lead Agency)
On the basis of tv' initial evaluation:
! find that the proposed project COULD NOT have ~ ~ignificant effect
on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
I" [
i find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect
on the environment, them will not be a' significant effect in this case
because the mitigation measures described_on an attached.sheet have
been added to the project. A NECATIVE DECLARATION WILL BE PREPARED.
I find the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environ-
ment, mci an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.
iiiii I
July 7, 1989
Rte
$ignotum
Laura C. Kuhn
Seuio~ pi
?
lO
II
12
~3
14
l?
2O
21
23
RESOLUTION NO. RDA 89-17
A RESOLUTION OF THE COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF
THE CITY OF TUSTIN, CERTIFYING THE FINAL NEGATIVE
DECLARATION AS ADEQUATE FOR DESIGN REVIEW 89-27,
INCLUDING REQUIRED FINDINGS PURSUANT TO THE CALIFORNIA
ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT.
The Community Redevelopment Agency of the Ci'ty of Tustin resolves as
follows-
I. The Community Redevelopment Agency finds and determines as follows'
A. Design Review 89-27 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. 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
IG
17
18
19
21
22
:23
25
26
27
28
Resolution No. RDA 89-17
Page two
significant effects will occur, The mitigation measures are
identified in Exhibit A of City Council Resolution No. 89-101
incorporated herein by reference.
PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Con~nunity Redevelopment
Agency held on the day of , 1989.
i ii
U'pslul a "E. Kennedy"
Chairman
Mary E"." Wynn
Secretary
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. RDA 89-18
A RESOLUTION OF THE COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF
THE CITY OF TUSTIN, APPROVING DESIGN REVIEW 89-27,
AUTHORIZING CONSTRUCTION OF A 18,200 SQUARE FOOT
RETAIL SHOPPING CENTER AT 13662 NEWPORT AVENUE
The Community Redevelopment. Agency of the City of Tustin resolves as
follows:
I ·
The Community Redevelopment Agency finds and determines as follows.
A·
Bo
Pursuant to the adopted South Central Redevelopment Plan, the
Redevelopment Agency shall approve all site plans and
architectural designs of any project proposed within the South
Central Redevelopment Agency Project Area.
A proper application, (Design Review No. 89-27) has been filed
on behalf of Champion Development requesting authorization to
construct a 18,200 square foot retail shopping center at 13662
Newport Avenue.
Co
Do
E·
Fo
The Agency has reviewed the proposed project and determines that
the project will be compatible with the surrounding area.
A Negative Declaration has been applied for and has been
certified as complete for the project in conformance with the
California Environmental Quality Act.
Final development plans shall require approval of the Community
Development Department pior to issuance of Building Permits.
The project is in conformance with the Town Center Redevelopment
Plan.
II. The Community Redevelopment Agency of the City of Tustin, California,
hereby approves the site plan and elevations for a 18,200 square foot
retail shopping center to be located at 13662 Newport Avenue, subject
to the conditions contained in the Exhibit A of City Council
Resolution No. 89-102, attached thereto and incorporated herein by
reference.
PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Community Redevelopment
Agency held on the day of , 1989.
L)'rsula E. "KennedY '
Chairman
' ~ary' E. Wynn
Secretary