HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC RES 99-076 RESOLUTION NO. 99-76
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OE TUSTIN,
CALIFORNIA, DENYING THE APPEAL OF USE DETERMINATION 99-
002 AND DETERMINING THAT AGRICULTURAL USES ARE
· PROHIBITED WITHIN THE REGIONAL CENTER AND OFFICE
CENTER LAND USE DESIGNATIONS IN THE PACIFIC CENTER EAST
SPECIFIC PLAN.
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, Use Determination 99-002, was filed on June
15, 1999 by AAE Pacific Park Associates, LLC, requesting
authorization to establish agricultural operations on vacant properties
located to the northeast of the intersection of the SR-55 Freeway and
Valencia Avenue and more specifically identified as Assessor Parcel
Numbers 430-251-01, 02, and 03 and 430-251-06, 07, 08, 09, and 10.
B. That the subject properties are located within the "Regional Center"
and "Office Center" !and use planning areas of the Pacific Center East
Specific Plan.
C. That agricultural uses are not listed as permitted or conditionally
permitted uses in the "Regional Center" or "Office Center" land use
planning areas of the Pacific Center East Specific Plan (PCESP
Sections 4.3(E) and 4.4(E)).
D. That pursuant to Section 4.3(E) and 4.4(E) of the Pacific Center East
Specific Plan, the Director of Community Development is authorized to
determine whether unlisted uses are permitted, conditionally permitted,
or prohibited.
E. That pursuant to Section 4.3(E) and 4.4(E) of the Pacific Center East
Specific Plan, an application was filed for Use Determination 99-002 on
June 15, 1999. The Director of Community Development determined
on June 24, 1999, that agricultural uses were prohibited within the
Pacific Center East Specific Plan.
F. That pursuant to Section 4.3(E) and 4.4(E) of the Pacific Center East
Specific Plan, Orange County Produce filed an appeal of the Director's
decision on July 1, 1999. On August 9, 1999, the Planning
Commission upheld the Director's decision that agricultural uses were
prohibited within the Pacific Center East Specific Plan.
City Council Resolution No. 99-76
Appeal of UD 99-002
September 20, 1999
Page 2
G. That on August 16, 1999, Orange County Produce appealed the
Planning Commission's decision on Use Determination 99-002 and a
public hearing was duly called and noticed for September 20, 1999 with
the appellant's consent.
H. That a decision to deny the establishment of agricultural operations at
the subject site is supported by the following findings:
1) Establishment of agricultural operations is inconsistent with
General Plan Land Use Element Goals and Policies which state,
"The future image of the Pacific Center East area will consist of a
more intensive and integrated business park environment. The
area's distinct location adjacent to SR-55 creates a significant
opportunity to capitalize on its freeway orientation to achieve
regional recognition."
2) Establishment of agricultural operations is inconsistent with the
overall concept for the Pacific Center East Specific Plan is to
provide a planned community development which encourages a
.variety of office, commercial, regional and technology uses within
an integrated environment (PCESP Sections 3.1 and 3.2).
3) Establishment of agricultural operations is inconsistent with the
overall intent of the Pacific Center East-Specific Plan "Regional
Center" and "Office Center" land use designations which
encourage a variety of office and commercial uses (PCESP
Sections 4.3.A and 4.4.A).
4) Although the appellant indicated that operations could occur on a
four to six month cycle, on-going operations could act to preclude'
development. Further, a series of four to six month operational
cycles would become an establishment of a permanent use that is
inconsistent with the overall intent of the Pacific Center East
Specific Plan. Further, establishment of a permanent use would
be defined as a "project" under California Public Resources Code
Section 21065 and be subject to the development standards and
prerequisites contained within the Specific Plan.
5) The proposed use is not compatible with permitted office and
commercial uses. The presence of agricultural Operations in close
proximity to highly developed areas and major infrastructure (SR-
55 Freeway) would have a negative impact and could be
!
City Council Resolution No. 99-76
2 Appeal of UD 99-002
September 20, 1999
3 Page 3
4 disruptive in terms of dust and odors. Further, agricultural
operations could lead to the introduction of chemicals to the soil
5 which is difficult to monitor and mitigate and could require future
6 soil remediation procedures prior to future development occurring.
? 6) Denial of the Use Determination will not prevent the property
s owner from developing the site with any of the uses permitted by
the Specific Plan.
9
~0 7) The Use Determination process is intended to provide a
mechanism for permitting uses that are similar to permitted or
12 conditionally permitted uses in the Specific Plan. As noted above,
agricultural operations are not consistent with, and dissimilar to,
~2 the permitted office and commercial uses and are not appropriate
13 in the context of the Pacific Center East Specific Plan.
14- i. That projects that are denied are statutorily exempt from the
requirements of the California' Environmental Quality Act (CEQA),
is pursuant to Section 15270 of the State CEQA Guidelines.
16
I!. The City Council hereby denies the appeal of Use Determination 99-002 and
~7 determines that agricultural uses are prohibited uses in the "Regional Center"
1~ and "Office Center" land use planning areas of the Pacific Center East
Specific Plan.
PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Tustin City Council, held on the
20 20th day of September, 1999.
23 TRACY W~TLS WOREEY
MAYOR
:24 "~~ ~
25
PAMELA STOKER
26 CITY CLERK
27
28
29
RESOLUTION CERTIFICATION
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF ORANGE ) ss
CITY OF TUSTIN )
RESOLUTION NO. 99-76
Pamela Stoker, 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 is
five; that the above and foregoing resolution was passed and 'adopted at a regular meeting of
the City Council held on the 20th day of September, 1999, by the following vote:
COUNCILMEMBER AYES: Worley, Doyle, Saltarelli
COUNCILMEMBER NOES: None
COUNCILMEMBER ABSTAINED NOne
COUNCILMEMBER ABSENT: Thomas, Potts
Pamela Stoker, City Clerk