Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout10-25-99 PC PACKET AGENDA TUSTIN PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING OCTOBER 25, 1999 CALL TO ORDER: 7:00 p.m., City Council Chambers PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: Commissioner Pontious ROLL CALL: Chairperson Kozak, Bell, Davert, Kawashima and Pontious PUBLIC CONCERNS: (Limited to 3 minutes per person for items not on the agenda.) At this time members of the public may address the Commission regarding any items not on the agenda and within the subject matter jurisdiction of the Commission (NO action can be taken off-agenda items unless authorized by law). IF YOU WISH TO ADDRESS THE COMMISSION ON ANY MATTER, PLEASE FILL OUT ONE OF THE CARDS LOCATED ON THE SPEAKER'S TABLE SO THAT YOUR i REMARKS ON THE TAPE RECORDING OF THE MEETING CAN BE ATTRIBUTED TO YOU. WHEN YOU START TO ADDRESS THE COMMISSION, PLEASE STATE ' YOUR FULL NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD. ® IF YOU REQUIRE SPECIAL ACCOMMODATIONS, PLEASE CONTACT THE PLANNING COMMISSION SECRETARY AT (714) 573-3106. CONSENT CALENDAR: (ALL MATTERS LISTED UNDER CONSENT CALENDAR ARE CONSIDERED ROUTINE AND WILL BE ENACTED BY ONE MOTION. THERE WILL BE NO SEPARATE DISCUSSION OF THESE ITEMS PRIOR TO THE TIME OF THE VOTING ON THE MOTION UNLESS MEMBERS OF THE COMMISSION, STAFF OR PUBLIC REQUEST SPECIFIC ITEMS TO BE DISCUSSED AND/OR REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT CALENDAR FOR SEPARATE ACTION.) CONSENT CALENDAR: 1. Minutes of the October 11, 1999 Planning Commission Meeting. r Planning Commission Agenda October 25, 1999 Page 2 OL 2. General Plan Conformity Determination a request to determine that the location, purpose, and, extent of a proposed easement for Orange County Flood Control District (OCFCD) facility is in conformance with the Tustin General Plan. The project is located beneath Jamboree Road north of-Trevino Drive within an Unclassified zoning district. APPLICANT:. ORANGE COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT PROPERTY OWNERS: CITY OF TUSTIN Recommendation That the Planning Commission adopt Resolution No. 3700 determining that the location, purpose, and extent of a proposed easement for Orange County Flood Control District (OCFCD) facility is in conformance with the Tustin General Plan. PUBLIC HEARINGS: 3. Tentative Parcel Map 99-196 and Design Review 99-022 a request for authorization to subdivide a 5.02 acre lot into two numbered lots; and authorization to construct a 33,141 square foot office building. The project is located at 2761 Walnut Avenue within the Planned Community Industrial (PC-IND) zoning district. APPLICANT: WAYNE C. SIU ARCHITECTS PROPERTY OWNER: JERSEY BUSINESS CENTER ASSOCIATES, LTD. Recommendation 1. That the Planning Commission adopt Resolution No. 3697 recommending that the City Council adopt as adequate the Negative Declaration for Tentative Parcel Map 99-196 and Design Review 99-022; 2. That the Planning Commission adopt Resolution ' No. 3698 recommending that the City Council approve Tentative Parcel Map 99-196 to allow subdivision of a five (5) acre parcel to create two new parcels; and, 3. That the Planning Commission adopt Resolution No. 3699 recommending that the City Council approve Design Review 99-022 to allow construction of a 33,141 square foot office building thirty one (31) feet in height. Presentation:Minoo Ashabi, Assistant Planner Planning Commission Agenda October 25, 1999 Page 3 t� 4. Amendment To Conditional Use Permit No. 98-031 a request'for,authorization to sell beer and wine (ABC License Type "41")for on-site consumption and the use of shared parking in conjunction with the expansion of an existing restaurant. The project is located at 660 El Camino Real within the Central Commercial District, Parking Overlay District (C-2 P), Town Center Redevelopment Project Area. APPLICANT: AKIRA TAKASHIO HONDAYA CORPORATION PROPERTY OWNER: WILLIAM-ZAPPAS EI CAMINO PLAZA Recommendation That the Planning Commission adopt Resolution No. 3696 approving an amendment to Conditional Use Permit 98-031. Presentation: Justina Willkom, Associate Planner . REGULAR BUSINESS 5. Status Report Presentation: Karen Peterson, Senior Planner .STAFF CONCERNS: 6. Report on Actions taken at the October 18 1999 City Council Meetings Presentation: Elizabeth A. Binsack, Director of Community Development COMMISSION CONCERNS: ADJOURNMENT: A regular meeting of the Planning Commission will be held on November 8, 1999 beginning at 7:00 p.m., City Council Chambers, 300 Centennial Way, Tustin. ITEM #1 - � MINUTES TUSTIN PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING OCTOBER 11, 1999 CALL TO ORDER: 8:58 p.m., City Council Chambers PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: Chairperson Kozak ROLL CALL: Present: Chairperson Kozak Vice Chair Davert Bell Kawashima- Pontious Absent: None Staff: Elizabeth A. Binsack, Director of Community Development Lois Bobak, Deputy City Attorney Karen Peterson, Acting:Senior Planner Bradley Evanson, Assistant Planner Douglas Anderson, Senior Project Manager- Traffic Kathy Martin, Recording Secretary PUBLIC CONCERNS: No Public Concerns were expressed CONSENT CALENDAR: 1. Minutes of the September 27. 1999 Planning Commission Meeting. Commissioner Davert moved. Commissioner Pontious seconded to approve the minutes corrected as follows: Page 9, Chairperson Kozak's comments, "Jiffy !Lube" should be "Econo Lube N Tune". Motion carried 5-0. PUBLIC HEARINGS: • 2. Tentative Parcel Map 99-197 a request to combine two (2) parcels to allow for the construction of a 3,322 square foot restaurant with drive-thru service. The project is located at 13922 Red Hill Avenue within the Central Commercial (C4) zoning district. Planning Commission Minutes October 11, 1999 Page 2 OWNER: EDGAR PANKEY TRUST- APPLICANT: KENT J. BICKELL CONSOLIDATED RESTAURANTS OF CALIFORNIA Recommendation Adopt Resolution No. 3694 recommending that the City Council approve Tentative Parcel Map 99-197. The Public Hearing opened at 7:00 p.m. Bradley Evanson presented the subject report and noted changes made to the resolution. Chairperson Kozak inquired if the Commission should make the motion as amended. The Director responded affirmatively. Marshall Wilkinson, architect, stated that he and the property owner are in agreement with the conditions and they have appreciated staff s assistance. , The Public Hearing closed at 7:04 p.m. Commissioner Davert stated that he was pleased to see the lots being consolidated for a larger use. Commissioner Davert moved Commissioner Pontious seconded to adopt Resolution No. 3694 recommending that the City Council approve Tentative Parcel Map 99-197. Motion carried 5-0. , 3. Amendment to Conditional Use Permit 97-005 and Design Review 97-009 a request to amend Condition 1.3 of Planning Commission Resolution No. 3534 to extend the expiration of the approvals of Conditional Use Permit 97-005 and Design Review 97-009 by twenty-four (24) months to December 1, 2001. The project is located at 535 East Main Street within the C-2 P Central Commercial, Parking Overlay zoning district. APPLICANT: BENNETT ARCHITECTS GREG BENNETT PROPERTY OWNERS: HOWARD FERRAND, RAMESH BAJARIA, AND • REKHA BAJARIA Planning Commission Minutes October 11, 1999 Page 3 Recommendation That the Planning Commission adopt Resolution No. 3695 approving an amendment to Conditional Use Permit (CUP) 97-005 and Design Review (DR) 97-009 extending the expiration of the project approval by six (6) months to June 1, 2000. The Public Hearing opened at 7:05 p.m. Bradley Evanson presented the subject report. Chairperson Kozak identified changes made to the resolution prior to the meeting as follows: Condition 1.1 strike last sentence which reads "No further time extensions may be considered." Condition 1.3 add language as follows: "for a six (6) month extension" after Design Review 97-009. Greg Bennett, applicant, indicated his concerns about the. code enforcement action in Condition 1.3 and noted that he originally requested a 24 month extension. Chairperson Kozak asked staff to provide more detail on the code enforcement issues. The Director noted that there are non-permitted signs, peeling paint, potholes and loose gravel on the site and code enforcement staff is looking for the property owner to correct the violations. Chairperson Kozak asked if the potholes were related to the tank removal operation. The Director stated that the potholes are throughout the parking lot. Commissioner *Davert asked the applicant if they were asking that the code enforcement action not be tied into this approval. Greg Bennett, applicant, stated that if the property owner's toxic letter is accepted by the County then all the blacktop will be taken out. Commissioner Davert asked the applicant why a six (6) month extension is. being requested. Greg Bennett, applicant, stated that it is not necessary but he is concerned with technical problems arising. Commissioner Davert asked if the applicant's concern was with the timeline in the code enforcement letter. Planning Commission Minutes October 11, 1999. Page 4 Greg Bennett, applicant, answered affirmatively and noted that it was not logical for the property owner to invest in the parking lot. Commissioner Davert asked the applicant if it would be acceptable for the Commission to consider staff's recommendation to extend the deadline. Greg Bennett, applicant, stated that it would be acceptable as long as the date is extended to December 1' and noted his concern that staff cari revoke the conditional use permit if they are unsatisfied with the blacktop. Commissioner Davert noted that there are other areas that have not been patched that are also problematic. Greg Bennett, applicant, noted that he will be working with the property owner for the next six (6) months but the site will not look good for awhile. Chairperson Kozak noted that staff is looking for a compromise and remediation of the rough spots. Greg Bennett, applicant, stated that the lot will be temporarily restriped to move the public through the site. Commissioner Pontious stated that the condition states that if the property owner restripes the lot, it should be maintained. Greg Bennett, applicant, stated that the business owner wants to keep the business viable during the time of construction. Chairperson Kozak asked staff if they would be willing to modify the resolution if the applicant made some changes in the asphalt area to be used in the course of the construction project. The Director stated that staff would make those changes as long as the area to be used is maintained in a safe condition. She further noted that, if there is agreement, the Commission would not need to modify the resolution if staff meets with Mr. Bennett on- ` site and -he feels that staff is being arbitrary or capricious in its decision-making, then Mr. Bennett has the ability to appeal the decision within seven days of this action. Commissioner Davert summarized that the Commission could approve the resolution .with minor modifications which would give the applicant a six (6) month extension during which time there should be no problem getting permits and the code enforcement issues would be addressed. The Director stated that Mr. Bennett indicated the applicant was proposing to move forward within a month to request demolition permits. If demolition permits are requested, the life of the conditional use permit would be extended. She further noted Planning Commission Minutes October 11, 1999 Page 5 that the original resolution identified that substantial construction must be underway and staff considers the issuance of permits and actively pursuing the permits to be substantial construction. The Commission would not actually need to approve a six (6) month extension if the applicant. is proposing to pull those demolition permits. The tanks are a separate issue and unrelated to the discretionary action the Commission approved several months ago. Commissioner Davert asked how long the applicant has after pulling permits to do something. The Director responded that once permits are issued, they are good for six months and if an applicant shows a good faith effort, they can request another. six months. Once the second six (6) month period expires, the applicant must request a new permit. Commissioner Davert stated that the Commission could either approve a six (6) month extension tonight, or with the applicant's consent, 'continue the hearing to the last meeting in November and see if the permits are pulled by then. He asked the applicant if he had a preference. Greg Bennett, applicant, stated that he preferred the Commission make a decision this evening rather than continuing so that he would have the ability to appeal the decision prior to December 1 st. The Public Hearing closed at 7:31 p.m. Commissioner Davert stated that he has no objection to approving the six (6) month extension and understands that projects can be delayed but he wants to see the project go forward without any further delays. He further stated that the code violations can not be allowed to linger particularly since other property owners in. the city have been prosecuted. 'Commissioner Pontious stated her agreement with Commissioner Davert and noted that she wished to see the code'enforcement issues remain. Chair erson Kozak stated his agreement. Commissioner Kawashima stated his agreement and noted that the project is a pivotal gateway in the city. Commissioner Bell stated her agreement with the other Commissioners. Commissioner Davert asked staff if "exhibit" in D of the resolution is referencing the resolution. Bradley Evanson responded that exhibit refers to the exhibit of the resolution. Planning Commission Minutes October 11, 1999 Page 6 The 'Director indicated that the resolution could be modified to read "resolution" rather than."exhibit'. Commissioner ;Kawashima asked staff how the ' time extension would effect the environmental findings on the project. The Director stated that after five (5) years the environmental findings should be reconsidered. Commissioner Davert moved, Commissioner Kawashima seconded to adopt Resolution No. 3695 approving an amendment to Conditional Use Permit (CUP) 97-005 and Design Review (DR) 97-009 extending the expiration of the project approval by six (6) months to June 1, 2000 amended as follows: Condition 1.1 strike last sentence which reads "No further time extensions may be considered." Condition 1.3 add language as follows: "for a six (6) month extension" after- Design Review 97-009. Condition 1.4— insert the word "further" prior to the word occurrences. Item D in the body of the resolution — change the word "Exhibit" to "resolution" . Motion carried 5-0. REGULAR BUSINESS No.Regular Business STAFF CONCERNS: 4. Re ort on Actions taken at the October 4 1999 Cify Council Meetings Elizabeth A. Binsack, Director of Community Development reported on the subject agenda. COMMISSION CONCERNS: Commissioner Bell Thanked staff for their quick response to her concern about the rusting fire hydrants. Noted that the Planning Commissioner's forum she attended last.week was a great opportunity. Planning Commission Minutes October 11, 1999 Page 7 Commissioner Davert - Thanked and congratulated the Tiller Days committee for another outstanding event. - Noted that the City of Tustin received good press in the local section of The Register, Noted that he read an article in the Orange County Business Journal about cities developing a process by which developers and applicants could obtain permits through the internet and stated that he is a fan of making services user-friendly. The Director indicated that the City does have a basic web page and the goal in the future is to have services available to applicants on the internet. Chairperson Kozak - Stated that he attended Tustin Tiller days and thanked the committee and. the Parks and Recreation Department' for the best Tiller Days he has experienced. Noted that a traffic sign on Prospect Avenue before Santa Clara was covered with stickers and not visible. Doug Anderson stated that Public Works would take care of the sign. Commissioner Kawashima Thanked staff for the opportunity to attend the Planning Commissioner's forum which he found to be very informative. - Noted that the parole office was no. longer an issue for the City. ADJOURNMENT: Commissioner Davert moved Commissioner Pontious seconded, to adjourn the meeting at 7:51 p.m. Motion carried 5-0. A regular meeting of the Planning Commission will be held on October 25, 1999 beginning at 7:00 p.m., City Council Chambers, 300 Centennial Way, Tustin. s i ITEM #ZZ 1` Y O eport to the IanNng , Comm ission. DATE: OCTOBER 25, 1999 SUBJECT: GENERAL PLAN CONFORMITY DETERMINATION APPLICANT: ORANGE COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT ' PROPERTY OWNERS: CITY OF TUSTIN LOCATION: BENEATH JAMBOREE ROAD NORTH OF TREVINO DRIVE ZONING: UNCLASSIFIED ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: GENERAL PLAN CONFORMITY "DETERMINATIONS ARE NOT "PROJECTS" REQUIRING ENVIRONMENTAL ` REVIEW PURSUANT TO THE CAL_ IFORNIA 'ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT RECOMMENDATION That the Planning Commission adopt Resolution No. 3700 determining that the location, purpose, and extent of a proposed'easement for an Orange County Flood Control District (OCFCD)facility is in conformance with the Tustin General Plan. BACKGROUND Section 65402(b) of the California Government Code (Planning and Development Law). requires counties to inform and obtain general plan conformity determinations from local, planning agencies prior to acquisition or disposition of real property within the planning agencies'jurisdiction. The Orange County Flood Control District(OCFCD) is. proposing to obtain an underground storm drain easement for flood control purposes beneath Jamboree Road north of Trevino Drive (see Location Map). The Planning Commission is authorized to determine whether the location, purpose, and extent, of the proposed easement is consistent with the•General Plan. Goal 8 of the General Plan Land Use Element states, "Ensure that necessary public facilities and services are available to accommodate development proposed on the. Land Use Policy Map" and Goal Z of the Public Safety Element states, "Reduce the risk to the Planning Commission Report General Plan Conformity Determination October 25,,-1999 Page 2 - community's inhabitants from flood hazards." To accommodate development, the City of Tustin has an adopted Master Plan-of Drainage Facilities which provides for construction and maintenance of a storm drain system_ to serve the needs of the-'community. The location of the proposed easement is part of the existing Peters Canyon Channel identified as "F0G" which was developed by and is, currently owned by The Irvine Company (see Exhibit of'Resolltion No. 3700). This facility is identified on the Master Plan of Drainage Facilities and serves portions of Tustin Ranch. The proposed easement would pertain to the'existing box culvert channel beneath Jamboree Road. The location, purpose, and extent of the proposed easement is in conformance with the General Plan. Minoo Ashabi - Karen Peterson Assistant Planner , Senior Planner Attachments: A. Location Map B' Resolution No. 3700 ma:pereport\GPC-peters canyon. s Ot„ �sF'A �O• '� n MrDOUGALL Al rOVYnrS�NEAER LN. �o OQ s-6 -1, �S�\N c^° a�• DAY G �sD� °`�� � n °� S^� MOR ROo W F \� fz �L "o s�' �n SSPE a m o o GV ,p COFFMAN t p DR. PFVERO ��,\�• � T �' sgNTq crpRFsS c,Q Q'DRi y9L pr Vk. •9CE. Fiy 1. S.LACOSTE DR. 2. N.LACOSTE DR. C' 3. W.SNEAD PL. Ch 5 C X5-71 ., SNEPL. 9M !i qC 0� 5. GASPERR PL. P�Ory �-�, O,p F �O . S.LOPEZ PL. 7FT S. ZIMMERMAN PL. rri ? •�'�, 4T /\ 9. W.BRADLEY PL. .10.E.BRADLEY PL. Q f 11. HOGAN PL. 12.S.DAVIES PL. 13.N.DAVIES PL. TJ, o 14.RYDER PL. 20, 21, 22. 6 Rei 6 o`�y .k. 15.RUNYAN PL. ql T, 16.BOROS PL. 17.JACKLIN PL LN.E 18.CAPONI PL. DP � a Gcti y Qom' 79.TURNER PL. 20.WHITWORTH PL.21.SEASTIAN PL. 22.STE PHE SON PL. G a i PVT, �5� �Z �o -PROJECT Role, LOCATION q P ysON lFsa Qom. 'EPS° �y4}t 40G'� • o� <Z�fy�� ��• pR GO•`' y�i G �� Boa cyF Q� �( ORANGE COUNTY -PUBLIC FACILITY AND RESOURCES DEPT. LOCATION MAP RIGHT - OF - WAY PROCESSING PROJECT F06-804 - PETERS CYN.-CHANNEL SCALE : 1" = 600' 1D # 99 - 053 1. RESOLUTION NO. 3700 2 A RESOLUTION OF THE H PLANN[NG COMMISSION - OF THE 3 CITY . OF . TUSTIN DETERMINING THAT THE . LOCATION, PURPOSE, AND EXTENT OF THE PROPOSED UNDERGROUND 4 STORM DRAIN EASEMENT-FOR FLOOD CONTROL PURPOSES 5 BENEATH JAMBOREE ROAD NORTH OF TREVINO DRIVE BY THE ORANGE COUNTY FLOOD DISTRICT CONFORMS WITH 6 THE TUSTIN GENERAL PLAN. 7 s The Planning Commission does hereby resolve as follows:. 9 10 I. The Planning Commission finds and determines as follows: 11 A. That the Orange County Flood Control District (OCFCD) proposes to obtain a storm drain easement for the existing box culvert drainage channel 12 -beneath Jamboree Road north of Trevino Drive. The existing box culvert is 13 part of the Peters Canyon Channel identified as 706" and is identified on the City's Master Plan of.Dra[nage Facilities. 14 15 B. That California Government Code Section 65402 (b) provides that a county shall not acquire or dispose of real property until the location, purpose, and • 16 extent of the project has been reported upon by the local planning agency as to the conformity with the applicable, adopted general plan. 17 18 C. That the provision and maintenance of storm*drain facilities for flood control purposes are goals of the Land Use and Public Safety Elements of the 19 Tustin General Plan. 20 D. That general plan conformity determinations required by Govemment Code 21 Section 65402(b) are not "projects" requiring environmental review pursuant zz to the California Environmental Quality Act. 23 II. The Planning Commission hereby determines that the location, purpose, and extent of the proposed underground storm drain easement identified on Exhibit A, 24 attached hereto, for flood control purposes beneath Jamboree Road north of 25 Trevino Drive by the Orange County Flood Control District conforms with the Tustin General Plan. 26 27 28" Exhibit A Resolution 3700 October 25, 1999' ' Page 2 3 PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Planning Commission of the City of Tustin at a regular 4 meeting held on the 25h day of October, 1999. 6 7 STEPHEN V. KOZAK s Chairperson 9 ELIZABETH A. BINSACK 10 Planning Commis`si'on Secretary 11 _ STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) 12 COUNTY OF ORANGE ) .13 CITY OF TUSTIN ) 14. 1, ELIZABETH A.° BINSACK, the undersigned, hereby certify that 'I am the Planning 15 Commission Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of-Tustin, Califomia;.that Resolution No. 3700 was duly passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the Tustin 16. Planning Commission, held on the 25th day of October, 1999. 17 18 19 ELIZABETH A. BINSACK 20 Planning Commission Secretary 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 4 el 53 r' = {o. tip �3 1 ,111b / `'�o• ,aVCN TO 1MMaAn ,f acAt MCR PWN FOR SHEET 1 OF 1 SHEET Rabart 8efn,TYWlm= F4,aat rl.:aeista� UNDERGRC VAD 5TOR,4! DRAIN FASEMEN7 FOR FLOOD CONTROL REiSED APRR z�lss ,��.�• , PURPOSES BENEATH JAYBOREF' RAD - a ori 1.1 ,.., MARDI 2A W-9` dN. fa-aim" - Ih.��FS�POATA�.iI&�1�OiiG 6��YapI,D EXHIBIT A OF RESOLUTION NO.3700 jeeport to the PIanning. Commission DATE: OCTOBER 25, 1999 SUBJECT: PUBLIC HEARING FOR TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 99-196 AND DESIGN REVIEW 99-022 APPLICANT: WAYNE C. SIU ARCHITECTS ' PROPERTY OWNER: JERSEY BUSINESS CENTER ASSOCIATES, LTD. 1791 WESTCLIFF DRIVE NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 LOCATION: 2761'WA LN U T,AVE N U E ZONING: PLANNED COMMUNITY INDUSTRIAL(PC-IND) ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: A NEGATIVE DECLARATION. HAS BEEN PREPARED IN CONFORMANCE WITH THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA). REQUEST: 1. - AUTHORIZATION _TO SUBDIVIDE A 5.02 ACRE: LOT INTO TWO NUMBERED LOTS; 5 .2. AUTHORIZATION TO CONSTRUCT A 33,141 SQUARE FOOT OFFICE BUILDING. RECOMMENDATION 1. That the Planning Commission adopt Resolution No. 3697 recommending that the City Council adopt as adequate the Negative Declaration for Tentative Parcel Map 99-1,96 and Design Review 99-022; 2. That the Planning Commission adopt Resolution No. 3698 recommending that the City Council approve Tentative Parcel Map 99-196 to allow subdivision of a five (5) acre parcel to.create two new parcels; and, 3.- That the Planhirig,Commission adopt Resolution No. 3699 recommending that the City Council approve Design Review 99-022 to allow construction of a 33,141 square foot office building thirty one (31)feet in height., ' 7 Planning Commission.Report TPM 99-196, DR 99-022 October 25, 1999 Page 2 of 5 BACKGROUND The applicant is proposing to subdivide five (5.02) acres of land into two parcels and construct a 33,141 square foot office building thirty,one (31) feet in height. The site is developed with an existing twenty-eight (28) foot tall concrete tpgoffice/warehouse building which is 50,130 square feet in area. The front of thebuilding fa alnut Avenue is a single story.office building. The site is located in the Irvine Industrial Complex Planned Community south of Interstate 5 (see Attachment A - Location Map) and is surrounded by industrial development. Buildings in the Irvine Industrial Complex Planned Community may not exceed twenty-five (25) feet in height unless they are reviewed and approved by the Planning Commission. Since the Irvine Industrial Complex is within the flight pattern of John Wayne Airport, new development also needs to comply with the applicable criteria of the' Federal Aviation Agency as contained within the Airport Environ Land Use Plan (AELUP) and adopted by the Airport Land Use Commission. Development which exceeds 100 feet at the project site (i.e, penetrates the "imaginary surface of air traffic)would need to be submitted to the Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC) for review. lin to the proposed building is thirty- one (31) feet in height, this matter has not been referred DISCUSSION Tentative Parcel Map The proposed subdivision would create two parcels from an existing 5.02 acre site; a 3.12 acre parcel (identified as Parcel 2 on Tentative Parcel Map 99-196 - Attachment B) would contain the existing office/warehouse building with the parking and access and a 1.89 acre parcel (Parcel 1) would contain the.proposed 33,141 square foot two-story office building. Both parcels would have independent access and parking. The development standards in the Irvine Industrial Complex Planned Community Regulations require the following: Minimum Site Size 30,000 Square feet (0.68 acre) Maximum Lot Coverage 50%30 feet • Minimum Front Setback 10 feet • Minimum Side Yard Setback 0 feet Minimum Rear Yard Setback 25 feet* Maximum Building Height 'Buildings over twenty five feet are subject to Planning Commission approval The proposed parcels and existing improvements meet the required development standards for subdivision of land. The proposed property line dividing the two parcels would be a jogged line placed ten feet from the western side of the existing warehouse/office building. There would be no modifications to the existing front, rear and side (eastern)setback for the existing building as a result of the subdivision: Planning Commission Report TPM 99-196, DR 99-022 October 25, 1999 Page 3 of 5 Design Review Site Plan The proposed building would be located at a minimum distance of thirty-one,(31) feet and six.(6) inches from the front property line and twenty (20) feet from the side (western) property line, consistent with the minimum required setbacks (see Attachment C - Site Plan). Within the side (western) setback area, there is a twenty (20) foot railroad easement and a fifteen (15) foot storm drain easement extending along the western property line. The building footprint would cover approximately thirty (30) percent of the lot which is less than the maximum lot coverage allowed. A trash enclosure is proposed at the rear portion of the parking lot with direct access from the main driveway. Condition 2.10 of Resolution No. 3699 (Attachment D) requires that the enclosure be consistent with the size and aesthetic requirements. Parking, Access, and Circulation There is an existing driveway access at the southeast comer of Parcel 2. No modification • to the existing building and parking area is proposed. The applicant is proposing a new twenty-eight (28) foot wide driveway access from Walnut Avenue for Parcel 1 approximately one hundred feet from the southwest comer of Parcel 1. Consistent with the requirements of the Irvine Industrial Complex Planned Community Regulations, each of the parcels would contain the required number of on-site parking spaces. Based on the following criteria,the number of parking spaces are distributed as shown in the table: Use Required Parkin Office Use 1 parking space per 250 square feet of gross floor area Manufacturing 2 parking space per 1.,000 square feet of gross floor area Warehouse 1 parking space per 1,000 square feet of gross floor area for the first 20,000 square feet, 1 per 2,000 for the second 20,000 square feet of floor area. Office Warehouse Total Parking Parking Use Use Building Area Required Provided Parcel 1 Building 1 9,980 40,150 150,130 70 84 Parcel 2 I Building 2 33,141 0 1 33.141 1132.56 133 The existing office/warehouse site has eighty-four (84) parking spaces that accommodate the office and warehouse use. With the above ratio, fourteen (14) excess parking spaces would be available. Condition 3.6 of Resolution 3699 ensures sufficient parking for future proposals for expansion of the office use within the existing building. ,Office expansion would be limited to the number of excess parking spaces. Planning Commission Report TPM 99-196, DR 99-022 October 25, 1999 Page 4 of 5 The proposed 33,141 square foot office building would generate approximately 609 additional vehicle trips. Walnut Avenue is designated as an augmented primary roadway that will experience localized improvements to increase capacity,in the future between Tustin Ranch Road and Myford Road. The proposed subdivision and the new office building .have been reviewed by the City's Traffic Engineer for potential traffic impacts. No significant impacts to the circulation pattern or level of service on Walnut Avenue or adjacent arterial roads are anticipated. Architecture The proposed two-story office building is designed as a two-story shell structure with a main lobby and public restrooms. The second floor includes an open space to the main lobby and can be accessed by a stairway and an elevator from the main lobby. There is a covered patio and deck above the covered entry at the main entrance. There are two additional stairways at the opposite ends of the building (see Attachment C - Floor Plans). The tilt-up structure is designed to complement the architecture, size, and mass of the surrounding buildings. There are repetitive stacked windows along the four elevations. To enhance the exterior elevations, the applicant is proposing half inch horizontal and vertical reveal lines that would accent the window and door openings (see.Elevations-Attachment C). An extended portico with a second floor balcony Would be located at the main entrance on the west elevation. The south facing elevation has a two (2) foot off set at the stairway and includes a blank-fagade area proposed for future sign. Condition 3.4 of Resolution 3699 requires the applicant to submit a revised south elevation with proposed sign or symmetrical window arrangement to ensure aesthetic balance of the south elevation.A black anodized finish is proposed for the storefront with bronze glazing. The proposed height of the building is thirty-one feet to screen all roof-mounted equipment. As noted previously, the proposed height of thirty one (31) feet would not penetrate the "imaginary surface" .which is 100 feet in height at the project location as defined in the Federal Aviation Regulation Part 77 and adopted by the Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC). Condition 3.2 of Resolution 3699 is included to ensure that roof mounted equipment would be placed six inches below top of the parapet. Landscaping New landscaping is proposed in conjunction with development of the new building (see Attachment C - Conceptual Landscape Plan). No modifications to the landscaping of the existing offrcelwarehouse building are proposed. The new office building site would contain fifty-seven (57) trees of various species through out the site (mostly Brisbane Box and Bradford Pear trees). Two California fan palms are proposed at the entrance to the . building. Six (6) vine columns would enhance the driveway entrance from Walnut Avenue. Condition 4.1(1) requiresspecification for-the proposed columns to ensure motorist visibility from the site into Walnut Avenue. Planning Commission Report TPM 99-196, DR 99-022 October 25, 1999 Page 5 of 5 A lunch area including three pre-cast concrete picnic tables is proposed facing Walnut Avenue that would be screened by five large trees. The proposed location encroaches into the required thirty foot landscape buffer along Walnut Avenue. Condition 4.1(K) requires that the lunch area be redesigned to meet the minimum front setback requirement of thirty (30) feet. A landscape buffer with a row of over forty Carolina Laurel Cherry trees is proposed along the western property that would screen the abandoned railroad from the office building. Lighting The site would be illuminated by ten (10) light poles ten feet in height that would provide lighting within the parking area. For pedestrian lighting at the entrance to the building,. Conditions 3.3 and 3.4 of Resolution 3699 require that a minimum one (1) foot candle lighting be provided for the parking area and ground mounted lighting be installed for illumination of walkways at the main entrance. ENVIRONMENTAL draft Initial Study/Negative Declaration has been prepared in accordance with the A fol= the proposed provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) P P development(see Attachment D - Exhibit A of Resolution No. 3697). The Initial Study/Draft Negative Declaration discusses potential impact categories and includes mitigation measures which have been included as Conditions of Approval in Resolution No. 3698. Minoo Ashabi Karen Peterson Assistant Planner Senior Planner m .TPM 93196.DR 99.022-P0e;*n-d= Attachments: A- Location Map B - Tentative Parcel Map 99-196 C - Submitted Plans D - 'Resolution Nos. 3697, 3698, 3699 ATTACHMENT A Location Map L -s LOCATION MAPI-, �1•' /j m J - i i J ! ,•6 ! s ��� ice;. ,' '•h' �\ NO SCALE ATTACHMENT-E Tentative Parcel Map 99-196 s BASIS OF BEARINGS LEGENDLEGAL DESCRIPTION EC, M- -- BENCH MARK No.36-95B5 Yduw - ----------- ---------------------------- GENERAL NOTES ---------- ............... ........... LS0119 PARCEL 1 N 14 MII U; PARCEL 2 OWNERANO DEVELOPER :zu, EXISTING BUILDING -it 7 15 PROJECT SITE ADDRESS "'S'. oil. 31 F a —-- ------------------ -------- a J %Ozz-o EXISUNGSUILDING CL Qllt ------------- r. INDER ENGINEERING.INC. ... ....... vc --- ---- ------- -------------------- - -- -- - - r -- ------ -------- ek; ----------------------------------------- --------------- TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 99-196 A'T'TACHMENT C Submitted Plans i . (DOM i 40 t IT — g ' I I ir,i � ! ffV r =a• • —� •le f 111I I I I I Io 1 0 i 411 1.1 1 1 11 : I I I I I�L 1 1 f wx .r If e � a"l7CrSlf 41fC1 -j IE i el ■� a. 111 �• - p r p• frJ rr15! I a• O } E Q, s — S1i 3 �?St `' ! iii � t �ifii : l7f�"= ' i1f ! Irl? If1 Ilfl1 � 1 ' -'v ° RqC MA i t wand fL 1 t r r a CJCI1ce: r WAYNE C.SIU.ARCHITEMS } [ I ` Yr01 WUJ r.raL •w•1.•�jw••�.iI 1n•1 7. CA11.1 o34ED i I I r. LET O O 8 O • \ � n n n q IO r o000 E I tl li !� I ' I 1Q I' II i . C Ll UBern Fk�W W WAYNE G SMARCHITECTS y ' } ReAeed CC&C Bn fi3�er C:orrnhx ..., w.-S w..,.. .. a•I..••„� r 1n.lrr.r.:r. J 1� CA f13EB0 s , f all � 1 �r XL rl II O p O p - m - Wahl oft c ••�i � wAYHE G sTu.ARCHITE lyn CTS .� 1 w...�•.u,� I �.:...•,.r s.w•v-.r mn er•ue: 1 riaaco 1 • -----• COW'S J �1111.N0 f111)�1 rvl[11 r^.+1 a�l•l �'�IFIL_ _ At slmwe111u �•+.w.a•ui•-.:I� � ��.�.yr.rpw�r.iv�Z 3 s Inul•1 IryvAt ni's r Ct latsx�xv'n�s a aN tv,n ;=. ry1O Yy-IpM Ll • 1 1 --- -- - --- --------- -------- El -------- --------E I I I I ('I U71 i "1 • 4 L- Llj J 9 ----------------- I os s I I I ' I LJ cl- Q,ti -El LLI 10,ED FTI:_ Wet E!5v&b-n cl AL Ill wWl—lTl—flt- II IITit,7-m-=I--. Nccth Sevatkn u Etava ❑ -Q-q Q-' ka CcW d MO." ....... —4A R k2l IiL- ExlerkT 5-valkAis Pac Bd Btarapa Bldtrr,� • I ' — /� R i 5 Ql �• —` �� � a��,rte_.__ i EA-ft DIdrq N. Cmcete }' PfcpGmd.Iµ_ of _ uL*l BWd I I Of(C _ I I uoy.4yPIYtiWIW•a[I •`Bj �`� — =�• —W .�� L I LUNCH AREA —ENLARGED PLAN 13:1 a o J f = , v _ — I Walnut Avenue I J ...... WEIR P Alj Yr NORTH V-aa' n,........... 01 U WALNUT OFFICE BUILDING COMPLEX LANDSCAPE MASTER PLAN i i ................................................X yti+M: 2761 WALNUT AVE..-TU5TIN,CALIFORNIA • NIAa , ATTACHMENT D ' Resolution Dios•3697, 3698 and 3699 I RESOLUTION NO. 3697 2 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF • 3 THE CITY OF TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPT THE NEGATIVE 4 DECLARATION AS ADEQUATE FOR TENTATIVE PARCEL 5 MAP 99496 AND DESIGN REVIEW 99-022 AS REQUIRED BY THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT. 6 7 The Planning Commission of the City of Tustin does hereby resolve as S follows: 9 1. The Planning Commission finds and determines as follows: 10 A. That Tentative Parcel Map 99-196 and Design Review 99-022 11 are considered- "projects" pursuant ' to the terms of the California Environmental Quality Act; and 12 13 B. A Draft Negative Declaration has been prepared for this project and has been distributed for public review. 14 1� C. Whereby, the Planning Commission of the City of Tustin has considered evidence presented by the Community • 16 Development Director and - other interested- parties with respect to the subject Negative Declaration: Public comments 17 received after adoption of this resolution would be addressed 18 by the City Council prior to approval'of the project. 19 D. The Planning Commission has evaluated the proposed Draft 20 Negative Declaration and determined that with incorporation ' of the mitigation measures, the project would not have a 21 significant effect on the environment. 22 11. A Negative Declaration, attached hereto as Exhibit A, has been 23 completed in compliance with CEQA and state guidelines. The Planning Commission has.received and considered the information 24 contained in the Draft Negative Declaration prior to recommending 25 approval of the proposed project, and found that it adequately discusses the environmental effects of the proposed project. Public 26 comments received after adoption of this resolution would be addressed by the City Council prior to approval of the project. On 27 the basis of the initial study and comments received during the public 29 hearing process, the Planning Commission has found that although the proposed project could have impacts, there will not be a • 29 significant effect because mitigation measures. and a mitigation monitoring program identified in the Negative Declaration have been iI Resolution No. 3697 z Page 2 3 incorporated into the project which mitigate any potential significant effects to a point where clearly no significant effect would occur. The 4 mitigation measures are identified in Attachment A of the Negative 5 Declaration and Initial Study and are adopted as findings and conditions of Resolution Nos. 3698 and 3699. 6 In addition, the Planning Commission has found that the project T involves no potential-for any adverse- effect, either individually or S cumulatively, on wildlife resources and recommends that the City Council make a De Minimis Impact Finding related to AB 3158, 9 Chapter 1706, Statutes of 1990. 10 11 PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Tustin Planning 12 Commission, held on the 25th day of October 1999. 13 14 STEPHEN V. KOZAK 15 Chairperson 16 ELIZABETH A. BINSACK 17 .Planning Commission Secretary !6 19 STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) 20 COUNTY OF ORANGE ) CITY OF TUSTIN ) 21 22 1, ELIZABETH A.,BINSACK, the undersigned, hereby certify that I am the 73 Planning Commission Secretary of the City of Tustin, California; that Resolution No. 3697 was duly passed and adopted at a regular meeting of 24 the Tustin Planning Commission, held on the 25th day of October 25, 1999. �5 26 27 28 ELIZABETH A. BINSACK 9 Planning Commission Secretary EXHIBIT A Of Resolution 3697 t� DIF' FT COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTME 300 Centennial Way, Tustin, CA 927 (714) 573-3100 INITIAL STUDY A. BACKGROUND Project Title: Tentative Parcel Map 99-196, Design Review 99-022 Lead Agency: City of Tustin 300 Centennial Way Tustin, California 92780 Lead Agency Contact Person: Minoo Ashabi Phone: 714/573-3126 Project Location: 2761 Walnut Avenue Project Sponsor's Name and Address: Wayne Siu Architects General Plan Designation: Planned Community Commercial/Business i Zoning Designation: Planned Community Industrial Project Description: Subdivision of a five(5) acre parcel into two parcels of 1.89 and 3.12 acres. The larger parcel is developed with an existing office/warehouse building over 50,000 square feet in area. The smaller parcel.is proposed to be developed with a new 33,141 square feet two story office building. Surrounding Uses: North: Industrial East: Industrial South: Industrial West: Industrial Other public agencies whose approval is required: ❑ Orange County Fire Authority ❑ City of Imine 0 Orange County Health Care Agency ❑ City of Santa Ana South Coast Air Quality Management ❑ Orange County EMA District ❑ Other 40 B. ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a"Potentially Significant Impact" as indicated by the checklist in Section D below. ❑Land Use and PIanning ❑Hazards ❑Population and Housing ❑Noise ❑Geological Problems ❑Public Services ❑Water ❑Utilities and Service Systems ❑Aar Quality ❑Aesthetics ❑Transportation & Circulation ❑Cultural Resources ❑Biological Resources ❑Recreation ❑Energy and Mineral Resources ❑Mandatory Findings of Significance C. DETERMINATI0N: On the basis of this initial evaluation: ❑ I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. ® I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described on an attached sheet have been added to the project. A NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. ❑ I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect(s) on the environment, but at least one effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets, if the effect is a "Potentially Significant Impact" or"Potentially Significant Unless Mitigated." An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. ❑ 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 all potentially significant effects l) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR pursuant to applicable standards, and 2) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the .proposed project. ❑ 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 all potentially significant effects 1) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and?) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project. p iSigna ture�� Date Print Name ✓I /7 — N .-I Title - -,V- i j✓ /0/iA;l EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS Less Than Significant Potentially With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant I. AESTHETICS—Would the project: Impact Incorporation Impact No Im a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? ❑ ❑ _ ❑ b) Substantially damage scenic resources,including,but not limited to,trees,rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? ❑ ❑ ❑ c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings? ❑ ® ❑ ❑ d) Create a new source of substantial Iight or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? ❑ ® ❑ ❑ II. AGRICULTURE RESOURCES: In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects,lead agencies may refer to the Califomia Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model(1997)prepared by the California Dept. of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. Would the project: a) Convert Prime Farmland,Unique Farmland,or Farmland of Statewide Importance(Farmland),as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non- agricultural use? ❑ ❑ ❑ ®• b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use,or a Williamson Act contract? ❑ ❑ ❑ c) Involvd other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature,could result in conversion of Farmland,to non-agricultural use? ❑ ❑ ❑ III. ATR QUALITY: Where available,the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations. Would the project: a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? ❑ ® ❑ ❑ b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation? ❑ ❑ ❑ c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase.of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non- attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard(including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? ❑ ❑ ❑ d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? ❑ ❑ ❑ Zle e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people? ❑ ❑ ❑ Less Than Significant Potentially With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant . BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES: -Would the project: Impact Incorporation Impact No Impact a) Have a substantial adverse effect,either directly or through habitat modifications,on any species identified as.a candidate,sensitive,or special status species in Iocal or regional plans,policies,or regulations,or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S.Fish and Wildlife Service? ❑ ❑ ❑ b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans,policies,regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S.Fish and Wildlife Service? ❑ ❑ ❑ c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including,but not limited to,marsh,vernal pool,coastal,etc.) through direct removal,filling,hydrological interruption,or other means? ❑ ❑ ❑ ®" d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native, resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors,or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? ❑ ❑ ❑ 10Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting 0logical resources,such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? El El f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan,Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved Iocal,regional, or state habitat conservation plan? ❑ ❑ ❑ V. CLTLTURAL RESOURCES:-Would the project: a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in§ 15064.5? ❑ ❑ ❑ ED b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to§ 15064.5? ❑ ❑ ❑ c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? ❑ ❑ ❑ ED d) Disturb any human remains,including those interred outside of formal cemeteries? ❑ ❑ ❑ GEOLOGY AND SOILS:-Would the project: Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss,injury,or death involving: Less Than Significant Potentially Iflith Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant - Impact Inco oration Impact No Im i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault,as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42. ❑ ❑ ❑ ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? ❑ ❑ ❑ iii) Seismic-related ground failure,including liquefaction? ❑ ® ❑ ❑ iv) Landslides? ❑ ❑ ❑ b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? ❑ ❑ ❑ c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable,or that would become unstable as a result of the project,and potentially result in on-or off-site landslide,lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse? ❑ ® ❑ ❑ d) Be located on expansive soil,as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code(1994), creating substantial risks to life or property? ❑ ❑ ❑ e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water? ❑ ❑ ❑ NTIMAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS AIIATERIALS: Would the project: a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport,use,or disposal of hazardous materials? ❑ ❑ ❑ b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? ❑ ❑ ❑ c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials,substances,or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? ❑ ❑ ❑ d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and,as a result,would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? ❑ ❑ ❑ c) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, inhere such a plan has not been adopted,within two miles of a public airport or public use airport,would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? ❑ ❑ _ Less Than Significant Potentially With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant Impair implementation of or physically interfere.with an Impact Incorporation Impact No Impact adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? ❑ ❑ ❑ h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires,including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? ❑ ❑ ❑ ED VIII. HYDROLOGY AND NATER U.ALITY: —Would the project: a) Violate any-water quality standards or waste discharge requirements? ❑ ❑ ❑ b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the Iocal groundwater table Ievel(e.g.,the production rate of pre- existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)? ❑ ❑ ❑ c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area,including through the alteration of the course of a Mon or river,in a manner which would result in substantial I& on or siltation on-or off-site? ❑ ® ❑ ❑ d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area,including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off-site? ❑ ® ❑ ❑ e) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff`? ❑ ® ❑ ❑ f) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? ❑ ❑ ❑ g) Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map? ❑ ❑ ❑ h) Place within a I00-year flood hazard area structures which would impede or redirect flood flows? ❑ ❑ ❑ i) Expase people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam? ❑ ❑ ❑ 46Inundation by seiche,tsunami, or mudflow? ❑ ❑ ❑ LAND USE AND PLANNING—Would the project: a) Physically divide an established community? ❑ ❑ ❑- Less Than Significant Potentially ivith Less Than .Significant Mitigation Significant b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan,policy,or Impact Incorporation Inr act No Im's regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including,but not Iimited to the general plan,specific plan, local coastal program,or zoning ordinance)adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? ❑ ❑ ❑ c) Conflict.with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan? .❑ ❑ ❑ X. Nf NERAL RESOURCES—Would the project: a) Result in the loss of availability,of a}mown mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state? ❑ ❑ ❑ b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally-important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a Iocal general plan, specific plan or other land use plan? ❑ ❑ ❑ XI.-NOISE— Would the project result in: a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance,or applicable standards of other agencies? ❑ ❑ ❑ ®� b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive eroundbome vibration or groundborne noise levels? ❑ ❑ ❑ ®- c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? ❑ ® ❑ ❑ d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above Ievels existing without the project? ❑ ® ❑ ❑ e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such.a plan has not been adopted,within two miles of a public airport or public use airport,would the project expose People residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? ❑ ❑ ❑ f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excess noise levels? ❑ ❑ ❑ XII.POPiTLATION AND HOUSING—Would the project: a) Induce substantial population growth in an area,either directly(for example,by proposing new homes and . businesses)or indirectly(for example,through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? ❑ ❑° ❑ b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? El Less Than Significant Potentially With Less Than- Significant Mitigation Significant Impact Incorporation Im act No Impact c) Displace substantial numbers of people,necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? ❑ ❑ ❑ XIII. PUBLIC SERVICES a) Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities,need for new or physically altered governmental facilities,.the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts,in order to maintain acceptable service ratios,response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services: Fire protection? ❑ ® ❑ ❑ Police protection?. ❑ ❑ EJ Z, Schools? ❑ ❑ ❑ Parks? ❑ ❑ ❑ Other public facilities? ❑ ❑ 0V. RECREATION— 1�10uld the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial.physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? ❑ El Z b) -Does the project include-recreational facilities or require , ' the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? ❑ ❑ El XV.TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC—Would the project: a) Cause an increase in traffic which is substantial in relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system (i.e.result in a substantial increase in either the number of _ vehicle trips,the volume to capacity ratio on roads,or congestion at intersections)? ❑ ❑ ❑ b) Exceed,either individually or cumulatively,a level of service standard established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? ❑ ❑ ❑ c) Result in a'change in air traffic patterns,including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks? ❑ ❑ ❑ substantially increase hazards due to a design feature(e.g. curves or dangerous intersections)or incompatible uses (e.g.,farm equipment)? ❑ ❑ ❑ e) Result in inadequate emergency access? ❑ ❑ f) Result in inadequate parking capacity? Less Than Significant Potentially l3'ith Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant Impact Incorporation Impact No fm- _ g) Conflict with adopted policies,plans, or programs supporting alternative transportation(e.g.,bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? ❑ ❑ ❑ XVL UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS— Would the project: a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? ❑ ❑ ❑ b) Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities;the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? ❑ ❑ ❑ c) Require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities,the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? ❑ ❑ ❑ d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources,or are new or expanded entitlements needed? ❑ ❑ ❑ e) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project's projected demand in addition to the provider's existing commitments? ❑ ❑ ❑ f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs? ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ g) Comply with federal,state,and Iocal statutes and regulations related to solid waste? ❑ ❑ ❑ XVIL MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICA1dCE 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? ❑ ❑ ❑ b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited,but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable"means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when-viewed in connection with the effects of past projects,the effects of other current projects,and the effects of probable future projects)? ❑ ❑ ❑ c) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings,either directly or indirectly? ATTACHMENT A EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 99-196 AND DESIGN REVIEW 99-022 BACKGROUND The "project" consists of two,parts; a request for subdivision of five (5.02) acres of land into two parcels of 1.89 acres and 3.12 acres and construction of a 33,141 square foot of office building. The existing parcel is currently developed with a 50,130 square foot office/warehouse building that would be located within the 3.12 acres. The existing building is a twenty-eight (28) foot-tall tilt-up concrete structure with an attached single story office building in the front facing Walnut Avenue. The two-story office building is proposed to be constructed on the 1.89 acre Iot with separate access to Walnut Avenue. The new office building would be a pre-cast concrete two-story structure, 33,141 square feet in area, constructed on the eastern portion of the existing parcel adjacent to an abandoned railroad. This portion of the lot is currently undeveloped. The proposed building meets all the development standards of the Irvine Industrial Complex Planned Community Regulations, except the height, which is over the allowable twenty-five (25) feet. Buildings over twenty-five (25) feet in height require review and approval of a design review by the Planning Commission. The proposed building is thirty-one (31) feet in height and is designed with-simple tilt-up concrete structure, which is typical of the surrounding buildings. The building is designed with a • tall parapet to screen roof-mounted equipment. The proposed subdivision and construction is located in the PIanned Community Industrial (PC-IND) zoning district known as the Irvine Industrial Complex. No zone change or amendments to the revelations of the planned community is proposed or required. 1. AESTHETICS Items a and b—"No Impact": The project site is not located on a scenic highway nor does it affect a scenic vista. Items c and d — "Less than Significant With Mitigation Inco orated": The project is located in a developed urban area and will not have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista nor will it substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcropping, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway, nor will it substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings. The proposed concrete tilt up building is complementary in style, scale, and materials to the surrounding industrial/office buildings. All roof-mounted equipment would be screened by a roof parapet. The parapet is .designed as part of the overall building elevations. Lighting on the site is required to be directed on-site and the exterior lighting is limited to twenty feet in height to avoid glare.on adjacent properties. With the implementation of the mitigation measure and the conditions of approval, impacts related Initial StudylDraft Negative Declaration Page 1 Tentative Parcel Map 99-196 and Design Review 99-022 to aesthetics will be reduced to-a level of insignificance. Sources: Submitted Plans Site Observation Tustin City Code Irvine Industrial Complex Planned Community Regulations Mitigation/Monitoring Required: All roof-mounted equipment shall be screened by a parapet designed inclusively with the building elevations. The parapet height shall be a minimum of six inches above the height of roof-mounted equipment, Parking lot lighting shall be designed to provide a minimum one (1) foot candle illumination in accordance with the City's Security Code. The applicant shall provide details of all proposed Iighting fixtures and a photometric study showing the location and anticipated distribution pattern of light of all proposed fixtures_ All new light fixtures shall be designed with the architecture of the building and designed and arranged as not' to direct light or glare onto adjacent. properties, including the adjacent streets. 2. AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES Items a through c— P "No Impact": The project is located in a developed urban i area where no farm land is existing. The project will not conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use or a Willamson Act contract. The project would not result in conversion of farmland to non-agricultural use. Sources: Submitted Plans Site Observation Tustin City Code Mitigation/Monitoring Required: None Required 3. AIR QUALITY Items b. c. d. and e— "No Impact": The proposed building size of 33,141 square feet is less than the threshold of 96,221 square feet for small office developments for potentiallys significant air quality impacts in accordance with Table 6-2 of the Southern California Air Quality District's "CEQA Handbook". As such, the proposed project will not conflict with or obstruct implementation of any applicable air plan, violate any air quality standard, result in a cumulatively considerable increase of any criteria pollutant as applicable by federal or ambient air giiality standard, nor will it expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations, or create objectionable odor affecting a substantial number of people. Initial Study/Draft Negative Declaration Page 2 Tentative Parcel Map 99-196 and Design Review 99-022 Item a — "Less than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Short-term emissions associated with grading and the construction of the proposed building and site amenities are subject to regulation by the South Coast Air Quality Management District's Air Quality Plan and the City of Tustin. Grading Manual which includes requirements for dust control. Sources: Tustin General Code Irvine Industrial Complex Planned Community Regulations Mitigation/1vMonitoring-Required: • All construction activity shall comply with the requirements of the City of Tustin Grading Manual which requires frequent watering of the project site for dust control. 4. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES Items a through f-- "No Impact": The project site is'located within an area with no unique, rare, or endangered species of plant or animal life identified in local or regional plans, policies or regulations or bythe California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. No impacts to biological resources are anticipated. Sources: Site Observation Tustin General Plan Mitigation/Monitoring Required: None Required r 5. CULTURAL RESOURCES Items a°throu h d—"No Impact": The proposed parcel map and office- building is not within an area identified as an archaeological site, nor will the establishment of the office building cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource or archaeological resources. The project will not destroy or disturb a unique paleontological resource, human remains or a unique geological feature. Sources: Irvine Industrial Complex Planned Community Regulations Tustin General Plan Mitigation/Monitoring Required: None Required Initial Study/Draft Negative Declaration Page 3 y Tentative Parcel Asap 99496 and Design Review 99-022 6. GEOLOGY AND SOILS Items a a (iii), and c — "Less Than Significant with Mitigation Inco oration . The proposed project is Iocated�on a developed parcel with a warehouse/office building. The topography of the site is relatively flat and would require minor precise grading activity to prepare the site for new construction. The project site is located in an area that is designated as liquefaction zone in a Preliminary Map released on October 15, 1997 'by State Department of Mining and Geology. Structures in this area have the potential to expose people to loss, injury, or death should the building collapse to the effects of a rupture of a known earthquake fault, strong seismic ground shaking, landslides, or unstable or expansive soil. Construction of the office building will require preparation of a soils report and structural calculations for the structure in accordance with the Uniform Building Code and other related codes. Compliance with current codes will ensure that the design and construction of the proposed project reduces any potential impacts related to fault ruptures, ground shaking, ground failure, liquefaction or unstable soils to a level of insignificance. Sources: Tustin General PIan City of Tustin Grading Manual Uniform Building Code Preliminary Seismic Map Uniform Building Code Mitigation/Monitoring Required: ® A detailed soils engineering report and specifications shall be submitted to and approved by the Building Official to ensure conformance with the requirements of the Uniform Building Code and all other applicable state and local laws, regulations and requirements. Items a i ii iv b c d and e—No Impact: The project site is not located within an area that is subject to seiche, tsunami, volcanic hazards, landslides, or mudflows, erosion,,subsidence,. or expansive soils. No unique geological or physical features are present within the area. 7. HAZARD AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS Items a through h — "No Impact": The proposed project will not result in significant hazards (i.e. explosion, hazardous materials spill, interference` with emergency response plans, wildland fires, etc.), nor would the subdivision and office building be located within an airport land use plan, or vicinity of a private airstrip. Sources: Proposed Plans Orange County Fire Authority Initial Study/Draft Negative Declaration Page 4 Tentative Parcel kfap 99-196 and Design Review 99-022 Tustin General PIan Irvine Industrial Complex Planned Community Regulations Mitigation/Monitoring Required: None Required 8. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY Item a b f. iz. h i and '--"No Impact': The proposed project is located within an area developed with warehouse and office buildings. Project runoff will be directed into existing sewer facilities and is not anticipated to violate water quality standards or discharge requirements. . The project does not have the capacity to deplete groundwater supplies. The project site is not located within a flood zone and there is no potential for flooding on or off-site in the vicinity. The project will not place housing near a 100-year flood hazard or expose people or structures to risk of flooding, seiche, tsunami or mudflow. Items c d and e• "Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporation": The project site will be graded in preparation for constructi6n and new imperious surfaces will be added to the site to accommodate the parking lot and building. With implementation of conditions of approval that require proper grading and coordination with public drainage improvements, no impacts are anticipated. • Sources: City of Tustin Grading Manual Public Works Department Orange County Health Care Agency Mitigation/Monitoring Required% v A separate 24"x36" street improvement plan, as prepared by a California Registered Civil Engineer, is •required for all construction within the public right-of-way. Construction and/or replacement of any missing or damaged public improvements will be required adjacent to this development. Plans should include: a) Catch basin/storm drain laterals/connection to existing storm drain systems; b) Domestic water facilities; C) Sanitary sewer facilities; and, d) Underground utility connection. o Provide a sedimentation and erosion control plan for all work related to this development. • Prepare and submit a final grading plan showing all pertinent elevations as they pertain to public right-of—way along with delineating the following • information: Initial StudylDraft Negative Declaration Page 3 Tentative Parcel Alap 99-196 and Design Review 99-022 a) Final street elevations at key locations. b) Final pad/finished floor elevations and key elevations for all site grading. All pad elevations to be a minimum of I.0 foot above base flood elevation as defined by FEMA. c) All flood hazards of record. 9. LAND USE AND PLANNING Items a throu¢h c — "No Impact": The proposed facility is located in an area designated by the General, Plan Land Use Map as Planned -Community Commercial/Business. The Planned Community Commercial/Business designation provides opportunities for a mixture of office and light industrial uses. Development standards for projects within the industrial complex are governed by planned community district regulations. The proposed office building is consistent with uses in the Commercial/ Business land use designation and the Planned Community revelations of the zoning district. The project will not physically divide an established community nor it conflicts with any applicable habitat conservation plan. Sources: Tustin General Plan Irvine Industrial Complex Planned Community Regulations Mitigation/Monitoring Required: None Required 10. MINERAL RESOURCES Items a and b — "No Impact": The proposed project will not result in loss of a known mineral resource, or availability of a IocalIy important mineral resource recovery site delineated on the general plan or other applicable land use maps. Sources: Tustin General Plan Irvine Industrial Complex Planned Community Regulations Mitigation/Monitoring Required: None Required 11. NOISE Items p. b e and f—"No Impact The project will not generate noise levels in excess of the city standard, nor will it create excessive vibration or groundborne noise. The project site is not within an airport land use plan, or within the vicinity of a private airstrip. Items c and d - "Less than Si ificant Impact": The proposed subdivision and office building is located within a Planned Community Industrial zoning district ]moan as the Irvine Industrial Complex. Construction may result in an Iess than Initial Study/Draft Negative Declaration Page 6 Tentative Parcel Map 99-196 and Design Review 99-022 signficiant increase in short-term construction noise, however, all uses within this i area are subject to the City's noise regulations and construction hours. The proposed 33,141 square feet office building,would generate approximately 609 additional vehicle trips which is considered insignificant in relation to the capacity of Walnute Avnue and adjacnet arterials. No significant increase in long-term noise levels associated with generation of vehicular traffic is anticipated. The project is not expected to significantly increase noise levels or expose persons to noise levels in excess of standards established in the general plan, noise ordinance, or excessive groundborne vibrations, nor will it create a substantial permanent increase in the existing ambient noise•levels. Sources: Tustin City Code. Tustin General Plan Irvine Industrial Complex PIanned Community Regulations Mitigation/Monitoring Required: • All construction operations, including engine warm-up and deliveries of materials and equipment, shall be subject to the provisions of the Tustin Noise Ordinance and shall take place only between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, and between 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 • p.m. on Saturday, unless otherwise determined by the Building Official. I2. POPULATION AND HOUSR\TG Items a. b °and c — "No Ini act": The proposed office building will not increase population in the area, displace any existing housing units, or people. Sources: Submitted Plans Tustin General Plan Irvine Industrial Complex Planned Community Regulations Mitigation/Monitoring Required: None Required 13. PUBLIC SERVICES Item a — "Less than Sig nificant Impact": The proposed office building will not create demand for alteration or addition of government services (fire and police protection, schools, parks, etc:), where construction or alteration of such facilities could cause significant environmental impacts. There would be two (2) fire hydrants on the each of the parcels for fire accessibility. The proposed building is required to meet all the requirements of the Orange County Fire Authority. Sources: Tustin Police Department • Orange County.Fire Authority Initial Study/Draft Negative Declaration Page 7 Tentative Parcel Map 99-196 and Design Review 99-022 Tustin Public Works Department Ervine Industrial Complex Planned Community Regulations Mitigation/Monitoring Required: The property owner shall maintain two (2) fire hydrants on each of the proposed parcels. The proposed parcels and office building shall meet all requirements of the Orange County Fire Authority. 14. RECREATION Items a and b - "No Impact": The proposed office building will be used for professional use. There would be no increase in the demand for neighborhood parks or recreational facilities as a result of this project. Sources: Tustin City Code Tustin General Plan Irvine Industrial Complex Planned Community Regulations Mitigation/Monitoring Required: None Required 15. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC Items a. b..c, d, a and a—"No Impact"_ The proposed 33,141 square feet office building would generate approximately 609 additional vehicle trips. Walnut Avenue is designated as an augmented ,primary roadway that will experience Iocalized improvements to increase capacity in the future between Tustin Ranch Road and Myford Road. The proposed subdivision and the new office building have been reviewed by the City's Traffic Engineer for potential traffic impacts. No significant impacts to the circulation pattem or level of service on Walnut Avenue or adjacent areterials are anticipated. The proposed office building will not result in a change in air traffic patterns, inadequate emergency access; nor will it exceed a level of service standards established by the county congestion management agency for designed roads or highways or conflict with adopted policies, plans or programs supporting alternative transportation. Sources: Irvine Industrial Complex PIanned Community Regulations Tustin City Code Tustin General Plan Mitigation/Monitoring Required: None Required Initial Study/Draft Negative Declaration Page 8 Teirtative Parce11A1ap 99-196 and Design RevieH,99-0 2 Item f — "Less than Significant Iml2act With Miti ation": As proposed the required on-site parking for each of the parcels could be accommodated for the proposed use. Access to the existing parcel is .provided from Walnut-Avenue. The proposed subdivision will create two lots with separate access from Walnut Avenue. There would be no change to the existing building and its parking. Parking, impacts were considered based on 'the proposed on-site parking. Consistent with the requirements of the Irvine Industrial Complex Community Regulations, each of the parcels would contain the required number of on-site parking spaces. There would be a total of 228 parking spaces on both parcels to accommodate the office/ware house use as shown in the tables below: Use Required Parkin Office Use 1 parking space per 250 square feet of gross floor area Manufacturing. 2 parking space per 1,000 square feet of gross floor area Warehouse I parking space per 1,000 square feet of gross floor area for the first 20,000 square feet, 1 per 2,000 for the second 20,000 square feet of floor area. Bldg Office Warehouse Total Building Area Parking Parking Re uired Provided 1 9,980 s.f. 40,150 s.f. 50,130 s.f. 70 84 2 33,141 s.f. 0 s.f. 33,141 s.f. 133 133 The existing office/warehouse site has eighty-four(84) on-site parking spaces that accommodate the office and warehouse use. Considering the above ratio, fourteen (14) excess .parking spaces would be available. Any future proposals for expansion of the office use within the existing building would be required to comply with the above parking criteria. Sources: Submitted Plans Tustin City Code Tustin General Plan Irvine Industrial Complex PIanned Community Regulations Mitigation/Monitoring Required: The proposed parcels are required to maintain the independent driveway access and on-site parking spaces. Building two (2) is required to provide 133 parking spaces, with a maximum of twenty percent (20%) compact spaces. Building one (1) is required to provide seventy (70) parking spaces. Any revision to the number of parking spaces shall be in accordance with the required parking criteria stated the Planned Community Regulations. Expansion of the existing office use in Building one (1) is restricted to the Initial Study/Draft Negative Declaration Page 9 Tentative Parcel Map 99-196 and Design Review 99-022 number of excess parking spaces for that site and upon review and approval of a revised parking summary. There are currently fourteen (14) excess parking spaces for a total of eighty-four(84)parking spaces. 16. UTILTIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS Items a through g - "No Impact": The project is located in an area where all utilities are'available to the site. No other impacts to water treatment, water supply, wastewater treatment, solid waste disposal are identified. Sources: Tustin City Code Tustin General Plan Mitigation/Monitoring Required: None Required 17. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE Items a, b and c—No Impact:The proposed project is subdivision of an exiting parcel into two parcels and construction of a two story office building. The project design, construction and operation will comply with the regulations of the City of Tustin, Air Quality Management District, and Orange County Fire Authority which reduces any potential impacts related to geological problems, water quality, air quality, hazards and noise to a level of insignificance. As such, the project • does not have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment nor achieve short-term environmental goals to the disadvantage of the.long-term. It does not have impacts that are individually limited but cumulatively considerable or that would cause substantial adverse impacts on human beings. Sources: Project Application City and Agency Requirements mamegdec-2741 walnutdoc Initial Study/Draf Negative Declaration Page 10 Tentative Parcel A1aP 99-196 and Design Review 99-022 0RESOLUTION NO. 3698 z 3 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN, RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL 4 APPROVE TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 99-196 TO SUBDIVIDE A 5.02 ACRE PARCEL LOCATED AT 2761 WALNUT AVENUE INTO 5 TWO NUMBERED PARCELS FOR THE PURPOSE OF ' 6 DEVELOPING A 33,141 SQUARE FOOT OFFICE BUILDING. 7 The Planning Commission does hereby resolve as follows: s I. The Planning Commission finds and determines as follows: 9 A. That a proper application was filed for Tentative Parcel Map 99-196 10 to subdivide a 5.02 acre site located at 2761 Walnut Avenue into two 11 numbered parcels of 3.12 and 1.8 acres in area. 1' B. That a public hearing was duly called, noticed and held on said 13 application on October 25, 1999 by,the Planning Commission. 14 C. A Draft Negative Declaration has been prepared and recommended • 1s for adoption for this project in accordance with the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Ifi D. That the proposed subdivision is in conformance with the Tustin 17 Area General Plan, Tustin Zoning Code, State Subdivision Map Act Is and the City's Subdivision Code; 19 E. That the site is physically suitable for the type of development 20 proposed; 21 F. That the site is physically suitable for the proposed density of development; 22 23 G. That the design of the subdivision or the proposed improvements are not likely to cause substantial environmental damage or substantially 24 and avoidably injure fish or wildlife in their habitat; 25 H. That the design of the subdivision or the type of improvements 26 proposed will not conflict with easements acquired by the public, for access through or use of the property within the proposed 27 subdivision; and, 78 I. That the design of the subdivision or the types of improvements 029. proposed are not likely to cause serious public health problems. Resolution No. 3698 October 25, 1999 z Page 2 3 4 5 J. That the project has been reviewed for compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 and it has been determined 6 that dedications of right-of-way to accommodate a four (4) foot wide 7 sidewalk behind the drive aprons. are necessary for compliance with the requirements of'ADA. s Il. The Planning Commission hereby recommends that the City Council s approve Tentative Parcel Map 99-196 for subdivision of an existing parcel 10 located at 2761 Walnut Avenue into two parcels, subject to the conditions contained in Exhibit A attached hereto. Il 12 PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Planning Commission of the City of Tustin, at a 13 regular meeting on the 25th day of October,`1999. 14 d 15 STEPHEN V. KOZAK • Chairperson 16 17 ELIZABETH A. BINSACK Planning Commission Secretary 18 STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) 14 COUNTY OF ORANGE } 20 CITY OF TUSTIN ) 21 I, ELIZABETH A. BINSACK, the undersigned, hereby certify that I am the Planning 22 Commission Secretary of the City of Tustin, California; that Resolution No. 3698 was duly. passed and adopted ata regular meeting of the Tustin Planning 23 Commission, held on the 25th day of October, 1999. 24 2s ELIZABETH A. BINSACK 26 Planning Commission Secretary _7 2s 29 • EXHIBIT A TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 99-196 RESOLUTION NO. 3698 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL GENERAL The.proposed project shall substantially conform with the submitted plans for the project date stamped October 25, 1999 on file with the Community Development.Department, as-herein modified, or unless otherwise indicated, as modified by the Community Development Director in accordance with this, Exhibit. The Director may also approve subsequent minor modifications to plans during plan check if such modifications are consistent with provisions of the Tustin City Code or other applicable regulations. (1) 1.2 Unless otherwise specified, the conditions contained in this Exhibit shall be complied with prior to the issuance of any building permits for the project, subject to review and approval by the Community Development Department. • (1) 1.3 The subject project approval shall become null and void unless permits for the proposed project are issued and substantial construction is underway,within eighteen (18) months of the date of this Exhibit. Time extensions may be considered if a written request is received by the Community Development Department within thirty (30) days prior to expiration. (1) 1.4 Approval of Tentative Parcel Map 99496 is contingent upon the applicant and property owners signing and returning an "Agreement to Conditions Imposed" form as established by the Community Development Department. (1") 1.5 The applicant shall hold harmless and defend the City of Tustin from all claims and liabilities arising out of a challenge of the City's approval of this project. SOURCE CODES (1) STANDARD CONDITION (5) RESPONSIBLE AGENCY (2) CEQA MITIGATION REQUIREMENTS (3) UNIFORM BUILDING CODEIS (6) LANDSCAPING GUIDELINES (4) DESIGN REVIEW (7) PC/CC-POLICY '*" EXCEPTIONS Vim_` , ^ 4 __ — ._ ,_ . _ __ s a • 1 ' - — • Exhibit • Resolution Na. 3698 October 25, 1999 Page 2 MAP SUBMITTAL (1) 2.1 The subdivider shall record with appropriate agencies, Final Parcel Maip'99-196 prepared in accordance with subdivision requirements of the Tustin Municipal Code, the State Subdivision Map Act, and applicable conditions contained herein. (1) 2.2 Prior to recordation of the Final Parcel Map 99-196, a reciprocal storm drain easement agreement for the benefit of Parcel 2, shall be executed and recorded subject to final approval by the City Attorney. (1) 2.3 The applicant shall comply with all Conditions of Approval identified in Planning Commission Resolution No. 3699 for Design Review 99- 022. (1) 2.4 The subdivider shall conform to all applicable requirements of the State Subdivision Map Act and the City's Subdivision Ordinance. (1) 2.5 As required by the Subdivision Map Act; the subdivider shall execute a Subdivision and Monumentation Agreement and fumish the Improvement/Monumentation Bonds as required by the City Engineer prior to recordation of the Final Map. (1) 2.6 Provide a separate 24"x36" street improvement plan, as prepared by a California Registered Civil Engineer for all construction within the public right-of-way. Construction and/or replacement of any missing or damaged public improvements will be required adjacent to this development. Said plan shall include, but not be limited to the following: a) Curb and gutter b) Sidewalk, including curb ramps for the physically disabled c) Drive aprons d) Street light relocation e) Catch basin/storm drain laterals/connection to existing storm drain systems f) Domestic water facilities g) Sanitary sewer facilities h) Underground utility connection Exhibit Resolution No. 3698 October 25, 1999 Page 3 (1) - 2.7 Provide a 24"x36" reproducible construction area traffic control. plan, as prepared by a California Registered Traffic Engineer or Civil Engineer experienced in this type.of plan preparation. (1) 2.8 ' Provides a'-sedimentation and -erosion, control plan far all work related to this development. (1) 2.9 Prepare and submit a final grading plan showing all pertinent elevations as they, pertain to public right-of—way along with delineating the following information: a) Final street,elevations at key locations. �) Final padlfinished floor elevations and key elevations for all site grading. All pad elevations to be a minimum of 1.0 foot above base flood elevation as defined by FEMA. c) 'All flood hazards of record. • t eet improvements and utilities shall (1) 2.70 Any damage done to existing s r p . be repaired before acceptance of the parcel map and or issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy for the development. (1) ..2.19 Prior to any work in the public right-of-way,. an Encroachment Permit must be obtained from and applicable fees paid to the Public Works Department. (1) 2.12 This development shall comply with all applicable provisions of the City of Tustin Water Quality Ordinance and all federal, state and regional water quality controls board rules and regulations. (3) 2.13 At the ' time of construction of the project, current Federal Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), requirements will need to be met at the drive aprons. This will require construction of a minimum four- (4) foot wide sidewalk behind the drive apron. The maximum cross slope`of the sidewalk shall be two percent and the maximum ramp slope of the drive apron shall be ten percent. This may require dedication of additional right-of-way to accommodate the sidewalk construction. A legal description and sketch of the dedication area, as prepared by a CA Registered Civil Engineer and/or CA Licensed Land Surveyor, shall be submitted' to the i Engineering Division for review and approval. Exhibit Resolution No. 3698 October 25, 1999 Page 4 :FEES : (1) 3.1 Within forty-eight (48) hours of approval of the subject project by the. City Council, the applicant shall , deliver to the Community Development Department, a cashier's , check payable to the COUNTY CLERK in the amount-of $38.00 (thirty-eight dollars) to enable the City to file the appropriate environmental documentation for the project. If within such forty-eight (48) hour period that applicant has not delivered to the Community Development Department the above-noted check, the statute of limitations for any interested party to challenge the environmental determination under the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act could be significantly lengthened. 0z RESOLUTION N0. 3699 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF 3 TUSTIN RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF DESIGN REVIEW 99-022 a AUTHORIZING CONSTRUCTION, OF A 33,141 SQUARE FOOT TWO STORY OFFICE BUILDING LOCATED AT 2761 WALNUT AVENUE 5 WITHIN THE IRVINE INDUSTRIAL COMPLEX. 6 The Planning Commission of the City of Tustin does hereby resolve as follows: 7 S 1. The Planning Commission finds and determines as follows: 9 A. That a proper application, Design Review 99-022, was filed by Wayne Siu Architects on behalf of Jersey Business Center Associates requesting 10 authorization to construct a 33,141 'square foot office building at 2761 11 Walnut Avenue. 12 B. In accordance with Section V(C) of the Planned Community District 13 Regulation for Irvine Industrial Complex, the Planning Commission is authorized .to consider approval of proposals -for any structure 'exceeding 14 twenty five (25) feet in height. 0' C. That said application was reviewed and considered by the Planning 16 Commission on October 25, 1999. 17 D. Pursuant to Section 9272 of the Tustin Municipal Code, the Commission finds that the location, size, architectural features and general appearance 1s of Design Review 99-022 will not impair the orderly and harmonious 19 development of the area, the present or future development therein, or the -occupancy as a whole. In making such findings, the Commission has 20 considered at least the following items: 21 1. 'Height, bulk and area of buildings. 72 2. Setbacks and site planning. 3. Exterior materials and colors. - 23 -4. Type and pitch of roofs. 24 5. Size and spacing of windows, doors and other openings. 6. Towers, chimneys, roof structures, flagpoles, radio and television 25 antennae. 26 7. Landscaping, parking.area design and traffic circulation. 8. Location, height and standards of exterior illumination. 27 9. Location and appearance of equipment located outside of an enclosed structure. ' 26 10. Physical relationship of proposed structures to existing structures in the neighborhood. 11. Appearance and design relationship of proposed structures to existing structures and possible future structures in the neighborhood and public thoroughfares. Resolution No. 3699 2 Page 2 3 4 12. The proposed height of thirty one (31) feet would not penetrate the 5 "imaginary surface" which is at 100 feet in height at project location as defined in the Federal Aviation Regulation Part 77 and adopted 6 by the Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC). E. In accordance with requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act 8 (CEQA), a Draft Negative Declaration has been prepared and considered by the Planning Commission prior to recommending approval of the project. 9 10 F. That the project has been reviewed for consistency with the Air Quality Sub- Element of the City of Tustin General Plan and has been determined to be 11 consistent or has been conditioned to be consistent with the -Air Quality Sub-Element. 12 13 I1. The Planning Commission hereby recommends approval of Design Review 99-022 authorizing the applicant to construct a new two story office building on the 14 undeveloped portion of the site located at 2761 Walnut Avenue, subject to the conditions contained in Exhibit A, attached hereto. 15 16 PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Tustin Planning Commission, held on the 26th day of October, 1999. 17 1s 19 STEPHEN V. KOZAK Chairperson 20 21 ELIZABETH A. BINSACK Planning Commission Secretary 22 �3 STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF ORANGE ) '-a CITY OF TUSTIN ) . 25 I, ELIZABETH A. BINSACK, the undersigned, hereby certify that I am the Secretary of the 26 Planning Commission of the City of Tustin, California; that Resolution No. 3699 was duly passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the Tustin Planning Commission, held on the 27 25th day of October, 1999. 2s 29 - ELIZABETH A. BINSACK Planning Commission Secretary i EXHIBIT A DESIGN REVIEW 99.-022 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL RESOLUTION NO. 3699 GENERAL. (1) 1.1 The proposed project shall substantially conform with the submitted plans for the project date-stamped October 25, 1999, on file with the Community Development Department, as herein modified,, or. as modified •by the Director of Community Development Department in accordance with this Exhibit. The Director may also approve minor modifications to the plans if such modifications are determined to be consistent with the approved plans. (1) 1.2 Unless otherwise specified, the conditions contained in this Exhibit shall be complied with prior to the issuance of any building permits for the project, subject to review and approval by the Community Development Department. (1) 1.3 Design Review approval shall become null and void unless all building . permits are issued within eighteen (1.8)-months of the date of this Exhibit • and substantial construction is underway. (1) 1.4 -The applicant and property owner shall sign and return an Agreement to Conditions Imposed form prior to issuance of building permits. (1) 1.5 The applicant shall hold and defend the City of Tustin harmless for all claims and liabilities arising out of the City's approval of the entitlement process for this project. (1) 1.6 Modifications to Design Review 99-022 may be considered by the Planning Commission. (1) 1.7 The applicant shall comply with all conditions contained in Resolution No. 3698 pertaining to Tentative Parcel Map 99-196. SOURCE CODES (1) STANDARD CONDITION (5) RESPONSIBLE AGENCY (2) CEQA MITIGATION (6) LANDSCAPING GUIDELINES • REQUIREMENTS. (7) PCICC POLICY (3) UNIFORM BUILDING CODE/S. (4) DESIGN REVIEW *** EXCEPTIONS Exhibit A Design Review 99-022 Conditions of Approval Resolution No. 3699 Page 2 PLAN SUBMITTAL (3) 2.1 Indicate on the title sheet the applicable codes, City, state and federal laws and regulations to include: 1997 Uniform Building Code with California Amendments 1997 Uniform Mechanical . and Plumbing Codes with California Amendments 1996 National Electrical Code with California Amendments City of Tustin Grading and Security Ordinance City of Tustin Landscaping and Irrigation Guidelines City of Tustin Private Improvements Standards. (1) 2.2 A detailed soils engineering report and specifications shall be submitted to and approved by the Building Official to ensure conformance with the requirements of the Uniform Building Code and all other applicable state and local laws, regulations and requirements. (1) 2.3 At plan check, submit four (4) sets of construction plans. . If applicable provide two (2) sets of structural calculations and Title 24 energy calculations prepared be a licensed engineerlarchitect. No field changes shall be made without corrections submitted to and approved by the Community Development Department. (1) 2.4 All construction activity shall comply with the requirements of the City of Tustin Grading Manual which requires frequent watering of the project site for dust control. (4) 2.5 All materials, styles and colors shall be consistent with the noted materials on the plans and the submitted material sample board. (4) 2.6 All roof-mounted equipment shall be screened by a parapet designed inclusively with the building elevations. The parapet height shall be a minimum of six inches above the height of roof-mounted equipment. (4) 2.7 Parking lot lighting shall be designed to provide a minimum one (1) foot candle illumination in accordance with the City's Security Code. The applicant shall provide details of- all proposed lighting fixtures and a photometric study showing the location and anticipated distribution pattern • of light of all proposed fixtures. All new light fixtures shall be designed with the architecture of the building and designed and arranged as not to direct .light or glare onto adjacent .properties, including the adjacent streets. • Exhibit A Design Review 99-022 Conditions of Approval Resolution No. 3699. Page 3 '(4) - 2.8 In addition to the light poles, ground mounted pedestrian lighting shall be provided at the main entrance. (4) 2.9 Submit a revised south'elevation with,'proposed sign subject to final approval ;of the Community Development Department: If no sign is ' proposed a symmetrical window arrangement shall be- provided for the south elevation. All signs require review and approval by the Community Development Department.prior to installation. (9) 2.90 Provide elevations of the trash enclosure and, provide dimensions of size, height, -setbacks, colors and materia.is: Provide information on the proposed gate. The trash.enclosure shall be installed with solid metal, self- . closing, self-latching gates. The design of,the trash enclosure shall be at, least six,(6) feet in height and'comply with the Great Western Reclamation standards. The trash enclosure -shall have materials consistent with the buildings. The trash enclosure size shall have the ability to accommodate • the City's-recycling program. USE RESTRICTIONS (4) 3.1 The proposed parcels are required to maintain independent driveway access and on-site parking spaces. The .proposed building is required to provide 133 parking spaces; with a .maximum of twenty percent (20%) compact spaces. The existing building is required to provide seventy-(70) parking spaces. Any revision ao the number of.parking spaces shall be in accordance with the required parking criteria stated the Planned Community Regulations.. Expansion of_.the existing office„ use in the existing building may be considered upon review and approval of a revised parking summary. LANDSCAPING (6) 4.1 At Building Plan Check, complete detailed'landscaping and irrigation plans shall be submitted for the upgrade of all landscaped areas on the site consistent with adopted. City of, Tustin Landscaping and Irrigation Guidelines Submittal Requirements to the greatest extent feasible, as determined by the Community Development Department. These plans shall include the following: ' Il a. � A' combination of planting ,materials shall be used'in a landscape areas. ' b. Ground covers shall be planted between eight (8),- and twelve (12) inches on center. Exhibit A • Design Review 99-022 Conditions of Approval Resolution No. 3699 Page 4 C. All plant materials-shall be installed in a healthy vigorous condition typical to the species and landscaping must be maintained in a neat and healthy condition. This will include • but not ibe limited to trimming, mowing, weeding, removal of Iitter, fertilizing, regular watering or replacement of diseased or dead plants. d. All newly planted trees shall be staked in.accordance with the City's Landscaping and li-rigation Guidelines.. e. Plant materials 'shall be chosen and located to promote water and energy conservation. f. Provide summary table applying indexing identification to plant material in their actual location. The plan arid- table must list botanical and common names, sizes, spacing, actual location and quantity of the plant materials proposed. Note on plans that the Community Development Department . may request minor • substitutions'of plant materials during plan check. g. Show planting details, soil preparation, staking, etc. h. ' 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. Note on landscaping plan that coverage of landscaping Irrigation materials• is subject to field inspection at project completion by the Community Development Department. i. Show all property lines on the landscaping and irrigation plan, public right-of-way areas, sidewalk widths, "Parkway areas and wall locations. j. Six (6) inch raised-concrete curbs shall be placed on-site adjacent to all landscape planting areas, unless approved otherwise by the Community Development Department. k. The entire-area within thirty (30) foot front setback along Walnut Avenue except the vehicular and pedestrian access shall be landscaped. The proposed lunch area shall be redesigned to meet this requirement, subject to final approval by the Community Development Department. Exhibit A Design Review 99-022 Conditions of Approval Resolution No. 3699 Page 5 I. Specifications for -the. proposed vine columns shall be provided including the height and potential;mass.- .L_ocation'and design of the columns are subject to final approval of the Community Development Department and the City Traffic Engineer. Tn. Trees shall be minimum fifteen (15), gallon in size, provided at least one (1) per each five (5) parking stalls. n.. The location of the irrigation electronic controller shaN.be shown on the landscape and irrigation plans. The location shall take into consideration the potential for vandalism and should be screened' from view by architectural elements. t ORANGE COUNTY FIRE AUTHORITY • Fire Hydrants: . *¢* 5.1 The property owner shall-maintain two (2) fire hydrants ,on each of the proposed parcels. The proposed parcels and office building shall meet all . requirements of the Oranf Orange County Fire Authority. (5) -5.2 Prior-to the issuance.of a building permit, the applicant shall submit a fire hydrant location plan for the review and approval of the Fire Chief.. (5) 5.3 - Prior to issuance of a building permit, the applicantshall submit to the Fire Chief evidence of the on-site fire hydrant system and indicate whether it is public or private. If the system is private, the system shall be reviewed and approved by the Fire Chief prior to issuance of a building permit. Provisions' shall be made by the applicant for the repair and maintenance of the system, in a manner meeting the approval of the Fire Chief.. (5) 5.4 Prior to issuance of any certificate of use and occupancy,, all fire hydrants shall have,a blue reflective;pavement marker indicating the.hydrant location on the street or drive per the Orange County Fire Authority Standard as approved by the Fire Chief. These markers• are to be maintained in good condition by the property owner. - Exhibit A Design Review 99-022 Conditions of Approval Resolution No. 3699 Page 6 Water Availability. (5) 5.5 Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall provide evidence of adequate fire flow. The Orange County Fire Authority Water Availability for Fire Protection form shall be signed by the applicable water district and submitted for approval to the Orange County Fire Authority. Automatic Fire Sprinkler System: (5) 5.6 Prior to issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall submit plans for the required automatic fire sprinkler system in any structure to the OCFA for review and approval. (5) 5.7 " Prior td the issuance of a certificate of use and occupancy, the automatic fire sprinkler system shall be operational in manner meeting the approval of the Fire Chief. Fire Access Roads: • (5) 5.8 Prior to the issuance of any building permit, the applicant shall obtain approval of the Fire Chief for all fire protection access roads to within 150 feet of all portions of the exterior of every structure on site. (5) 5.9 ' Street signs: A note shall be placed on the fire protection access easement plan indicating that all street/road signs shall be designed and maintained to be either internally or externally illuminated in a manner meeting approval of the Fire Chief. Street Markings: . (5) 5.10 Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall submit plans and obtain approval from•the Fire Chief for the fire lanes on required fire access roads less than 36 feet in width. The plans shall indicate the locations of red curbing and signage. A drawing of the proposed signage with the height, stroke and color of.lettering and the contrasting background color shall be submitted to and approved by the Fire Chief. . (5) 5.11 Prior to the issuance of any certificate of use and occupancy, the fire lanes shall be installed in accordance with the approved fire lane plan. The . CC&R's or other approved documents,. shall contain a fire lane map and provisions which prohibit parking in the fire lanes. The method of enforcement shall be documented. Exhibit A Design Review 99-022 Conditions of Approval. Resolution No. 3699 Page 7 Combustible Construction Letter.' (5) 5.12 Prior to issuance of a building permit fore combustible' construction, the builder shall submit a letter on company .letterhead stating that water for fire-fighting purposes and the all weather fire protection access roads shall be in place and operational before. any combustible material is placed on- site. NOISE (1) 6:1 'All construction operations,"including engine warm-up and deliveries of materials and equipment, "shall be subject.to the provisions of the Tustin. Noise Ordinance and shall take•place only between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 6:00' p.m., Monday_through Friday, and between 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. on Saturday, unless otherwise determined by the Building.Official. FEES (1) 7.1 Prior to issuance of-any building permits, payment shall be made of all applicable fees, including but not limited to the following. Payment'shall be required based upon those rates in effect at the time of payment and are subject to change. a. Building plan check and permit fees to the Community Development Department based on the most current schedule. b. Orange County Fire Authority plan check and inspection fees to the Community Development Department based .upon the most current schedule. C. Payment of the Major Thoroughfare and Bridge Fees to the Tustin Public Works Department at the time, a building permit is issued. The current fee is $3.09 per square feet of building area d. Payment of the Orange County 'Sanitation District No. 7 Sewer Connection. Fees at the time a building permit ,is issued. The current fee is $67511000 square feet of building area. s e. New development tax in the amount of $0.10 per square _foot of gross floor area . Exhibit A • Design Review 99-022 Conditions of Approval Resolution No. 3699 Page 8 f. School facilities fee in the-amount of$0.31 per square foot. g. Transportation System Improvement Program (TSIP), Benefit Area ".'B" fees in the amount of $3.31 :per square foot of new or added' gross square floor area of construction or improvements to the Community Development Department. h. Within forty-eigh.t (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 $38.00 (thirty eight dollars) to enable the City to file the appropriate environmental documentation for the project. If within such forty- eight (48) hour period that applicant has not delivered to the Community Development Department the above-noted check, the statute of limitations for. any interested party to ` challenge the environmental determination-under the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act could be significantly lengthened. • • - 1 1 LI'1 1f`t L. _ *T- O,`eport to the lanning Commission DATE: OCTOBER 25, 1999 SUBJECT: AMENDMENT TO CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 98-031 APPLICANT: AKIRA TAKASHIO HONDAYA CORPORATION 556 EL CAMINO kREAL TUSTIN,CA 92780 PROPERTY OWNER: WILLIAM ZAPPAS = EI CAMINO PLAZA 3922 EMERALD TORRANCE,CA 90503 LOCATION: 660 EL CAMINO REAL ZONING: CENTRAL COMMERCIAL DISTRICT,PARKING OVERLAY. DISTRICT(C-2 P), TOWN CENTER REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: THIS PROJECT IS CATEGORICALLY EXEMPT (CLASS 1) PURSUANT TO SECTION 15301 OF THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT. REQUEST: AUTHORIZATION FOR THE SALE OF BEER AND WINE-(ABC LICENSE TYPE "41") FOR ON-SITE ,CONSUMPTION AND THE USE OF SHARED PARKING IN CONJUNCTION WITH THE 'EXPANSION.OF-AN EXISTING RESTAURANT. RECOMMENDATION That the Planning Commission adopt Resolution No. 3696 approving an amendment to Conditional Use Permit 98-031. Project Description The applicant is requesting authorization to obtain a license for the on-site sale of beer and wine (ABC license Type "41") in conjunction with the expansion of an existing.. • i . Planning Commission Report Amendment to CUP 98-031 October 25, 1999 Page 2 _ _ • restaurant located :at 660 EI Camino Rea[ (see Location Map - Attachment A). On February 22, 1999 the Planning Commission approved Conditional Use Permit No. 98- 031 for the service of alcoholic beverages in conjunction with the establishment of a.new Sushi Restaurant with forty-five (45) seats. The applicant at this time wishes to expand the alcoholic beverage service area into an adjacent tenant space and install twenty-eight (28) seats. Alcoholic beverage sales establishments are permitted in association with a restaurant use subject to the approval of a Conditional Use Permit. No outdoor seating is proposed. The restaurant is located in a commercial center (EI 'Camino Plaza) where 519 parking spaces are provided. Given the proposed number of seats and existing uses, a total of 646 parking spaces would be required for the center. In accordance with Tustin City Code Section 9271(a)(a), the Planning Commission may authorize joint use ,parking for commercial centers of more than 30,000 square feet, subject to approval of a Conditional Use Permit. Site and Surrounding Properties The proposed expansion will be located in an adjacent 600 square foot tenant space (previously occupied by a shoe repair store) in the EI Camino Plaza Shopping Center (see Submitted Plans - Attachment B). The center is surrounded by commercial uses to i the east, commercial and residential uses to the north, industrial uses to the west, and office uses and Interstate 1-5 to the south. Parking Requirements/Summary The proposed space is allocated three (3) parking spaces within El Camino Plaza and would be permitted a maximum of nine (9) seats in accordance with TCC Section 9223b(6) which requires one ("1) parking space for every three seats. However, a total of twenty-eight (28) seats are proposed. A parking analysis was prepared in accordance with Section 9271(a)(a) of the Tustin City Code (TCC) which provides for preparation of joint-use .parking studies to determine if there is sufficient parking capacity for existing and proposed* uses (Attachment C). The study found that the parking lot would be 39 percent utilized during peak hours. Since the original Conditional Use Permit was approved, the Planning Commission approved Bally's Total Fitness at 630. EI Camino Real. In addition, other permitted retail uses (Bargain Mania and two office uses) have located within the center. Assuming trip generation rates for these new uses, existing uses, vacant tenant spaces, and the proposed use, the study found that the projected parking demand would be 298 spaces which could be adequately served by the 357 and 318 parking spaces projected to be available during the Friday and Saturday evening peak hours, respectively. The Planning Commission Report ?, Amendment to,CUP 98-031 October 25, 1999 Pagel Engineering Division reviewed the analysis and concurred with the findings of the parking study.:` Condition No.,2.18 of Resolution No. 3696 (Attachment-D) limits the number of seats to twenty-eight (28). Alcoholic Beverage Sales Regulations and Guidelines Staff has reviewed the proposed use for conformance'with the Alcohol Beverage Sales Establishment Guidelines adopted by the Planning:Commission.on August 23, 1999, and the applicable Zoning Code regulations. Issues that are relevant, to the applicant's proposal include: 1. Location: The applicant proposes to- sell beer and wine for on-site consumption. . The 'On-site,'consumption of alcoholic beverages is intended to be in conjunction with eating'a meal on the premises. Alcoholic beverages sold in conjunction with delivery or to go orders would constitute off-site consumption. Section 9233(C)(v)(1) of the Zoning Code establishes a 600' minimum distance from existing on-site sales establishments,as one of three distance requirements for off- site sales of alcoholic beverages in conjunction with a restaurant. Deva'slMcGuire's located to- the.west is less than-600 feet from the restaurant. -Therefore, off-site sales of alcohol is not permitted at this location. Condition No. . 2.10 of Resolution No.'3696 (Attachment D) is included to prohibit the sale of beer and wine for off-site consumption. 2. Operational Characteristics: The proposed use would be limited to restaurant seating only. . No accessory uses are proposed such as video games, pool tables, live entertainment, or public dancing. Condition No. 2.1 is included to define the nature of the restaurant use. 3. Hours of Operation: The proposed, business hours are 11:00 a.m. to 12:00 midnight., Food prepared at the site will be available during all hours of operation. These_ hours are compatible with the surrounding* uses in that .the subject restaurant is located along a commercial corridor with similar uses-and hours.of operation.' Condition No. 2.17 specifies the hours of operation. ; 4. Serving Beer. and Wine: Consistent with the guidelines, conditions are included requiring that beer and wine be .served only in conjunction with food service (Condition No. 2.16) and that all persons serving beer and wine shall be eighteen (18) years of age.'or older and supervised by someone:twenty-one (21) years of age or older(Condition Nos. 2.15). Several other conditions within-the Alcoholic Beverage Sales Establishment Guidelines are included to mitigate concerns related to the ori-site sale and consumption of beer and wine in conjunction with this restaurant. Planning Commission Report Amendment to CUP 98-031 October 25, 1999 Page 4 A copy of the application and plans for Amendment to Conditional Use Permit 98-031 were distributed to the Community Redevelopment Agency (RDA) staff since the site is located within the Town Center Redevelopment Project Area. No concerns were noted by the RDA. ANALYSIS ' In determining whether to approve the Amendment to Conditional Use Permit, the Planning Commission must determine whether or, not the proposed use will be detrimental to the health, safety, morals, comfort and general welfare of the persons residing in or working in the neighborhood or whether it will be injurious.,or detrimental to property or improvements in the vicinity or to the welfare of the City. A decision to approve this request is supported by the following findings: 1. That the establishment, maintenance and operation of selling alcoholic beverages for on-site consumption will not be detrimental to the health, safety, morals, comfort, or general welfare of the persons residing or working in.the neighborhood, nor be injurious or detrimental to the property and improvements in the neighborhood of the subject property, or to the general welfare of the City of Tustin, in that:, a. The use is restaurant where food will be served at all times when alcoholic beverages are served. b. The use is located in a commercial corridor along EI Camino Real where a variety of retail, office, and restaurant uses are located. C. There is sufficient parking for the existing and proposed uses as evidenced by the parking analysis prepared for the project. 2. That the operational characteristics and features of the facility are .appropriate for the location in relation to surrounding areas, and other similar uses selling or serving alcoholic beverages, in that the use is located in a commercial corridor and is limited to restaurant seating with on-site sales of alcoholic beverages only. As conditioned, no off-site alcoholic beverage sales are permitted and food must be served during all hours in which alcoholic beverages are served. The characteristics of the use and hours of operation would be similar to other restaurants in the vicinity. 3. That the proposed use is consistent with the General Plan and Zoning Code in -that the property is designated as "Old Town Commercial" and zoned "Central Commercial District"which allows for the establishment of a restaurant use with on-site sale of alcoholic beverages and shared parking subject to approval of a conditional use permit. Planning Commission Report Amendment to CUP 98-031 October 25, 1999 Page 5 4., That,, -as conditioned, the ,proposed use is consistent with the Alcoholic, Beverage Sales Establishment Guidelines adopted by the Planning Commission on August 23, 1999. 4 7 Justi ia Willkom Karen Peterson Associate Planner Senior Planner Attachments: A - Location Map: B - Submitted Plans C - Parking Study D - Resolution No. 3696 SAGDDIPCRCP0R'Rcup98-031(amendment).doc 0 ATTACHMENT A Location Map �� -- LOCATION MAP -`Lrr '4e— ..A e - !l JECT e, _ITEM .. SIXTH STREET oe�/ 428 AND i i i i ! 62` / 602 GIRLS i 424 6 62l , i 6D4J ? ` 40D 2 63 EL CAMING' �_ ^ PLAZA --i r-------- o 6 34 .� 638 �� 540 1 m , 1 642/ 642 652 '654 592 .I -�- 4 694 •��.,-''�• � � 655 ;•66a. r> � .! , ' ^ "'�� •`''_, 666• ,o-n bio m.m n � m.m f ^ r- n�^ mmmm �� ��, "lo mem u m.e w m m m�•� 730 . • � � i 1 I I `HSS , t. 17212-57288 I I ♦♦\�` 1 mr 1-1"r"rl � i ' 1 rccw� NO SCALE ATTACHMENT B Submitted Pians El Camino Plaza �I /c= PROJECT I SUITE v/fir � � I �\`.` `����•.,\' �• .'\moi'•.•. -.\` �• �: I IL zi,z � _ EL CAMINO REAL A I IMne&vd - I I Sliael - EI Camino n Plaza �S PROJECT SUITE LOCATION FIGURE I 'T 6kFed0an �•- ' N t NO SCALr QOoo FLOOR PLAN i AREA OF EXPANSION ATTACHMENT C Parking Study - A IPA Traffic Engineering, Inc. TRAFFIC & TRANSPORTATION ENGINEF September 28, 1999 F CEI\]F— Mr. Peter Zappas � � ` El Camino Plaza 700 El Camino Real Tustin,'CA 92780 SUBJECT. EXPANSION OF EXISTING SUSHI BAR-PARKING STUD Y EL CAMINO PLAZA, TUSTIN Dear Mr. Zappas This.letter report presents a parking analysis of the proposed Sushi Bar expansion located within Suite 660 of the existing El Camino Plaza shopping center which is located on the southwest corner of El Camino Real and 61 Street in the City of Tustin. These analyses are based upon discussions with City Staff,information provided by you,field studies and previous parking counts,and standard reference material. PROJECT DESCRIPTION The proposed project is an expansion of the existing Sushi Bar located at 658 El Camino Real. The expansion will occupy 600 square feet of vacant retail space, Suite 660, adjacent to the Sushi Bar within the El Camino Plaza shopping center. Figure I illustrates the location of the proposed suite within the shopping center. An additional 28 seats are being proposed within the expansion area. This study has been directed toward the evaluation of the adequacy of the parking supply to accommodate existing and future parking demands. 0 23421 South Pointe Drive • Suite 190 • Laguna Hills, CA 92653 • (949) 460-0110 • FAX: (949) 460-0113 4D 1 672 ORB ,� '� � 'Iii•. �o PROJECT SUITE 4 _ Ll LLF CL vJ � � I' 'roe, i (k��,� -�-������,\��\`�..\�\'.\ K�\�� •. ,,'\','. ".i �', , ---'---712 -_-. — ._._.__.._.nom .- OF EL CAMINO REAL 4 Irrine a w a O 1 I S1,6.1 EI Camino Plaza / PROJECT SUIT TE LOCATION FIGURE 1 0 NO s A r �e�'Q acs -z- EXISTING CONDITIONS The existing uses within the El Camino Plaza shopping center were verified and are listed in Table I along with the associated square foota es. As shown to Table I, there are a total of seven (7) vacant suites. Due to the fact that the count was conducted in January, 1999,.there have been some slight changes to the tenants within the center. In order to account for these changes,the difference between the parking of the current use and the previous use was utilized based upon the City's parking codes. This would take into account any parking for the changed tenants which were included in the existing parking counts. Also included in the analyses were parking demands for the Bally Total Fitness center which is .currently not open,a bargain mania store, a sushi bar.and offices which are allpresently open. City code or applicable parking codes were applied to each of these uses. It should be noted that it is unlikely that the office use would be open past 7:00 PM. In addition, information obtained from Bally Total Fitness indicated that their parking woulddrop by 40 percent by 7:00 PM;however,the full parking demand was utilized in this study. Table 2 presents a breakdown of the vacancies and changes in tenants along with the number of parking spaces required. • There are a total of 519 existing marked parking spaces thaf would serve the existing and proposed uses within the El Camino Plaza shopping center. FIELD STUDIES The Fl Camino Plaza shopping center was counted by WPA Traffic Engineering, Inc. on Friday (1/8/99) and Saturday (1/9/99) from 11:30 AM to 1:30 PM and 4:00 PM to 7:00 PM by fifteen minute intervals. The existing parking lot was subdivided into five parking areas to provide detailed information on where the current parking demand is being provided. These parking areas are shown on Figure 2 and the count data can be found in Appendix A. WPA Trac Engineering, Inc. Sushi Bar Expansion, Parkin Stud P g Y Job #990021 City of Tustin _ TABLE 1 PARKING DEMAND PER CITY CODE-EL CA INO PLAZA ' Sushi Bar Expansion,Parking Study PAWNG PARKING SUITE . TENANT SIZE SEATS RATIO REQUIRED • 600 H&R Block 1.800 sf 1250 sf 7.2 602 Vacant 1,200 sf 1/200 sf 6.0 604 Marcel's Jewelry&Loan 1.000 sf 11200 sf 5.0 610 Alteration Cleaners 600 sf 11200 sf 3.0 620 Best Hair Care 600 sf U200 sf 3.0 630 Bally Total Fitness 30,000 sf 7.811,000 sf 234 632A Bally Pre-Sale Office 4,000 sf 11250 sf 16.0 6328 Board Shop 2,000 sf - 11200 sf 10.0 632C Rengel Architects 2.000 sf 11250 sf 8.0 638 Laxmi Sweets and Spices 3,200 sf 36 Ira seats •12.0 640 Baby Outlet-Dress Me Lip Mom I,500 sf 1/200 sf 7.5 650 Tustin Health Spa 7,000 sf 1/200 sf 35.0 654 Bargain Mania 2,000 sf 11200 sf 10.0 656 Real Estate Office 2,000 sf 1P50 sf 8.0 658 Sushi Bar 2,000 sf 49 113 seats 16.3 660 Proposed Site 600 sf 28 113 seats: 9:3 662 TJ's Submarine 600 sf' 12 113 seats 4.0 664 Vacant 600 sf 11200 sf 3.0 668A Vacant 600 sf 1200 sf 3.0. 668E Vacant 725 sf 11100 sf 3.6 672 McGuire's Lounge 1,650 sf 35 113 seats 11.7 674 Vacant 825 sf 11200 sf 4.1 676 Del Valle Real Estate 825 sf 11250 sf 3.3 678 A+Driving School 825 sf 20 113 seats 6.7 680 Hair Dynamics 1,100 sf 1/200 sf 5.5 682 Long Hai Chinese Restaurant 1,375 sf 46 113 seats 15.3 684 Vacant 1,240 sf 11100 sf 6.2 688 Vacant 2,040 sf 11200 sf 10.2 690 Curtain Call Dinner Theatre 10,477 sf 300 113 seats 100 692 Beauty Salon 777 sf 1/200 sf 3.9 694 111 Nails 563 sf 11200 sf 2.8 696 Re-Treads and Etc. 1.375 sf 11200 sf 6.9 700 Office 2,000 sf 11250 sf 8.0 706 Branco Cleaners 2,200 sf 1200 sf 11.0 708 Shoe Repair 750 sf 1/200 sf 3.8 710 Party Time 4,750 sf 11200 sf 23.8 712 Videoland 3,750 sf 1/200 sf 18.8 TOTAL SPAt:ES REQUIRED PER CITY CODE 645.9 TABLE 2 CHANGES TO SHOPPING CENTER TENANTS AFTER JANUARY 1999 PARKING COUNTS • NUMBER OF PARKING SUITE TENANT SPACES REQUIRED (Square Feet) PER CITY CODE 630 Bally Total Fitness (30,000 SF) 234 632A Bally Pre-Sale Office(') (4,000 SF). (16-20 = 0)(1) 654 Bargain Mania (2,000 SF) 10 658 Sushi Bar (2,000 SF) 16.3 700 Office (2,000 SF) 8 Subtotal 268.3 664 Vacant[') (600 SF) (3-3 =0)(1) 684 Vacant[') (1,240 SF) (6.2-5 = 1.2)(1) 688 Vacantt') (2,040 SF) (10.2-8.2=2)(1) 602 Vacant (1,200 SF) 6 668A Vacant (600 SF) 3 668B Vacant (725 SF) 3.6 674 Vacant (825 SF) 441 -Subtotal 19.9 660• Proposed Expansion (600 SF) 9.3' TOTAL 297.5 (1} These suites had tenants in them when the parking count was conducted(January.1999)and therefore parking for these tenants are included in the count data which is summarized in the "Observed Parking Demand" column of Table 3. Due to the fact that specific counts were not taken for each use within the shopping center, the difference in the required parking(based on City Code)between the current use and the previous use was utilized in this study. - . r . r El Camig 872 ".00t79 _ r T ,S1. LL I. - _ -- LL i 4 a Lj I LLF a I Too 710 Lu Z , 12 ; IF LL _ EL CAMINO REAL r Irvine Bird Iel Sheet EI Camino h i Plaza N PARKING AREAS_ FIGURE_ 2 0 NQ SCAL Qua The number of vehicles parked in the study area are documented in Table 3. As shown in Table 3, the peak parking period for the El Camino Plaza shopping center was observed on Saturday(119199) at 7:00 PM with 201 parked vehicles. The shopping center has a total of 519 parking spaces,which . indicates that the parking lot was only 39 percent utilized during the peak period under existing conditions. CITYPARKING CODE The City of Tustin Planning Department was contacted to ascertain the City Parking Codes for the remaining uses within the shopping center. The parking code requirements are shown below: LAND USE CITYPARMNG CODE RETAIL 1 Space Per 200 SF OFFICE 1 Space Per 250 SF RESTAURANT 1 Space Per 3 Seats Based d upon the City Parking Codes listed above along with the projected number ofparking spaces required for the proposed project, a total of 646 parking spaces would be required for the entire shopping center with the vacant suites and approved uses. Table I lists each land use within El Camino Plaza shopping center along with the applicable parking code and number of parking spaces required. PARKING DEMAND ANALYSIS The focus of these analyses is to document the actual parking demand in proximity to the proposed project and to determine if there is justification for a parking variance. The parking demand analyses will notonly account for the existing spaces utilized,but the spaces required by the vacant suites and approved projects within the El Camino Plaza shopping center and the demand for the proposed Sushi Bar expansion. W • PA Trak Engineering, .Inc. Sushi Bar Expansion,Parking Study Job #990021 City of Tustin - TABL;E 3 ` PARKING DEMAND ANALYSIS , Sushi Bar Expansion, Parking`Study TOTAL AVAILABLE SPACES(IN THE COUNTAREA)=519 TIME OBSERVED ' •REMAINING "WORST CASE" PARKING DEMAND AVAILABLE SPACES PARSING DEMAND PER CODE (Number-of Vehicles), (519'Total-Demand) Friday SatuF._riday Saturday Change in Tenants Prosect TOTAL (118199) (119199) (118199) (1/9199) & Vacant Suites . (600 SF) (47,230 SF) 11:30 AM 88- 117 . 431 .402 11:45 AM 106 107 413 412 12:00 PM 121 105 398 414 12:15 PM 136 94' 383 425 I2:30 PM 126 ' 93' . 393 • 426 12:45 PM 123 99 396 420 1:00 PM' 128 102 391 417 1:15 PIM 116 101. 403 418 1:30 PM 122 102 397 . 417 4:00 PM 117 127 402 392 4:15 PM ; 101, 126 418 393 4:30 PM - 113 120 406 399 4:45 PM 106 112 . 413 407 5:00 PM 108 121 411 - 398- 5:15 PM 109 140 410 379 5:30 PM 118 124 401. 395 5:45 PM 111 121 408 398 6:00 PM 132 120 387 399 6:15 PM 142 146 377 373 6:30 PM 151 185 368 334 6:45 PM 155 197 364 322 7:00 PM 162 201. '357 318 288 10 298 • 4 _ 4 Parking counts were conducted at the El Camino Plaza shopping center on a Friday and Saturday. These parking demand counts were conducted from 11:30 AM to 1:30 PM and from 4:00 PM to 7:00 PM. The number of vehicles parked in the study area are documented in Table 3. • For convenience, the parking demand counts were translated to "REMAINING AVAILABLE SPACES", so the remaining parking supply could be compared to the projected parkingdemand. The projected demand needs to account for both the vacant suites in the study area, approved projects to be located within the shopping center and the proposed Sushi Bar expansion. As shown in Table 2,.the changes in tenants within the shopping center,which include Bally Total Fitness, Bargain Mania, the Sushi Bar and Offices would require a total of 268 parking spaces. Seven suites in the El Camino Real shopping center, other than the proposed 660 Iocation, are presently vacant. These suites would require a total of 20 parking spaces based on City code. The proposed Sushi Bar expansion would require 10 parking spaces. The change in tenants within the shopping center, vacant suites and the proposed Sushi Bar expansion would result in a combined added parking demand of 298 parking spaces. Table 3 shows that the 298 space demand can be adequately served by the available supply of 318 spaces on Saturday evening and 357 spaces on Friday evening. These are representative of the . "worst case"peaks, as they are for a 15-miriute period and assume full parking code for the vacant suites at these particular times of the day and the Bally Total Fitness,which would drop off by 40 percent at 7:00 PM. SUMMARY The actual parking demand within the El Camino Plaza shopping center was observed. This resulted in documentation of the available parking supply. The projected parking demand of 298 would be adequately served by the peak parking supply of 357 and 318 available spaces during a Friday and Saturday evening, respectively. WPA Trac Engineering, Inc. Sushi Bar Expansion, Parking Study .Job #990021 City of Tustin We trust that these analyses will be of assistance.to you and the City of Tustin. If you have any questions or require additional information; }Tease contact us. Respectfully submitted, WPA TRAFFIC ENGINEERING,INC. no.}613 Weston S. ngle,P.E. ` lVit Registered Professional Engineer `OF State of California Numbers C16828 &TR565 WP,S:HN #990021 WPA Trac Engineering,Inc. Sushi Bar Expansion, Parking Study Job #990021 City of Tustin • APPENDIX A Parking Count'Data Time: Friday: January 8`' Saturday: January 91' Both Days are from 11:30 AM.to 1:30 PM and'4:00 PM to.7:00,PM Ote: Count by.15-minute intervals FRIDAY:.JANUARY 81, 1999 PAMNG,AREAS-NUMBER OF PARSED CARS TIME A B C D E TOTAL #of Existing 154 13: 109 140 103 ' 519 Parking Spaces 11:30 AM 10 0 46 28 4 88 11:45 AM 11 I 56 33 5 I06 12.00 PM 13 2 63 34 9. 121 12:15 PM 15 2 73' 36 10 136 12:30 PM 16 2 64 32 12 126 12:45 PM 14 2 66 . 30 11 123. 1:00 PM 19 2 59 34 14 128 1:15M 18 2. 51 32 13 116 1:30 PM— 18 2 55 . 34 13 122 4:00 PM , 19 7 43 ,37 11 117 4:15 PM 19 3 41 T 32 6 10I 4:30 PM 20 3 52 33 5 113 4:45 PM 20 2 43 - 34 7 106 5:00 PM 16 1 49 34 8 108 5:15 PM 15 1 . 51 35 7 109 '5:30 PMY 20, 1 52 37 8 118 . 5:45 PM. 19 1 49 35 7 111 6:60 PM 20 1 51 ..48 12 132 .6:15 PM 18 1 58 5.7 8 I42 .6:30 PM 22 1 65 . 52 1.1 -'151 1 6:45 PM 18 1 62 65 9 155 • 7;00 PM 19 1 66 67 9 , 162 Friday: January 811 Saturday: January 9h Both Days are from 11:30 AM to 1:30 PM and 4:00 PM to 7:00 PM Note: Count by 15-minute tntervaIs � • SATURDAY: JANUARY 9TH, 1999 PARSING AREAS-NUMBER OF PARKED CARS TIME A B C D E TOTAL #of Existing 154 13 ' .109_ 140 103 , 519 Parking Spaces 11:30 AM 7 I 52 50 7 I 17 11:45 AM 8 1 48 40 . 10 107 12:00 PM 7 2 43 42' 11 105 _.12:15 PM 8 2 . 47 27 10 94 12:30 PM 10 0 44 31 8 93 12:45 PM 9 0 40 42 8 99 1:00 PM 10 0 45 41 6 • 102 1:15 PM 11 0 .44 38 .8 101 1:30 PM 14 0 45 35 8 102 4:00 PM 11 1 -53 52 10 127 4:15 PM 11 1 42 60 12 126 4:30 PM ' 12 2 40 53 13 120 4:45 PM 12 2 31 55 12 112 5:00.PM 12 1 36 59 13 121 5:15-PM, I I 1 45 69' 14 140 5:30 PM 10 1 40 58 15 124 5:45 PM • 11 1 42 60 7 121 6:00 PM 11 1 48 .51 9 120, 6:15 PM,- 9 1 58 70 8 146 6:30 PM 9 1 . .84 81 10 185 6:45 PM 9 1 85 92 10 197 • 7:00 PM 11 1 86 . 93 10 201 ATTACHMENT D Resolution No. 3696 F i 1 RESOLUTION NO. 3696 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION- OF 3 THE CITY OF TUSTIN, APPROVING AN AMENDMENT TO CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 98-031 AUTHORIZING ON- 4 SITE SALE OF ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES (LICENSE 5 TYPE 41) AND THE USE OF SHARED PARKING FOR A TWENTY-EIGHT (28) SEAT RESTAURANT EXPANSION 6 AT THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 660 EL CAMINO REAL: 7 The Planning.Commission does hereby resolve as follows: s 1. The Planning Commission finds and determines as follows: 9 10 A. That a proper application for Amendment to Conditional Use Permit 98-031, was filed by Akira Takashio; requesting authorization for on- 11 site sale of alcoholic beverages (License Type "41") and the use of. 12 shared parking for a twenty-eight (28) seat restaurant expansion located at 660 EI Camino Real, Tustin. 13 B. That the proposed use is allowed within the Central Commercial (C- 14 2, P) Zoning District, with the approval of a Conditional Use Permit. 15 C. That a public hearing was duly called, noticed and held on said 16 application on October 25, 1999 by the Planning Commission.. " D. That the approval is based on the following findings: 1a 1. That the establishment, maintenance and operation of selling 19 alcoholic beverages for on-site consumption will not. be 20 detrimental to the health, safety, morals, comfort, or general welfare of the persons residing or working in the 21 neighborhood, nor be injurious or detrimental. to the property 22 and improvements in the neighborhood of the subject property, or to the general welfare of the City of Tustin; in that:- 23 - a. The use is restaurant where food will be served at all 24 times when alcoholic beverages are served. . 25 b. The use is located in a commercial' corridor.along EI Camino Real where a variety of retail, office, and 26 restaurant uses are located. C. There is sufficient parking for the existing and 27 proposed uses as evidenced by the parking analysis 28 prepared for the project. 29 2. That -the operational characteristics and features of the M facility are appropriate for the location in relation to surrounding areas, and other similar uses selling or serving Resolution No.. 3696 Page 2 • t • alcoholic beverages, in that .the use is located in a z commercial corridor and is limited to restaurant seating with 3 on-site sales of alcoholic beverages only: -As conditioned, no off-site alcoholic beverage sales are permitted and food 4 must be served during all hours in, which alcoholic 5 beverages are served. The characteristics of the use and hours of operation would be similar to other restaurants in 6 the vicinity. 7 3. That the proposed use is consistent with the General Plan 8 and Zoning Code in that the property is designated as "Old Town Commercial" and zoned "Central Commercial District" ' 9 which allows for the establishment of a restaurant use with 10 on-site sale of alcoholic beverages and shared parking subject to approval of a conditional use permit. 11 - 4. That, as conditioned, the proposed use is consistent with the 12 Alcoholic_Beverage Sales Establishment Guidelines adopted 13 by the Planning Commission on-August 23, 1999. 14 E. That this project is Categorically Exempt from the requirements of • i5 the California Environmental Quality Act, pursuant to Section 15301. (Class 1). 16 F. That the project has been reviewed for consistency with the Air 17 Quality Sub-element of the City of Tustin General Plan and has been 18 determined to be consistent with the Air Quality Sub-element. 19 II. The Planning Commission hereby approves Amendment to Conditional Use 20 Permit No. 98-031 authorizing on-site sale of alcoholic beverages (License Type "41") and the use of shared parking for a twenty-eight (28) seat 21 restaurant expansion, located at 660 EI Camino Real, subject to the conditions contained within Exhibit A, attached hereto. 22 23 PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Planning Commission of the City of-Tustin at a 24 regular meeting held on the 25t' day of October, 1999. 25 26 Z' STEPHEN V. KOZAK 28 Chairperson 29 ELIZABETH A. BINSACK Planning Commission Secretary Resoldion No.3696 Page 3 2 .� STATE OF CALIFORNIA ). 3 COUNTY OF ORANGE ) _ CITY OF TUSTIN ) ; 4 5 i, ELIZABETH A. BINSACK, the undersigned, hereby certify that I am•the Planning Commission, Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Tustin, 6 California; that Resolution No. 3696 was duly passed and adopted at a regular meeting .of the Tustin Planning Commission, held on the 25th day of October, 7 1999. 9 10 ELIZABETH A. BINSACK Planning Commission Secretary I1 12 13 14 IS 16 • n 17 I8 19. 20 _ 21 • . 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 EXHIBIT A RESOLUTION NO. 3696 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL- AMENDMENT TO'CONDITIONAL'USE PERMIT 98-031 . t GENERAL (1) 1,1 ,_The proposed project shall substantially,conform-with; the submitted plans date :stamped October 25, 1999, 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. (1) 1.2 Amendment to Conditional Use Permit approval shall become null and void unless an Alcoholic Beverage'Control License Type "41" is obtained from ABC and the sale and consumption of beef and wine commences within twelve (12) months of the date of this exhibit. Time extensions may be granted .by the Community Development Department if a written request is received by'the Community Development Department within thirty. (30) days prior to expiration. (1) 1.3 Amendment to Conditional Use Permit 98-031 authorizes ABC License Type "41"for the on-site sale and consumption of beer and wine only. (1) 1.4 The applicant shall hold harmless and defend the City of Tustin from all claims 'and liabilities arising out of a challenge of the City's approval of this project. USE RESTRICTIONS (1) 2.1 The proposed.- project is a .restaurant which by definition is a retail. establishment that sells food and beverages prepared on 'the site, where customers are served alcoholic beverages for on-site consumption. At least 80 percent of the premises seating shall be designed and used for and must possess -the necessary utensils, table ,service, and condiment dispensers with which to serve meals to-the public. The!gross annual sales of food shall exceed the sale of alcohol. ,The proposed restaurant does not include a cocktail lounge or a microbrewery. SOURCE CODES . (1) STANDARD CONDITION (5) 'RESPONSIBLE AGENCY REQUIREMENT (2) CEQA MITIGATION (6) LANDSCAPING GUIDELINES (3) UNIFORM BUILDING CODEIS (7) PC/CC POLICY (4) DESIGN REVIEW EXCEPTION _ I 1 Exhibit A Resolution 3696 October 25, 1999 Page 2 (1) 2.2 Applicants shall obtain the appropriate.license from the State Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control for the type of alcoholic sales authorized for the site. A copy shall be provided to the City. (1) 2.3 The restaurant use shall operate within all applicable State, County and. the Tustin City Code. Any violations of the regulations of the Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control as they pertain to the subject location, or of the City of Tustin, as they relate to the sale of alcoholic beverages, may result in the revocation of the subject Conditional Use Permit, as provided for by the Tustin City Code. (1) 2.4 No loitering signs shall be placed near the entrance on the outside of the premises or in -other specified locations where alcoholic beverages 'are sold. (1) 2.5 All litter shall be removed from the exterior areas around the premises including adjacent public sidewalk areas, and parking areas, no less frequently than once each day that the business is open. (1) 2.6 Public telephones inside the establishment shall be modified to prevent incoming calls. No exterior phones may be located on the premises. (1) 2.7 No sexually oriented businesses shall be conducted on the premises without approval by the City in accordance with the Tustin City Code. (1) 2.8 Business operations shall be in a manner which does not create a public or private nuisance. Any such nuisance must be abated immediately upon notice by the City of Tustin. (1) 2.9 The-applicant shall sign and return an "Agreement to Conditions Imposed" form provided by the Community Development Director which states that- the property owner, applicant, and/or tenant agrees to comply with all conditions imposed by the City. Failure to comply with the conditions of approval shall be grounds for revocation of the conditional use permit. (1) 2..90 All alcohol shall be consumed on-site with the exception of the provisions stated in the Business and Professions Code Section 23396.5 and 23401. (1) 2.19 Authorization for on-site sales of alcohol in conjunction with the proposed use is contingent upon the use remaining at the subject site. At such time the use is discontinued or no longer the primary use of the site, the use permit shall be deemed null and void. i Exhibit A Resolution 3696 October 25, 1999 Page 3 (1) 2.12 Ambient noise of the on-site sales facility shall not exceed the standards of the City of Tustin Noise Ordinance. (1) 2.13 The restaurant menu shall consist of'foods that are prepared on the premises. (1) 2.14 No outdoor seating is allowed at the site without approvals in accordance with the Tustin City Code. (1) 2.15 All persons serving alcoholic beverages within a restaurant establishment must be 18 years of age or older and supervised by someone 21 years of age or older. The supervisor shall be present in the same area as point,of sale. (1) 2.16 The sale of alcoholic beverages within a restaurant establishment shall be limited to the hours when food is available. Service of food menu items shall occur during all business hours. (1) 2.17 Hours of operation shall be limited to 11:00 a.m, to 12:00 a.m., midnight. (1) 2.18 A maximum of twenty-eight (28) restaurant seats may be located in the • restaurant expansion area as shown on the site plan. (1) 2.19 Gross annual sales receipts shall be provided to the Community Development Department one year from the date of this exhibit and annually thereafter. BUILDING DIVISION (1) 3.1 Plans shall comply with applicable codes, City Ordinances, and the State and Federal laws and regulations including: 1997 Uniform Building Code with California Amendments; 1997 Uniform Mechanical and Plumbing Codes with California Amendments; 1996 National Electrical Codes with California Amendments; T-24 California Disabled Access Regulations; T-24 California Energy Efficiency Standards; City of Tustin Grading an Security Ordinances; City of Tustin Landscape and Irrigation Guidelines; and, City of Tustin Private Improvement Standards. (1) 3.2 In compliance with the Uniform Building Code, applicant, designer, • Architect or Engineer must submit four (4) sets of construction plans, two Exhibit A Resolution 3696 October 25, 1999 Page 4 • (2) sets of structural calculations and Title 24 energy calculations prepared by a licensed engineer/architect to the Building Division for review and approval prior to the issuance of a building permit. No field changes shall be made without corrections submitted to and approved by the Community Development Department. (1) 3.3 In compliance with the California Code of Regulations, Title 24, Part 2, Accessibility Standards, and prior to the plan check approval, the designer, architect or engineer, must provide designs for accessibility for the physically challenged to the Building Division for their review and - approval prior to the issuance of a building permit. (1) 3.4 In compliance with the Department of Justice (Office of the Attorney General) the designer, architect or engineers proposed project must comply with the.American Disabilities Act (ADA). (1) 3.5 Parking for disabled persons shall be provided with an additional 5 foot loading area with striping and ramp; disabled persons shall be able to park and access the building without passing behind another car. At least one (1) accessible spade shall be van accessible served by a minimum 96 inch wide loading area. • (3) 3.6 Vehicle parking, primary entrance to the building, the primary paths of travel, cashier space, sanitary facilities, drinking fountain, and public telephones shall be accessible to persons with disabilities. (1) 3.7 The plans submitted into plan check shall indicate that both men and women toilets shall be made accessible to persons with disabilities or as modified per Title 24 requirements by the Building Official. (1) 3.8 In compliance with the Tustin City Code, prior to the issuance of a building permit, the designer, architect or engineer shall submit plans to the Orange County Health Department for project approval; and shall submit the approved pians to the City of Tustin Building Division for their review and approval prior to the issuance of a building permit. (5) 3.9 Specifications at Building Permit plan check submittal shall reflect material call-outs on all elevations with applicable details and notes added. (3) 3.10 Exit door in the expansion area to remain. Exit doors are required to be unlocked, identified with an illuminated exit sign, and powered by the building's power source. Exhibit A Resolution 3696 October 25, 1999 Page 5 • (3) 3.11 -Si ns indicating the number of occupants shall be posted in dining room s. The signs shall be located in a conspicuous area near the main exits. FEES (1) 4.1 Prior to issuance of any building permits, payment shall be made of all applicable fees, including but not limited to the following. Payment shall be required based upon those rates in effect at the time of payment and are subject to change. a) Building plan-check and permit fees to the Community Development Department based on the most current schedule. b) Orange County Fire Authority plan-check and inspection fees to the Community Development Department based upon the most.current schedule. (1) 4.2' Within forty eight (48) hours of approval of the subject project, the applicant shall deliver to the Community Development Department, a cashier check payable to the COUNTY CLERK in the amount of $38.00 (thirty eight dollars) to enable the City to file the appropriate environmental . documentation for the project. If within such forty eight (48) hour period that applicant- has not delivered to the Community Development Department the above noted check, the statute of limitations for any interested party to challenge the environmental determination under the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act could be significantly lengthened. %1COMM DEVIVOLIISHARED%CDD-RDAICDDIPCRESOS13696.don ITEM #5 ,DATE: OCTOBER 25, 1999 Inter- Com TO: PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT SUBJECT: STATUS REPORTS RECOMMENDATION Receive and file. BACKGROUND Please find attached the monthly status reports related to development activity in East Tustin and other areas of the City. There are two reports provided: P 1. Development Review Status Report- Citywide 2. Development Review Status Report- Tustin Ranch Staff would be happy to respond to any questions the Commission may have at tete meeting. Karen Peterson Senior Planner Attachments: Development Review Status Report East Tustin Status Report KP:statrept COMMUNITY OMENT DEPARTMENT • �. CURRENT PLANNING PROJECT STATUS - NOT INCLUDING EAST TUSTIN PROJECTS PROJECT STATUS LEGEND DATE OF REPORT: October 19, 1999 01 - ORIGINAL SUBMITTAL 05 - PROJECT APPROVED SORT: LEGEND ITEMS 01-07 02 RESUBMITTAL 06 - PLAN CHECK 03 - COMMENTS OUT/PENDING APPLICANT RESPONSE 07 PERMITS ISSUED/UNDER CONSTRUCTION 08 - PROJECT COMPLETE TENTATIVE HEARING DATES 09 WITHDRAWN _ 10 - EXPIRED 04.1 - ZONING ADMINISTRATOR 11 - DENIED 04.2 PLANNING COMMISSION 12 - REVOKED 04.3 - CITY COUNCIL STATUS RESPONSE CASE ♦E APPLICANT PROJECT ADDRESS DESCRIPTION STATUS DATE DUE STAFF CUP99-024 David Hughes 640 1ST ST UD/CUP for Marital Arts Studio 01 10/01/99 10/26/99 Minoo Ashabi UD 99-003 David Hughes 640 1ST ST UD/CUP for Martial Arts Studio 01 10/01/99 10/26/99 Minoo Ashabi CUP99-017 Alex Mann 1091 IRVINE BL Live Entertainment/Tustin Lanes 02 10/06/99 10/27/99 Lori Ludi CUP99-019 Donald Frizzell 1111 EL CAMINO REAL 90-Student Pre-School/8 Staff 02 10/19/99 11/09/99 Brad Evanson DR 98-024 ASL Consulting Engineers 235 E MAIN ST Main Street Reservoir/Parking 02 08/25/99 10/21/99 Lori Ludi DR 99-012 Media One Phase 111: 50 Power Supply Cabinets 02 10/11/99 11/01/99 Minoo Ashabi CUP98-018 orange County Rescue Miss MCAS.PA3 - Emergency/Transitional Housing 03 09/03/98 Lori Ludi CUP99-007 American Senior Living 1101 SYCAMORE AV 60-Unit Senior Housing Project 03 04/26/99 Justine Wilkhom CUP99-009 Willy Paul, Architect 1352 IRVINE BL Law Office & School 03 05/06/99 Lori Ludi CUP99-012 sprint PCS 15201 WOODLAWN AV 60' Monopole w/ 12 Antennas 03 06/24/99 'Lori Ludi CUP99-020 Reverend Mark E. Whitlock 1541 PARKWAY LOOP Church in Industrial 03 09/15/99 Minoo Ashabi CUP99-021 L.J. Hausner 505 1ST ST construction Office 03 09/30/99 Minoo Ashabi 'DR 98-018 Orange County Rescue Miss_. MCAS PA3 Emergency/TransitionaL Housing 03 09/03/98 Lori Ludi DR 98-032 Arther Masooka • 140 A ST Demo/New Residence 03 07/14/99 Karen Peterson DR 99-006 American Senior Living 1101 SYCAMORE AV 60-Unit Senior Housing Project 03 04/26/99 Justine WiLkhom DR 99-010' Media One Phase II: 12 Power Supply Cabinets 03 06/24/99 Minoo Ashabi DR 99-024 Media One Phase 1V: 6 Power Supply Cabinets 03 08/19/99 Minoo Ashabi DR 99-027 Conrad & Denise Sawicz 13571 FAIRMONT WY Residential Remodel 03 08/16/9Q Brad Evanson DR 99-028 Media One Phase V: 6 Power Supply Cabinets 03 08/23/99 Minoo Ashabi DR 99-030 Sprint PCS Cell Site @ Commuter Rail Platform 03 10/14/99 Minoo Ashabi GPA99-002 American Senior Living 1101 SYCAMORE AV MDR to HDR 03 04/26/99 Justine Wilkhom SCE99-004 Jerry Firth 12821 NEWPORT AV Wall sign 03 09/30/99 Lori Ludi VAR99-001 American Senior Living 1101 SYCAMORE AV 60-Unit Senior Housing 03 04/26/99 Justine Wilkhom Page 1 STATUS RESPONSE CASE p APPLICANT PROJECT ADDRESS DESCRIPTION STATUS - DATE DUE STAFF ZC 99-003 American Senior Living 1101 SYCAMORE AV R-4 to R-3 03 04/26/99 Justina Wilkhom CUP99-023 Hassan Keivannia 13882 NEWPCRT AV Restaurant ABC License 04.1 11/01/99 Lori Ludi CUP98-031 Akira Takashio 658 EL CAMINO REAL Amendment: 39 Seat Expansion 04.2 10/25/99 Justina Willkom DR 99-022 Jersey Business Center As 2741 WALNUT AV New 35,000 S.F. Building 04.2 10/25/99 Minoo Ashabi TPM99-196 Jersey Business Center As 2741 WALNUT AV Lot Split/New Building 04.2 10/25/99 Minoo Ashabi DR 98-036 Hal Woods 12569 NEWPORT AV New Building 04.3 11/01/99 Lori Ludi ZC 98-006 Hal Woods 12569 NEWPORT AV New Building 04.3 11/01/99 Lori Ludi CUP98-022 Jack StanaLand 13011 NEWPORT AV Add parking on vacant ROW 05 07/06/99 Justin Willkom CUP98-028 Dr. Craig/Dr. Lavach 2955 EDINGER ST Veterinary Hospital at Jamboree Plaza 05 01/05/99 Brad Evanson CUP99-002 Consolidated Restaurants 13922 RED HILL AV CUP 99-002(A)&(B) Restaurant/Pole Sign 05 08/09/99 Brad Evanson CUP99-003 Craig Wasserman 675 EL CAMINO REAL Entertainment Permit 05 03/22/99 Scott Reekstin CUP99-004 Pacific Bell Wireless 14451 MYFORD RD Modification of existing cell site. 05 04/12/99 Minoo Ashabi CUP99-008 Michael & Lisa Broome 3047 EDINGER ST Vetrinary Nuclear Imaging 05 05/10/99 Minoo Ashabi CUP99-016 Denise Menz 14392 HOLT AV Second Unit- 05 10/11/99 Brad Evanson CUP99-018 Met Malkoff 2111 BRYAN AV Expansion of pre-schoolto 79/modular unit. 05 09/13/99 Lori Ludi DR 98-026 Jack Stanatand 13011 NEWPORT AV Add parking on vacant ROW - '05 07/06/99 Justina Willkom DR 99-001 Consolidated Restaurants 13922 RED HILL AV New Drive-thru Restaurant 05 07/12/99 Brad Evanson DR 99-009 EuiLon Enterprises 13891 RED HILL AV Exterior Remodel of Shell Station 05 07/21/99 Minoo Ashabi DR 99-015 - Audrey-Heredia 355 C ST Gazebo/RemovaL of Parking 05 06/21/99 Minoo Ashabi DR 99-016 Tyrone Hurtado 305 6TH ST Residential Remodel 05 07/19/99 Minoo Ashabi DR 99-020 Ed and Diane Finkbeiner 163 MOUNTAIN VIEW D New Residence 05 09/22/99 Minoo Ashabi DR 99-021 Ed and Diane Finkbeiner 165 MOUNTAIN VIEW D New Residence 05 09/22/99 Minoo Ashabi DR 99-023 Hien Pham 14092 C ST Kitchen/Bath Expansion 05 07/16/99 Minoo Ashabi/Lauren DR 99-025 Curt and Sheila Lilly 145 A ST Reconstruction of fire-damaged residence. 05 07/27/99 Brad Evanson DR 99-029 Mel MaLkoff 2111 BRYAN AV Expansion of pre-school to 79/modular unit. 05 09/13/99 Lori Ludi SCE99-001 Consolidated Restaurants 13922 RED HILL AV - SCE 99-001(A)&(B) Wall/Pole Sign ' 05 08/09/99 Brad Evanson TPM99-197 Consolidated Restaurants 13922 RED HILL AV Lot Consolidation 05 10/18/99 Brad Evanson VAR99-003 Willis sutcliff 330 CALIFORNIA ST Fence Height Variance 05 09/13/99 Minoo Ashabi CUP97-005 _ Bennett Architects 535 E MAIN ST Appeal Carwash/Service Station/Retail 06 06/22/99 Brad Evanson .CUP98-007 Alegre Associates 12972 NEWPORT AV Appeal - Lube/Oil Facility '06 06/16/99 LoriLudi CUP98-013 The Meridian Group 3017 EDINGER ST ABC Type 20 06 02/10/99 Karen Peterson CUP98-023 Barbara Krull 1091 BRYAN AV - 60 Student Preschool 06 01/11/99 Justine WiLLkom CUP99-013 Vons 550 IST ST Vons expansion of 11,400 square feet. 06 07/12/99 Brad Evanson CUP99-015 Bennett Architects 155 EL CAMINO REAL Mail Order Use/Parking Ratio 06 08/25/99 Lori Ludi DR 95-044 Michael A. Murphy&Assoc 2832 DOW AV Parking Lot Expansion 06 11/20/98 Justine WiLlkom i Page 2 • • .• • • STATUS RESPONSE • CASE APPLICANT PROJECT ADDRESS DESCRIPTION STATUS DATE DUE STAFF DR 96-056 The Meridian Group 3017 EDINGER ST Service Station/Conv. Market 06 02/10/99 Karen Peterson DR 97-031 City of Tustin 13331 FOOTHILL BL City Water Reservior Booster Pump 06 06/08/98 Lori Ludi DR 98-006 The Meridian Group 3017 EDINGER ST Service Station/Conv. Market/Drive-thru 06' 02/10/99 Karen Peterson DR 98-007 Alegre Associates 12972 NEWPORT AV Appeal - Lube/Oil Facility 06 06/16/99 Lori Ludi DR 98-022 William B. Standford O.D. 190 EL CAMINO REAL Remodel 06 06/04/99 Minoo Ashabi DR 98-034 DeBeikas/Jeff Bergsma 765 EL CAMINO REAL Exterior Rehab 06 08/12/99 Lori Ludi DR 99-007 City of Tustin Commuter Rail Platform 06 05/10/99 Scott Reekstin DR 99-014 Bennett Architects 155 EL CAMINO REAL New Building 06 08/25/99 Lori Ludi DR 99-019 Vons 550 1ST ST Vons expansion of 11,400 square feet. 06 07/12/99 Brad Evanson TPM97-117 Bennett Architects 535 E MAIN ST Carwash/Service Station/Retail 06 06/22/99 Brad Evanson CUP96-019 James Kincennon 14752 HOLT AV 10 Person Rest Home 07 04/16/98 Lori Ludi CUP96-020 Service Station Services 13891 RED HILL,AV Time Extension - Station Remodel 07 03/29/99 Minoo Ashabi CUP97-006 Richard Rangel 333 EL CAMINO REAL Office Addition 07 02/09/99 Karen Peterson CUP98-021 IEA 630 E IST ST New monument signs 07 09/28/98 Minoo Ashabi CUP98-026 Alex Gaon 500 C ST Medical office use in R-3 zone- 07 03/24/99 Minoo Ashabi CUP98-037 David Smith/Bally Fitness 630 EL CAMINO REAL Health Club 07 04/12/99 Lori Ludi CUP99-011 Tustin Presbyterian Churc 225 MAIN ST Monument Sign w/ Changeable Copy 07 08/24/99 Minoo Ashabi DR 95-037 Ralph Turner 235 S MYRTLE ST Remodel/Addition 07 02/05/96 Dan Fox DR 96-007 Chevron USA 13052 NEWPORT AV Soil Remediation 07 07/14/98 Brad Evanson DR 96-044 Kimberly Barnhard 265 S PACIFIC ST Room addition and detached garage - Old Town 07 10/10/96 Karen Peterson DR 96-053 MC WILLIAMS, TRAVIS 0 328 W 3RD ST Roof Remodel 07 01/17/97 Karen Peterson DR 97-009 Bennett Architects 535 E MAIN ST Appeal Carwash/Service Station/Retail 07 04/09/99 Brad Evanson DR 97-010 Aleksandar Mackovski 13472 EPPING WY Room Addition 07 09/25/97 Karen Peterson DR 97-011 Richard Rengel 333 EL CAMINO REAL Office addition 07 02/09/99 Karen Peterson DR 97-012 Patrick Mattison 510 S D ST Room Addition 07 10/01/97 Karen Peterson DR 97-018 Julie Chamberlain Archite 158 N MOUNTAIN VIEW D Residential Remodel 07 01/16/98 Brad Evanson DR 97-034 Terry Tull 165 S PACIFIC ST Room Addition 07 10/05/98 Minoo Ashabi DR 98-013 McCausland, Charles &Ali 135 S A ST Second Dwelling Unit 07 04/22/99 Minoo Ashabi DR 98-017 BORUSKY, THOMAS J. 160 N 8 ST Residential Remodel 07 08/19/98 Lori Ludi DR 98-023 Custom Signs, Inc. 1091 OLD IRVINE BL Neon Sign, Paint/Reface pole sign 07 D9/29/98 Brad Evanson DR 98-028 KRULL, BARBARA J. 1091 BRYAN AV 60 Student Preschool 07 05/07/99 Justina WiLLkom DR 98-030 Arnold Surfas 145 IST ST Exterior Modification 07 03/10/99 Minoo Ashabi DR 98-037 Jerry Soxman/Leslie Mitch 13792 MALENA DR Room Addition/RemodeL 07 03/22/99 Justina Wilkom DR 99-002 John & Dori Radice 180 A ST Porch Addition 07 04/26/99 Minoo Ashabi DR 99-004 Jahangeer Shahidzadeh 465 6TH ST RemodeL/Room Addition 07 06/07/99 Brad Evanson DR 99-013 William H. Barstow 14282 WILLOW LN Residential Remodel 07 07/08/99 Minoo Ashabi SCE98-003 PBMS 2521 MICHELLE DR Increase sign area 07 10/28/98 Lori Ludi VAR98-005 E/C Engineering 1452 EDINGER ST Equipment Building encroaching into Streetsid 07 02/17/99 Minoo Ashabi Page 3 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT CURRENT PLANNING PROJECT STATUS - EAST TUSTIN PROJECTS PROJECT STATUS LEGEND DATE OF REPORT: October 19, 1999 01 - ORIGINAL SUBMITTAL 05 - PROJECT APPROVED SORT: LEGEND ITEMS 01-07 02 RESUBMITTAL 06 PLAN CHECK 03 - COMMENTS OUT/PENDING APPLICANT RESPONSE 07 PERMITS ISSUED/UNDER CONSTRUCTION 08 - PROJECT COMPLETE- TENTATIVE HEARING DATES 09 - WITHDRAWN 10 - EXPIRED 04.1 ZONING ADMINISTRATOR 11 DENIED 04.2 - PLANNING COMMISSION 12 - REVOKED _ 04.3 - CITY COUNCIL PROJECT LOCATION STATUS RESPONSE CASE # APPLICANT LOT TRACT DESCRIPTION STATUS DATE DUE STAFF DR 95-045 HOME DEPOT Monitor outside display area 02 01/13/00 Karen Peterson DR 99-026 Congregation B'Nai Israel Disabled Access Lift 02 09/28/99 10/19/99 Brad Evanson CUP98-025 The Church 7 12870 900 seat church/Pre School 03 11/11/98 Lori Ludi DR 98-029 The Church 7 12870 900 Seat Church/Pre school 03 11/11/98 Lori Ludi DR 96-054 The Irvine Company 24 13627 113 Custom Home Sites, Equestrian Center 05 02/12/98 Karen Peterson DR 99-018 Richard Chang old Navy Storefront Modification 05 06/28/99 Brad Evanson HR 96-002 The Irvine Company 24 13627 113 Custom Home Sites, Equestrian Center 05 02/12/98 Karen Peterson TT 14396 Irvine Community Developm 24 13627 113 Custom Home Sites, Equestrian Center 05 02/12/98 Karen Peterson MA 99-002 Hunsaker & Associates. Increase Wall Height 06 09/27/99 Brad Evanson DR 96-050 Mr. MeL Mercado 27 13627 162 SFD 07 01/19/98 Minoo Ashabi DR 96-057 John Laing Homes 4 12870 75 SFD .07 04/16/98 Lori Ludi DR 97-014 LPA, Inc. Auto dealer/museum 07 04/09/98 Minoo Ashabi DR 97-019 Rielly Homes, Inc. 19 12870 Add New Recreation Facility 07 02/23/98 Karen Peterson DR 97-035 Warmington Homes 26 13627 44 sfd 07 07/09/98 Karen'Peterson i DR 98-012 BrookFieLd•HOmes 9 13627 114 sfd 07 12/07/98 Karen Peterson DR 98-015 Stendard'Pacific 24 13627 46 sfd on Tract 15563 07 10/15/98 Karen Peterson ' DR 98-027 James H. Parkinson Exterior remodel/Remove canopy & office build 07 10/01/98 Lori Ludi DR 98-031 Frank Bennett Development of 2 pads in Tustin Annex 07 06/11/99 Lori Ludi NR 9B-001 Warmington Homes. 26 13627 HILLSIDE REVIEW 07 06/01/98 Karen Peterson HR 98-002 BrooW eld Homes 9 13627 114 sfd 07 12/07/98 Karen Peterson TT 15380 Mr. MeL Mercado 27 13627 162 SFD, Amend Conditions 07 01/19/98 Minoo Ashabi Page 1 • • • • PROO'ECT LOCATION • - STATUS RESPONSE • CASE # APPLICANT LOT TRACT DESCRIPTION STATUS DATE DUE STAFF TT 15420 Jahn Laing Homes 4 12870 75 SFD 07 01/30/98, Lori Ludi TT 15568 Kaufman 8 Broad Coastal, 19 13627 130 SFD 07 04116/98 Lori Ludi TT 15601 Warmington Homes 26 13627 44 sfd 07 06/01/98 Karen Peterson TT 15681 BrookFieLd Homes 9 13627 114 sfd 07 12/07/98 Karen Peterson *** END OF REPORT ***, Page 2 - - - - ITEM#6 GReport to the Planning Commission DATE: OCTOBER 25, 1999 SUBJECT: CITY COUNCIL ACTION AGENDA, OCTOBER 18, 1999 PRESENTATION: ELIZABETH A. BINSACK, DIRECTOR COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT ATTACHMENT: CITY COUNCIL ACTION AGENDA- OCTOBER 18, 1999 • ACTION AGENDA CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING OCTOBER 18, 1999 7:00 P.M. CALL TO ORDER GIVEN INVOCATION . Lois Jeffrey, City Attorney GIVEN PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE ALL PRESENT ROLL CALL PRESENTED PROCLAMATION Tustin Woodcarvers Week, October 17- 241h PUBLIC INPUT ROBERT MACHADO: REPRESENTING TUSTIN PUBLIC SCHOOLS FOUNDATION, REPORTED DINOSAUR DASH EVENT WOULD BE HELD ON NOVEMBER 14 AND PRESENTED T-SHIRTS TO THE CITY COUNCIL. EVELYN HICKS AND TOM ANDERSON: REQUESTED STREET NAME 'CHANGE FROM BRUNO DRIVE TO BRUNS DRIVE IN MEMORY OF JOHN BRUNS. MAYOR RESPONDED SUBJECT WOULD BE AGENDIZED AT . NOVEMBER 1ST COUNCIL MEETING AND CLARIFIED THAT THE NAME WAS MISSPELLED ON THE AMERICAN LEGION LIST RECEIVED BY THE CITY.' PUBLIC HEARING ( ITEM I ) ADOPTED 1. TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 99-197 (APPLICANT: RESOLUTION CONSOLIDATED RESTAURANTS OF CALIFORNIA) NO. 99-88 Tentative Parcel Map 99-197 is a request to combine the two lots located at 13922 Red Hill Avenue into one lot for the purpose of developing a previously approved 3,322 square foot fast food restaurant. Recommendation by the Community Development Department: 1. Open and close the Public Hearing. Action Agenda —City Council October 18, 1999 — Page 1 4 2. Adopt the= following Resolution No. 99-88 approving Tentative Parcel Map 99-197: RESOLUTION NO. 99-88 - A RESOLUTION OF THE -CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP- 99.197 TO COMBINE THE TWO LOTS LOCATED AT 13922'RED HILL AVENUE INTO ONE LOT FOR THE PURPOSE OF DEVELOPING A 3,322 SQUARE FOOT FAST FOOD RESTAURANT CONSENT CALENDAR ( ITEMS- 2 THROUGH 12 ) APPROVED 2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES -- OCTOBER 4, 1999 REGULAR MEETING Recommendation: Approve the City Council Minutes of October 4, 1999. APPROVED 3. APPROVAL OF DEMANDS AND RATIFICATION OF PAYROLL Recommendation: Approve Demands in the amount of $1,829,578.56 and ratify Payroll in the amount of -,$397,512.14. - RATIFIED 397;512.14. -RATIFIED 4. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION AGENDA — OCTOBER 11, 1999 All actions of the Plann-ing Commission become final unless appealed by the City Council or member of the public. Recommendation: Ratify the. Planning Commission Action.Agenda of October 11, 1999. APPROVED 5. CONTRACT AMENDMENT FOR ADDING SYCAMORE LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE AREAS TO THE EXISTING CONTRACT WITH PLANT CONTROL LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE, INC. Recommendation: Approve the fourth amendment to . the contract agreement between Plant_ Control Landscape Maintenance, Inc. and the City for landscape maintenance services subject to City Attorney approval as recommended by the Public Works Department/Field Services. ADOPTED 6. RESOLUTION NO. 99-89 - A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY RESOLUTION COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA, S NO. 99-89 SUPPORTING THE GROUNDWATER REPLENISHMENT Action Agenda— City Council October 18, 1999 — Page 2 SYSTEM, A JOINT EFFORT OF THE ORANGE COUNTY WATER DISTRICT AND THE ORANGE COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICT Recommendation: Adopt Resolution No. 99-89 as recommended by the Public Works Department/` Engineering Division. APPROVED 7. AWARD OF CONTRACT FOR RED HILL AVENUE REHABILITATION BETWEEN WALNUT AVENUE AND EDINGER AVENUE (CIP NO. 7124) Recommendation: Declare that Sequal Contractors bid is non-responsive and award the construction contract for Red Hill Avenue Rehabilitation Project to All American Asphalt, the second low bidder, in the amount of $629,486.53 and authorize the Mayor and City Clerk to execute the contract documents on behalf of the City as recommended by the Public Works Department/ Engineering Division. ADOPTED 8. RESOLUTION NO. 99-85 - A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY RESOLUTION COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA, N0: 99-85 APPROVING PLANS AND. SPECIFICATIONS FOR THE RED HILL AVENUE UNDERGROUND UTILITY DISTRICT NO. '14•-ON-SITE ELECTRICAL SERVICE CONVERSIONS (CIP NO. 7156) Recommendation: Adopt Resolution No. 99-85 approving the plans and specifications for the Red Hill Avenue Underground Utility District No. 14 On-site Electrical Service Conversions (CIP No. 7156) and authorizing and directing the City Clerk to advertise for bids as recommended by the Public Works Department/ Engineering Division. REMOVED FROM 9. RESOLUTION NO. 99-67 - A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY AGENDA COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION FOR THE -IRVINE BOULEVARD AND NEWPORT AVENUE INTERSECTION ENHANCEMENT PROJECT (CIP NO. 7118) Recommendation: Adopt Resolution No. 99-67 which approves the final Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Irvine Boulevard and Newport Avenue Intersection Enhancement Project pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act and direct staff to file a Notice of Determination after the Project Report is approved via separate resolution as recommended by the Public Works Department/Engineering Division. Action Agenda — City Council Octdber 18, 1999— Page 3 REMOVED FROM 10. RESOLUTION N.O. 99-68 - A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY • AGENDA COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA, FOR ACCEPTANCE 'OF THE PROJECT REPORT AND AUTHORIZATION TO PROCEED TO FINAL ENGINEERING FOR THE IRVINE BOULEVARD AND NEWPORT AVENUE INTERSECTION ENHANCEMENT PROJECT (CIP NO: 7.118) Recommendation: Adopt Resolution No. 99-68 approving the final'•Project Report and authorizing staff to proceed w-ith final-engineering for the Irvine Boulevard and Newport Avenue .Intersection Enhancement Project as recommended by the Public Works Department/ Engineering Division. RECEIVED 11. QUARTERLY INVESTMENT REPORT AND FILED In compliance with Government Code Section 53646, the. Investment Report for the quarter ending September 30, 1999, is submitted for City Council review. Recommendation: Receive and file subject report as . recommended by the City Treasurer. APPROVED 12. EXTENSION OF LEAVE OF ABSENCE, ROMAN LOPEZ Recommendation: Authorize extending Roman 'Lopez's medical leave of absence for an additional six months .as • recommended by Personnel Services. REGULAR BUSINESS ( ITEMS 13 THROUGH 14 ) ADOPTED 13. ORDINANCE NO. 1221, 20/0 AT 55 PUBLIC EMPLOYEES 'ORDINANCE RETIREMENT SYSTEM CONTRACT AMENDMENT NO. x:221. Ordinance No. 1221 had first reading by title only, and introduction at the September 20,7, 1999 City Council meeting. Recommendation by the City Clerk's Office: 1. Have second reading by title only of Ordinance No. ' 1221. 2. With a roll call vote, adopt the follow irig Ordinance No. 1221: ORDINANCE • NO. 1221 • AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA, AUTHORIZING AN AMENDMENT TO Action Agenda -City Council October 18, 1999 — Page 4 THE CONTRACT BETWEEN THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN AND THE BOARD OF ADMINISTRATION OF THE CALIFORNIA PUBLIC EMPLOYEES RETIREMENT SYSTEM ADOPTED 14. ACTIONS RELATING TO THE 1999 AMENDMENT TO, RESOLUTION THE REDEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR THE SOUTH NOS. 99-82 CENTRAL AREA REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT, AND 99-87 CERTIFICATION OF THE RELATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND APPROVAL OF THE 1999 INTRODUCED AMENDMENT ,ORDINANCE N0, 1223 City Council approval of the written responses to written and oral objections received on the 1999 Amendment to the Redevelopment Plan for the South Central Area Redevelopment Project, certification of the Negative Declaration for the 1999 Amendment, and adoption of the 1999 Amendment is requested. The 1999 Amendment proposes to re-establish the- Agency's heAgency's eminent domain authority for twelve years. Recommendation by the Redevelopment Agency staff: Adapt -the , following Resolution No. 99.87 - approving the written responses to written and oral comments received on the proposed 1999 Amendment to the Redevelopment Plan for the South Central Area Redevelopment Project: RESOLUTION NO. 99-87 - A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL. OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA, ADOPTING WRITTEN RESPONSES TO WRITTEN AND ORAL OBJECTIONS TO THE 1999 AMENDMENT TO THE REDEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR THE SOUTH CENTRAL REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT 2. Adopt the following Resolution No. 99.82 certifying the Negative Declaration prepared for in connection with the 1999 Amendment: RESOLUTION NO. 99-82 - A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY, OF TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING THE NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR THE 1999 AMENDMENT TO THE SOUTH CENTRAL REDEVELOPMENT AREA ,*PLAN Action Agenda =City Council October 18, 1999 — Page 6 3. Have first reading by title only and introduction of the following Ordinance No. 1223: ORDINANCE N0. 122.3 - AN.ORDINANCE^OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA, ADOPTING THE 1999 AMENDMENT TO THE REDEVELOPMENT PLAN -FOR. THE SOUTH - CENTRAL REDEVELOPMENT PROJE7CT AREA, CITY OF TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA, A • TRUE AND CORRECT COPY IS INCORPORATED HEREIN BY REFERENCE AS EXHIBIT "I'" NONE PUBLIC INPUT OTHER BUSINESS / COMMITTEE REPORTS DOYLE: COMMENDED STAFF AND PARADE COMMITTEE FOR SUCCESSFUL TILLER DAYS EVENT. REPORTED-THAT CHIEF FOSTER'S FATHER WAS ILL AND REQUESTED POSITIVE THOUGHTS FOR''HIS RECOVERY. REPORTED.THAT-THE ORANGE COUNTY FIRE AUTHORITY ' WOULD ATTEND- THE NOVEMBER IST CITY COUNCIL MEETING TO RESPOND TO QUESTIONS FROM THE COUNCIL AND PUBLIC. POTTS- EXPRESSED DISAPPOINTMENT THAT THE BRUNO/ BRUNS. STREET- NAME' CHANGE ISSUE HAD NOT BEEN AGENDIZED, NOTED THAT STAFF WAS COMPLETING THE SURVEY, AND THE MATTER WOULD BE AGENDIZED_ IN TWO WEEKS, REQUESTED COMPLETION OF A PATHWAY FOR THE NEW TRAIL SYSTEM AT THE JAMBOREE, UNDERCROSSING AND THE GOLF COURSE. j REQUESTED AN ANCREASE IN PLANNING AND PARKS COMMISSIONERS' COMPENSATION BE AGENDIZED FOR COUNCIL ACTION. SALTARELLI: REPORTED CONSTRUCTION DEBRIS AND FENCING HAD BEEN AT THE. JAMBOREE/IRVINE BOULEVARD. INTERSECTION FOR A CONSIDERABLE PERIOD OF TIME AND REQUESTED REMOVAL. STAFF RESPONDED THAT • WAS AN IRVINE COMPANY PROJECT, CHANGE ORDERS Action Agenda —City Council October 18, 1999 — Page 6 3 WERE.. IN PROCESS, AND THE PROJECT SHOULD BE PAVED BY THE END OF THE WEEK. COMMENDED STAFF AND THE EVENTCOMMITTEE FOR A SUCCESS FUL-TILLER DAYS. . REPORTED, 'WITH PLEASURE, THAT PENN STATE HAD DEFEATED OHIO STATE, AND NOTED HIS DISAPPOINTMENT THAT _THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT - DIRECTOR WAS ABSENT FROM THE MEETING. -- . THOMAS: CLARIFIED THAT CONGESTION AT YORBA AND IRVINE HAD BEEN DUE TO TRAFFIC SIGNAL PROBLEMS. COMMENDED • STAFF . AND _THE MAYOR FOR. THEIR EFFORTS IN PREVENTING THE LOCATION OF A_ PAROLE OFFICE IN TUSTIN. WORLEY: COMMENDED STAFF AND THE EVENT COMMITTEE FOR. A SUCCESSFUL TILLER DAYS. r REPORTED SHE WOULD BE A SPEAKER AT A. HOUSING FORUM � REGARDING ,CURRENT LEGISLATION THAT DISALLOWED CITIES FROM PROHIBITING -OVERCROWDING IN APARTMENT UNITS, AND LOCAL EFFORTS TO CHANGE THE LAWS TO ENFORCE REASONABLE OCCUPANCY LEVELS.. NONE CLOSED SESSION - None 7:33 P.M. ADJOURNMENT - The next regular .meeting of the City. Council is scheduled for Monday, November 1, 1999, at 7:00 p:m. in the Council Chamber at 300 Centennial Way. F , Action Agenda —City Council October 1&, 1999 = Page 7 ACTION AGENDA REGULAR MEETING,OF THE TUSTIN COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OCTOBER 18, 1999 7:33 P.M. CALL TO ORDER ALL PRESENT ROLL,CALL - REGULAR BUSINESS (ITEMS 1 THROUGH 2 ) APPROVED 1. APPROVAL OF MINUTES— OCTOBER 4, 1999 REGULAR MEETING Recommendation: Approve the Redevelopment Agency Minutes of October 4, 1999. APPROVED 2. - APPROVAL OF DEMANDS • Recommendation: Approve Demands in the amount of $207;607.40. • NONE OTHER BUSINESS NONE CLOSED SESSION None 7:33 P.M. ADJOURNMENT The next regular meeting of the Redevelopment Agency. is scheduled for Monday, November 1, - 1999, at 7:00 p.m: -in the Council Chamber at 300 Centennial Way. Action Agenda—Redevelopment Agency October 18, 1999—Page 1