Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout04-12-99 PC PACKET 0", '3 AGENDA TUSTIN PLANNING COMMISSION • REGULAR MEETIN APRIL 12, 1999 k CALL TO ORDER: 7:00 p.m., City Coun it Chambers PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: Commissioner Davert INVOCATION: Commissioner Browne ROLL CALL. Chairperson Pontio s, Browne, Davert, Kawashima and Kozak PUBLIC CONCERNS: (Limited to 3 minutes perperson.for items.not,on the agenda.) At this time members othe 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 la,w). IF YOU WISH TO ADDRESS THE COMMISSION ON ANY MATTER, PLEASE FILL . OUT ONE OF THE CARDS LOCATED ON THE SPE KER'S TABLE SO THAT YOUR REMARKS ON THE TAPE RECORDING,OF THE MEETING CAN BE ATTRIBUTED TC YOU. WHEN Y_ OU START TO ADDRESS THE .COMMI SIGN, PLEASE STATE YOUR FULL NAME AND ADDRE S FOR THE RECORD. IF YOU REQUIRE SPECIA ACCOMMODATIONS, PLEASE CONTACT,THE PLANNIN COMMISSION SECRETARY AT (714) 573-3106. CONSENT CALENDAR: (ALL MATTERS LISTED JNDER CONSENT CALENDAR ARE CONSIDERED ROUT NE AND WILL BE ENACTED BY' ONE MOTION. THER WILL BE -NO SEPARATE DISCUSSION OF THESE 1: EMS 'PRIOR TO THE TIME OF THE VOTING ON THEM TION UNLESS MEMBERS OF THE COMMISSION, ST FF OR PUBLIC REQUEST SPECIFIC ITEMS TO BE ISCUSSED AND10R� REMOVED ` FROM THE CONSENT CALENDAR FOR. SEPARATE' ACTION.) Planning Commission Agenda . April 12, 1999 Page 2 CONSENT CALENDAR: 1. Minutes of the March 22 1999 Planning Commission Meeting. 2. Continued Public' Hearing for Conditional Use Permit 98-007 & DgaLcLn Review 98-007 a request to construct a 1,541 square foot drive-through oil change facility with two work bays and indoorloutdoor waiting areas. The project is located- - at 12972 Newport Avenue within the Retail Commercial District C-1 zone, Town Center Redevelopment Project Area. ' APPLICANT: EZ LUBE MICHAEL J. DOBSON PROPERTY OWNER:. KCIOB PARTNERS, LLC TIM O'BR1EN ,Recommendation That the Planning Commission adopt Resolution No. 3664 recommending . that the City Council approve Conditional Use Permit 98-007,and Design Review 98-007. PUBLIC HEARINGS: 3. Continued Public Hearing.' Conditional Use Permit 98-022 and Design Review. 98-026 a request to establish a commercial parking lot 1n a 50' by 314' portion of an abandoned railroad right-of-way. The project 'is located at a vacant parcel to the'north of 13031 Newport Avenue and.to the west of 12901-12943 y Newport Avenue in the Multiple Family Residential(R-3)zoning district. APPLICANT:' JACK STANALAND PLAZA LAFAYETTE, LLC OWNER:; PLAZA LAFAYETTE, LLC Recommendation That the Planning Commission adopt' Resolution No. 3662 approving Conditional Use Permit 98-022 and Design Review 98-026. Presentation: Justina Willkom, Associate Planner 4. Conditional Use Permit 98-037 a req uest'to establish a health club within the existing. commercial center known .as EI Camino Plaza. The project is located at 630 EI Camino Real within the Central Commercial District (C-21D), Town Center Redevelopment Project Area. Planning Commission Agenda April 12, 1999 Page 3 APPLICANT: BALLY TOTAL FITNESS PROPERTY OWNER: WILLIAM ZAPPAS TRUST Recommendation That the Planning Commission adopt Resolution No. 3665 approving Conditional Use Permit 98-037. Presentation: Lori Ludi, Associate Planner 5. Conditional Use Permit 99-004 Design Review 99-003 a request to raise the height of an existing major wireless facility from fifty (50) feet in height to sixty one (61) feet. The project is located at 14451 Myford Road within the Planned Community Industrial (PC-Ind) zoning district. APPLICANT: PACIFIC BELL WIRELESS _ ATTN: SHAWN O'CONNER PROPERTY OWNERS: PACIFC BELL ATTN: LUIS FRANCO Recommendation That the Planning Commission adopt Resolution No. 3663 approving Conditional Use Permit 99-004 and Design Review 99-003. Presentation: Minoo Ashabi, Assistant Planner REGULAR BUSINESS: 6. Status Report on Design Review_ 97-026 has been agendized to provide a status report on the construction of Phase Il of Congregation B'Nai Israel's religious and educational facility at 2111 Bryan Avenue within the Community Facility zoning of the East Tustin Specific Plan. APPLICANT: CONGREGATION B'NAI ISRAEL PROPERTY OWNER: CONGREGATION B'NAI ISRAEL Planning Commission Agenda April 12, 1999 Page 4 Recommendation Receive and file staff report. • 7. Status Reports Presentation: Karen Peterson, Acting Senior Planner_ . STAFF CONCERNS: 8. Report on Actions taken at the April 8 1999 Cify Council Meeting Presentation: Elizabeth A. Binsack, Director of Community Development COMMISSION.CONCERNS: ADJOURNMENT: A regular meeting of the Planning Commission will be held on April 26,.1999 beginning at 7:00 p.m., City Council Chambers, 300 Centennial Way, Tustin. ITEM #1 MINUTES TUSTIN PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING MARCH 22, 1999 CALL TO ORDER: 1 7:00 p.m., City Council Chambers PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: Chairperson Pontious INVOCATION: Commissioner Davert ROLL CALL: Chairperson Pontious, Browne, Davert, Kozak Commissioners: Present: Chairperson Pontious Browne Davert Absent: Kozak • Staff- Elizabeth A. Binsack, Director of Community Development Karen Peterson, Acting Senior Planner Lois.Bobak, Deputy City Attorney Scott Reekstin, Associate Planner Lori Ludi, Associate Planner Doug Anderson, Senior Project Manager Kathy Martin, Recording Secretary PUBLIC CONCERNS: (Limited to 3 minutes per person for items not on the agenda.) Doug Wride, Monterey Homeowners Association, stated residents' concerns with the development at Temple B'nai Israel. Lois Bobak, Deputy City Attorney, stated that the issue should be agendized for discussion at the Planning Commission's next meeting but noted that if Temple B'nai Israel is complying with all the conditions of approval, staff cannot revoke their permits. CONSENT CALENDAR: 1. Minutes of the March 8, 1999 Planning Commission Meeting. • Commissioner Davert moved, Commissioner Browne seconded, to approve the Consent Calendar. Motion carried 3-0. Planning Commission Minutes March 22, 1999 Page 2 Seating of Commissioner Kawashima New Commissioner Tony Kawashima was sworn in and seated on the Commission. PUBLIC HEARINGS: 2. Conditional Use Permit 98-007 & Design Review 98-007 a request to construct a 1,541 square foot drive-through oil change facility with two work, bays and indoor/outdoor waiting areas. The project is located at 12972.Newport Avenue within the Retail Commercial District (C-1); Town Center Redevelopment Project Area zoning district. APPLICANT: EZ LUBE MICHAEL J. DOBSON PROPERTY OWNER: KC/OB PARTNERS, LLC TIM O'BRIEN Recommendation That the Planning Commission review the revised plans for Conditional Use Permit 98-007 and Design Review. 98-007 and direct.. staff to draft a resolution of recommendation to the City Council. The Public Hearing-opened at 7:05 p.m. Lori Ludi, Associate Planner presented the subject report. Commissioner Davert asked if the proposed curb cuts are the same as what is existing and noted that it is virtually impossible to build a drive-thru service bay that' is completely .invisible from the street and also asked how much stacking room there would be for cars. Lori Ludi responded affirmatively on.the curb cuts-and noted that the space provided is now curved.and would allow 2 or 3,cars to.stack. Commissioner Davert asked what would . happen after the Newport Avenue improvements are completed. Lori Ludi responded that ten feet of the, landscaped area would be removed which would leave approximately ten feet of landscaped area._ Chairperson Pontious suggested reversing the direction to allow more stacking. Planning Commission Minutes March 22, 1999 Page 3 Lori Ludi responded that if the direction were reversed, the main entrance would be from Old Irvine Boulevard and staff was trying to avoid left turns onto Old ,Irvine Boulevard. Doug Anderson noted that the current configuration works best for street circulation. Commissioner Kawashima asked if all options had been considered to screen the bays. The Director responded that, given the configuration of the lot, the current layout is the best alternative and noted that if the Commission is considering a recommendation of approval, staff has talked with the applicant and they are amenable to closing the curb cuts in the future for a reciprocal development agreement. Lori Ludi noted that the Commission may impose a condition to tint the windows of the service bays. r Commissioner Browne asked why the adjacent property owner was not willing to enter into a reciprocal access agreement. Commissioner Davert asked Doug Anderson if he had concerns about Saturday morning business stacking into Newport Avenue traffic lanes. Doug Anderson responded that Engineering has no concerns at this time but did with the previous bay configuration. Commissioner Davert asked staff if the project could be conditioned to prohibit blocking traffic. The Director responded affirmatively and noted that if there were a violation, the use permit could be revoked or a civil penalty levied. Chairperson_Pontious suggested signage be added at the entrance. Mike Dobson, applicant, thanked staff for their hard work and noted that the project is greatly improved from the original proposal. Commissioner Davert asked the applicant if he would have a problem with a condition regarding stacking. Mike Dobson, applicant, responded that he had no problem with such a condition or a penalty. Commissioner Kawashima asked if the entryway on Newport Avenue would be sealed up if redevelopment were to occur on the adjacent property. Planning Commission Minutes March 22, 1999 Page 4 , Mike Dobson, applicant, stated that the Commission can condition his project to open.'a cross access between the centers if redevelopment'were to occur and indicated on the plan the two driveways that would be closed. The Public Hearing closed'at 7:28 p.m. Commissioner Davert noted that he has ibeen one of the harshest critics on this project in the past primarily due to the use but all of his concerns have now been addressed. Commissioner Browne stated his support for the project. ChairpersonPontious stated that the applicant's suggestion of a trellis might be a nice addition to the project. Commissioner Kawashima stated his concern with visibility and asked for the height of the bays. Mike Dobson, applicant, replied that the bays are approximately eighteen.to twenty feet high. Chairperson Pontious stated her.agreement with Commissioner. Davert's comments • regarding the use but the project is better than the original submittal. Commissioner Davert noted that he is comfortable that this project will not interfere with possible redevelopment at Old Irvine Boulevard. Commissioner Davert moved Commissioner Browne seconded, to continue the item to the April 12, 1999 meeting to allow staff the opportunity to draft a resolution recommending approval to the City Council. Motion carried 4-0. 3. Conditional Use Permit 98-022 and Design Review 98-026 a request to establish a commercial parking' lot in a 50' by 314' portion of an abandoned railroad right-of-way located on the vacant parcel to the north of 13031 Newport Avenue and to the west of� 1290142943', Newport Avenue in the multiple family residential (R-3)zoning district. APPLICANT: JACK STANALAND PLAZA LAFAYETTE, LLC OWNER: PLAZA-LAFAYETTE; LLC Recommendation Adopt resolution 3662 approving Conditional Use Permit 98-022 and Design Review 98-026. Planning Commission Minutes March 22, 199 9 Page 5 The Public Hearing opened at.7:34 p.m. The Director recommended that the Planning Commission continue the public hearing to the.April 12, 1999 meeting. Although staff followed the legal requirements for posting, the site was not posted. Chairperson_ Pontious stated that anyone who will be unable to. come to the April 12' meeting should come forward to speak to the Commission this evening. Tom. McCauley, 13591 Saigon Lane, .noted that there was an agreement with the previous owner to place a gate in the-wall to allow the trail to dontinue and asked the new owner to also consider placing a gate in the wall. The Public Hearing closed at 7:40 p.m. Commissioner Davert stated that he would like to see the situation worked out prior to the . next meeting. Commissioner Davert moved Commissioner Browne seconded, 'to continue the hearing to the April 12, 1999 meeting to allow staff to post the hearing notice on the property. Motion carried 4-0. The Commission recessed for five minutes. The Commission reconvened at 7:45 p.m. 4. 'Conditional Use Permit 99003 a request-to authorize the presentation of live entertainment in conjunction with an existing cocktail lounge. The-project is located at 672 EI Camino Real within the C-2, P (_Central Commercial District, Parking Overlay District)zoning district. APPLICANT: MR. CRAIG WASSERMAN NUNYA ENTERPRISES, LLC PROPERTY OWNER: WILLIAM ZAPPAS EI CAMINO PLAZA Recommendation That the Planning Commission' adopt Resolution-.No. 3659 approving Conditional Use Permit 99=003. iThe Public Hearing opened at 7:45 p.m. Scott Reekstin, Associate Planner, presented the subject report. , Planning Commission Minutes March 22, 1999 Page 6 Commissioner Kawashima inquired about the interpretation of Condition 2.1 regarding sexually oriented business and asked if the applicant would be able to have. live entertainment starting.at 6:01-a.m. per Condition 2.9. Lois Bobak, Deputy City Attorney,, responded that the City uses a sexually oriented business ordinance to determine if the business, falls within that definition and the applicant would need to comply with the City's noise ordinance regardless of hours for live entertainment. I Commissioner Davert asked for confirmation from staff that the Commission is approving a conditional use permit only and not an entertainment permit. The Director affirmed and stated that the Director of Community Development considers an independent live entertainment permit and processes a background check through the Police Department and further noted that the permit could be revoked more quickly than the conditional use permit. Commissioner. Browne asked how close the nearest residence is to the establishment, if staff had received any calls from, residents and if there was a-history of police call- outs. Scott Reekstin responded that the nearest residence-is about 600 feet away on Sixth i Street, staff received one call but was unsuccessful in returning the call and the application was reviewed by the Police Department who expressed no concerns about the request. Craig'Wasserman, applicant, thankedstaff for their work on the project and stated that the permit should be grandfathered' from the previous owner and wished to retain the two pool tables. Commissioner Kawashima showed photographs to the Commission that he took at the applicant's establishment and asked the applicant to confirm the location where the bands would perform. The Public Hearing closed at 7:69 p.m. Commissioner Davert stated that he would be in favor of approval with the conditions'in Option #2. Commissioner Davert moved Commissioner Browne seconded, to adopt Resolution No. 3659, revised as follows: Condition 2.3: "A maximum of two pool/billiard tables shall be permitted on the premises. Based on the City's Guidelines for Alcoholic .Beverage Sales Establishments, pool/billiard tables arp not permitted and as such, the two existing . pool/billiard tables in the subject establishment are considered nonconforming. Planning Commission Minutes March 22, 1999 Page 7 Condition 2.4: "A triaximum of three!coin operated video games shall be located on the premises. Based on the City's Guidelines for alcoholic beverage sales establishments, coin operated video games are not permitted and as such, the existing coin operated`video games in the subject establishment are considered nonconforming." Delete Condition 3.2 Condition 2.6: "Based on the City's existing "distance criteria for alcoholic beverage sales establishments and the use of the premises, the premises shall not be expanded beyond the existing size of approximately 1.,650,square feet. Motion carried 4-0. REGULAR BUSINESS:' -, 5. Design Review 98-031 a request"to construct two new-.6.,000 square foot multi- tenant.commercial buildings. The project is located at 2530 & 2560 Bryan Avenue within the Tustin Market,.Place Annex (Pads B & C) and the Mixed Use Land Use Designation and East Tustin Specific Plan. r APPLICANT: FRANK P. BENNETT BENEVEST DEVELOPMENT GROUP PROPERTY, f OWNER: JOHN HILE IRVINE INVESTMENT PROPERTIES Recommendation 1. Adopt Resolution No. 3660 approving the environmental determination for the project. 2. Adopt Resolution No,. 3661• approving-Design Review 98-031. Lgr1 Ludi presented the subject report. The Director indicated that prior to the meeting, Commissioner Davert requested the number-of parking places that"would be provided and was.given, incorrect'!nfdrmation. Seven spaces will be removed but there will be an approximate net increase of fifty five spaces between the two buildings. Commissioner Kawashima noted that he is a Tustin Ranch resident -but lives beyond the two hundred fifty foot boundary and does not believe the project would affect his property value. Planning Commission Minutes March 22, 1999 Page 8 Lois Bobak, Deputy City Attorney, noted that construction of these pads had already been considered aspart of the master plan for the site and :the Commission is primarily reviewing the design of the buildings. Chairperson Pontious asked if there had been any problems with weekend parking at the Costco/K-Mart center. The Director indicated that there would be fifty five additional-spaces added and staff has not received complaints about the center but noted that there were concerns when the auto center was storing vehicles there in the past. Commissioner Browne asked Doug,Anderson if there would be an.impact turning left onto Bryan Avenue. Doug Anderson responded that there was a traffic study done in the.area and there are sufficient peak hour trips to:accommodate the proposed development. Commissioner Kawashima noted his., concerns with the vehicles generated by the proposed nail`salon.tenant., ' Doug. Anderson indicated that staff uses a standard that was approved for the entire East Tustin Specific Plan area which has been effective. • Commissioner Davert stated that he is pleased to,see the pads are being developed. Commissioner Davert' moved Commissioner Kawashima seconded, to adopt Resolution. No. 3660 approving the environmental determination for the project. Motion carried 4.0. Commissioner Davert moved Commissioner Browne seconded, , to adopt Resolution No.3661 approving'Design Review 98-031. Motion carried 4-0. -STAFF CONCERNS: 6. : Report on Actions taken at the March 15 1999 Ci 'Council Meeting Elizabeth A. Binsack, Director of Community Development reported on the subject agenda. Commissioner Davert moved Commissioner Kawashima seconded, to receive and file the subject report. Motion carried 4-0. Planning Commission Minutes March 22, 1999 Page 9 COMMISSION CONCERNS: Commissioner Davert- Welcomed new Commissioner Kawashima to the Commission. Inquired about the status of the Tustin Meadows wall issue. The Director responded that a letter was received from the homeowners association and staff will be contacting the association directly. Staff will keep the Commission apprised of the status. Asked Doug Anderson if staff could write a letter to the County asking them to consider temporarily restriping ,Red Hill Avenue at Irvine Boulevard to ease traffic congestion,. Doug Anderson responded that staff would write a letter to the County.' Noted,that the tent was still in place at 17531 Amaganset. The Director responded that code enforcement staff was in contact with the property owner. Commissioner Kawashima Thanked staff for all their assistance inpreparing him for the meeting. ADJOURNMENT: Commissioner Browne moved, Commissioner Davert.seconded, to adjourn the meeting at 8:24 p.m. Motion carried 4-0. A regular meeting of the Planning Commission will be held on April 12, 1999 beginning at 7:00 p.m., City Council Chambers, 300 Centennial Way, Tustin. ' - • 1 ITEM{ #2 tiS Y O 10eport to the Planning Commission DATE: APRIL 12, 1999 SUBJECT: CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 98-007 & DESIGN REVIEW 98-007 APPLICANT: ' EZ LUBE MICHAEL J. DOBSON 1601 DOVE STREET, SUITE 230 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 PROPERTY OWNER: KC1013 PARTNERS, LLC TIM O'BRIEN 425 30TH STREET, SUITE 14 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 LOCATION:, 12972 NEWPORT AVENUE ZONING: RETAIL COMMERCIAL DISTRICT (C-1); TOWN CENTER REDEVELOPMENTPROJECT AREA ENVIRONMENTAL. STATUS: THIS PROJECT IS STATUTORILY EXEMPT PURSUANT TO SECTION 15270 (PROJECTS WHICH ARE DISAPPROVED). OF THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT. 'REQUEST: AUTHORIZATION TO CONSTRUCT A 1,541 SQUARE FOOT DRIVE-THROUGH OIL CHANGE FACILITY WITH TWO WORK BAYS AND INDOORIOUTDOOR WAITING AREAS. RECOMMENDATION That the Planning Commission adopt Resolution No. 3664 recommending that the City Council approve Conditional Use Permit 98-007 and Design Review 98-007;and, adopt approve Resolution No. 3666.recommending that the City Council certify the final Negative Declaration as required by the California Environmental Quality Act. BACKGROUND AND DISCUSSION - • This is -a icontinued item from the March 22, 1999 Planning'Commission meeting. On October 26, 1998, the Planning Commission denied Conditional Use Permit (CUP) 98-007 and Design Review (DR) 98-007 (Attachment A). On ,November 2, 1998 the applicant appealed the Planning Commission's decision. The applicant agreed to continue the Planning Commission Report CUP 98-007 & DR 98-007 April 12, 1999 Page 2 V appeal hearing before the City Council until January 19, 1999: On January 19, 1999, the City Council remanded the project back to the Planning Commission 'to 'review and. ' consider a revised site plan that the applicant submitted at the City Council meeting.. (Attachment B). A :public hearing was scheduled for February 22, 1999, however, the applicant and staff requested a continuance until the March 22, 1999 meeting of the Planning Commission. On March 22, 1999, the Planning Commission directed staff to prepare a resolution recommending approval to the City Council for Planning Commission consideration. Resolution No. 3664 is attached for the Planning Commission's consideration. Exhibit A of this resolution includes conditions of approval that address the issues identified, at the March 22 meeting. Generally, these conditions include: • Requiring the applicant to continue pursuing a reciprocal parking, access and circulation agreement with the adjacent commercial center in the future and/or with any revitalization of this commercial center. • Prohibiting vehicle stacking in the public right-of-way. • Requiring that servicing of vehicles be conducted entirely within building. • Requiring the windows on the service.bay doors to be tinted to obscure visibility • into the building. • Requiring a landscape plan to be submitted providing significant screening of the service bays. • Establishing civil penalties for violation of conditions. • Prohibiting other types of auto services other than.the proposed drive-through oil change facility. • Standard conditions'of approval from the Aufo Service Guidelines. A draft negative declaration has been prepared for the Planning.Commission's-review and recommendation to the City Council (Attachment C): The public comment period will close on Ap L Wil aren Petersori Associate Planner Acting Senior Planner Attachments: Location Map A. March 22, 1999 Planning.Commission Staff Report B. Revised Plan Submittal C. Draft Negative Declaration ` .Resolutions 3664 &3666 r LOCATION MAP,,-, f , m. f iPR98-. 907 1 owALM ' 7 WDOD CREST n n � � •Oen a�` ?e,� 772 i N n f?•p �2 /�j 14722 Gly Or IIJS71N /. /• y LAFAYt 7TE PLAZA IJpi, 14742 /• / �0�06,0 f' ' ��/• 1293 • •f jo i •114772 ,`7p _•\ -� n i• yri\ ZPQ '\ �O tp - O ULEVARD - IRVINE BOULEVARD 4 O �O >`° NO SCALE r ATTACHMENT A March 22, 1999 { Planning. Commission Staff Report ITEM #2 Deport t6 the Planning 'Commission. DATE: MARCH 22, 1999 SUBJECT: CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING FOR , CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 98-007 & DESIGN REVIEW 98-007 APPLICANT: EZ LUBE MICHAEL J. DOBSON 1601 DOVE STREET, SUITE 230 NEWPORT BEACH,.CA 92660. PROPERTY OWNER: KC/OB PARTNERS, LLC r TIM O'BRIEN 425 30TH STREET, SUITE 14 . NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 LOCATION: 12972 NEWPORT AVENUE ZONING: RETAIL COMMERCIAL DISTRICT (C-1); TOWN CENTER' REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA ENVIRONMENTAL r: STATUS: ,THIS PROJECT 1S STATUTORILY EXEMPT PURSUANT TO SECTION 15270 .(PROJECTS WHICH ARE DISAPPROVED) OF THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT. ' REQUEST: AUTHORIZATION TO .CONSTRUCT A 1,541 SQUARE FOOT DRIVE-THROUGH OIL CHANGE FACILITY WITH TWO WORK BAYS AND INDOOR/OUTDOOR WAITING AREAS.- RECOMMENDATION Pleasure of the Planning Commission. BACKGROUND AND DISCUSSION This is a continued item from the February 22, 1999 Planning Commission meeting. On October 26, 1998, the Planning Commission denied Conditional Use Permit (CUP) 98-007 and Design Review (DR) 98-007 (Attachment A). ` On November 2, 1,998 the applicant appealed the Planning Commission's decision. The applicant agreed.to continue the appeal hearing before the City Council until January 19, 1999. On January.19, 1999, the City Council remanded the .project back to the Planning Commission to review and Planning Commission Report CUP 98-007 & DR 98'007. . March 22, 1999 Page 2 _ consider a revised site plan 'that the applicant submitted at the City `Council meeting. (Attachment= B). A public hearing was scheduled for February 22, 1999, :however, the applicant requested a continuance until the March 22, 1999 meeting of the Planning Commission. Site and Surrounding Properties The site is vacant and. surrounded by a chain link fence. A Mobile Service Station was; located on the project site and vacated in_December 1994. In March 1995, the service station was demolished.- - The parcel is an irregular, triangular shaped corner lot, which is less than .3'acres in size (1°3,188 square feet). The width of the street frontage on New_port.Avenue is 140 feet and'` the width of the street frontage on Old.Irvine BIvd. is 125 feet. The property is surrounded to the north and east by an ,existing commercial center., Across Newport Avenue to the west, is the Plaza Lafayette commercial center. Various commercial uses are located to the south of the project site. (See Location Map) As noted, the site is located in the Town Center Redevelopment Project area, which requires Design Review approval by the Zoning Administrator._ Since the project also. includes a Conditional Use Permit request, which requires action by the Planning Commission, the Zoning Administrator referred the Design Review to the Planning Commission for concurrent consideration-(TCC Section 9299b). DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS Project Description The applicant is requesting approval'to construct a "quicklube service" which is a drive- through oil change facility. The proposed French architectural style of the building is designed to' complement the existing. structures. located within the adjacent "Plaza Lafayette. A 35-foot tower element is proposed on the south and .west elevations of the building. The tower has a polygonal roof with eight sides. The eave line of the roof extends above the approximate 23-foot height of the main structure. A flat brown roof tile is proposed. The exterior stucco walls are two-toned in.a light and dark sand color. The dark sand color is located along''the lower four feet of the building, creating a wainscot. The dark sand is alsoused on the stucco covered foam trim. Three wap signs and a monument sign are proposed. Two of the tree wall signs and the monument sign depict the "EZ Lube" name and logo. The third wall sign is above the service bays'states, "fast oil change experts". The,facility is, proposed .to be open Monday through Friday, 7:30 a.m.-to 7:00 p.m., and Saturday and Sunday„ 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. The applicant has indicated that the average service takes 10 minutes per vehicle and each facility averages about 40 vehicles a day: { Planning Commission Report CUP 98-007 & DR 98-007 March 22, 1999 • Page 3 Revised Plans The applicant has revised their plans from the October 26, 1997, submittal in the following manner(See Revised Plan Submittal—Attachment C) 6 • A 1,472 square foot building; 0 A 1,541 square foot building; • Three-single work bays and an 0 Two-tandem work bays and an indoor/outdoorwaiting area; indoor/outdoorwaiting area; • Finial on the top of the tower element Finial on top of the tower element exceeded the maximum height allowed removed to comply with the 35-foot by the Zoning Code; maximum height standard; • Cabinetwall sign above the service Cabinet wall sign above the service bays bays on the south elevation exceeding on the south elevation is reduced to 20 the maximum allowed size of 25 square square feet in size complying with the feet for a secondary sign; maximum size allowed by the sign code; • A building setback of 15 feet from the The building setbacks are increased to right-of-wayon Old Irvine and 12 feet 22-feet from the right-of-way on Old from the future right-of-way on Newport; Irvine and 20-feet from the future right- of-way ight- of way on Newport; • No vehicularaccess around the building Vehicular access around the building and insufficient area to accommodate and enough area to accommodate vehicularturn-around; vehicular turn-around; • A total of seven parking spaces.Three A total of six parking spaces. One standard spaces and one handicap standard space located on the Newport space located on the Newport side and side and four standard size spaces and three standard.size spaces located on one handicap space on the Old Irvine the Old Irvine side; side; • A 25-footwide,36-inch high landscape A 31'/-footwide,36-inch high berm located at the comer of the site; landscape berm is located on the corner and, of the site;and, © A three-foot wide planter extending • A five-foot wide planter extending along along the rear property line. the rear property line. Improvements to the Plan ✓ The proposed revisions to the plan increase the overall size of the building, however, the number of service bays are reduced from three to two. The work areas increase i from three areas to four areas of tandem workspace within each service bay. ✓ The need for any discretionary review of a height variance or a sign code exception is eliminated. Planning Commission Report CUP 98-007 & DR 98-007 - March 22, 1999 Page 4 ✓ The building setback and dimensions have been altered to allow for a greater landscape buffer along Newport Avenue. Due to the future widening of Newport Avenue, the previous plan would have required the removal of the entire landscaped buffer along this right-of-way.The proposed landscape buffer along Newport Avenue is 20-feet wide: Therefore, when Newport Avenue is widened in the future, a 10-foot wide landscape buffer will still exist. . ✓ Vehicular access around the building is provided to eliminate conflict between the stacking area and accessing the parking spaces. The previous plan provided no maneuverability around the building. and insufficient area to accommodate vehicular tum-around. The proposed plan provides for access around the building and enough area to accommodate vehicular turn-around. ✓ The proposed site plan allows for access in and out of the off street parking spaces that does not interfere with the "stacking area". The "stacking area", within the previous plan interfered with patrons he or exiting the.parking spaces and created conflicts for patrons waiting for service. Outstanding Issues ✓ The Auto Service Design Guidelines describe the design'and development preference order for auto services (Attachment D). The proposed site design is not in compliance with the Guidelines. In part, the Guidelines state that the facilities should be constructed..."On a comer lot designed so the service bays are oriented away from public view.11 Due to the proposed orientation on this corner lot, the service bays are visible from public view from Newport Avenue and Old Irvine Blvd. No feasible mitigation is available. ✓ The inadequate size and irregular shape of the lot and the paved area needed for site circulation, and parking still precludes screening of the service bays from public view. Therefore the site design is not in compliance with the statement that facilities should be constructed...,"On a lot where the topography, vegetation, buildings, or other structures provide the greatest amount of screening of the service bays from public view"(Attachment 6, page 2). No feasible mitigation is available. ✓ The service bays, paved areas, parked vehicles and tail stucco walls will be visible over the landscaping and through the 30-foot wide driveway aprons. The inside of the service bays will be visible during closed hours due to the transparency of the glass and panel style doors. If the Planning Commission were to recommend approval of the project, staff recommends a condition be included to-tint the glass of the service bay doors to block visibility into the service bays when they are closed. ✓ The proposed circulation pattern of the development is.stili not successfully integrated • with the circulation pattern of the adjacent commercial center. A circulation pattern should be designed that improves the flow of traffic between the two sites. The applicant investigated the possibility of obtaining a reciprocal parking, circulation and Planning Commission Report CUP 98-007 & DR 98-007 March 22, 1999 • Page 5 ' access agreement with the property owner of the adjacent commercial center. The. applicant indicated that the adjacent property owner is not desirous of participating in a reciprocal agreement. If the Planning Commission were to recommend approval of the project, staff recommends a condition to require the applicant to pursue a reciprocal parking, circulation and access agreement with the owner of the adjacent center, if and when the revitalization of the adjacent center commences. If an agreement were executed, the curb- cuts along Newport could be .eliminated and a more integrated parking and circulation pattern with the adjacent.center could be obtained in the future. ✓ The site is located at a prominent intersection and is a major gateway into the City from the north. Any project on this site sets precedence and may- preclude the orderly development on the adjacent commercial site. Development on this site should be integrated or at least complement any redevelopment of the older adjacent commercial center. A reciprocal access agreement could partially mitigate this issue. ✓ The revised plan depicts two work bays that allow two standard size vehicles to be serviced in each bay by parking two vehicles in tandem configuration. If the Planning. Commission were to recommend approval of the project, staff recommends a condition to require that any vehicle being serviced shall be located completely within the service bay structure. This would preclude vehicles from extending beyond the service bays while being serviced. Staff recommends that the Planning Commission continue the public hearing and direct staff to prepare a resolution recommending approval with conditions or denial to the City Council for Planning Commission consideration at the next regularly scheduled meeting. 1 1-64 A. Lu&i_/ Elizabeth A. Binsack, Associate Planner Director, Community Development Attachments: Location Map A. Planning Commission Information B. City Council Appeal Information C. Revised Plan Submittal D. Auto Service Design Guidelines • s.pereporUcup98-0073-22LLdoc • ATTACHMENT B Revised Plan Submittal • k�ue3 a �� U -� -a�f..e: All 1 s'c E � I � � ra B ! I NORTH ELEVATION WEST ELEVATION I . I \9wre�i�eaA 0 TRA--W I \ EAST.ELEVATION SOUTH ELEVATION e ww I I \ t3:illding,5rse 1,54f 5c�.Pt. I al I epo' •Fr p�_51ze W ° rvngw".11 �Y \ (Beforo aedlcatfonJ !3,188 SR,Ft. � [Q �� eo.o' 10.0' spa \ (After oedleaflon) N,434 Sq.Pt. g LS !i I i NA \` ferklnq RaRylrect 6 5paaaa _ 1'arkln�,Provided 6 z I z ra.o I O O Landscapes Raaulred G I 1 (Belpre aadicaticrgl 1,478 5d,Pt.(15x51 fIJ O ® 1a.o' a.o'oVLR11ANs (Alter DodlcaGlanJ 1,790 5R•Ft. h�� rrY I rrp. Landscaolna Provldad (APtere D ieatlan) 5,044 5cj.Ft (44% I . (APter Dedlcatfonl - 4044 Sq.Ft.(44�J � � � W ��or¢rvr�w+r i ' PRELIMINARY SITEPLAN q 1801 tore street r._ 50"X 13' SIGN AREAMY ON THE BLIILC>M �� ���� lts 230 Newport Beach,Callfomla 8288 DRAWN BY: BA(849)477.1223 pa DATE; — WE51' LEN/A-rIGt� — g SCAtE: Ino^.�,•o., NEWPORT AVENUE AT OLD IRVINE BOULEVARD, TUSTIN i FILE NAME: OLDIRVINESOULB AW SITE PLAN, ELEVATIONS SHEET: A I LANDSCAPE LEGEND P 5YMBOL BOTANICAL.NAME(COMMON NAME) TREE& I KOELRarrERIA PANICLLATA OOLDENRA1N TREE) I FYRI GALLERIANA'BRADFORD'(BRADFORD PEAR) I o HASHIN6TONIA HYBRID{HYBRID FAN PALM) I I � 5HRUB5: 0 A6APANTHU5 AFIRIGANUS(LILY-0F-THE-NILE) I O 05N5 LANDANIFER(CRIMSON 5FOT ROCKR05E) 0 DIETES 6RANDIFLORA(FORTNI6HT LILY,WTE) 0 yea I o O RAPHIOLEPI5 INDICA 5PRIN6TIME (IDOHAWfHORNE) `i PIT1705PORUM TOBfRA'VARIE6ATN NARIEWED MOCK ORAN60 I � ° � � fiROUNDGOVETiSi HEL05FERNIUM JA5 INOIDES(5 AR JAS TRAG M T MINE) I I I W PRELIMINARY LANDSCAPE PLAN I EZJLUBEI Sult dove 8treat Newport Beach,Callfornla 92660 (949)477-1223 — — — — OLDIRVINEBOULEVARD _ _ _ _ _ NEWPORT AVENUE AT OLD IRVINE BOULEVARD, TUSTIN • e m 171 ONE I II ------_----__------ II ! e I II II L II m so Dan m a K OPEN TO er�au� II II � II II E I 1 11 1 I mlcx OPEN TO 6ELOul- E1 II II i I ! M is a a s 1 --_-- L-----------J 4'•P wr-w- i'•1• 2b'•0' DRAWN BY: 8.9. i DATE: •• SCALE: FIA•.1'•0• I FILE NAME: ROOF PLAN BASEMENT FLOOR PLAN FIRSt FLOOR PLAN'- p�aNs LANDSCAPE LE6ENI7 { SYMBOL BOTANICAL NAME(COMMON NAMP.1 TREESL j >x. KREUTERIA PANIGLtATA(60LDENRAIN TREE) OEL PYRU5 GALLMIANA'BRADFORV(BRADFORD PEAR) WA54lN6T0NIA HYBRID(HYBRID PAN PALM) SFi2UE6: 1 0 AbAPANMZ AFRIGANUS SLILY-OP-THE-NILE} ✓ r • GISTUS LANDANIFER(GRIMSON SPOT RXXR050 DIETES 6RANDIPLORA(FORTNI(5HT LILY,MITE) —= RAFHIO EPS JHPIC.a s�'RIN6TI P OND�iAOH)AKTHORNFJ RX PITT05PORLH TOBIRA YARIE6ATA'(VARIEGATED MOCK ORAN60 TRAGHELOSPERI-W JASMINDIDE5(STAR-06HIM) x I 2 PRELIMINARY LANDSCAPE PLAN I EZILUDE Dave street Sult Sulia 230 wur, •�- Newport Beach,Callfamla 82880 (MO)8771228 OLDIRYINEBOIILEVARD _ — — _ NEWPORT AVENUE AT OLD IRVINE BOULEVARD, TUSTIN ATTACHMENT C Negative-Declaration & Initial Study , 41 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMEN �S 300 Centennial Way, Tustin, CA 92780 (714) 573-3100 NEGATIVE DECLARATION Project Title: CUP98-007 & DR98-007 Project Location: 12972 NEWPORT AVENUE Project Description: CONSTRUCTION OF A 1,541 SQUARE FOOT OIL CHANGE FACILITY Project Proponent: EZ LUBE Lead Agency Contact Person: LORI LUDI Telephone: (714) 573-3127 The Community Development Department has conducted an Initial Study for the above project in accordance with the City of Tustin's procedures regarding implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act, and on the basis of that study hereby finds: That there is no substantial evidence that the project may have a significant effect on the environment. ® That potential significant effects were identified,but revisions have been included in the project plans and agreed to by the applicant that would avoid or mitigate the effects to a point where clearly no significant effects would occur. Said Mitigation Measures are included in Attachment A of the Initial Study which is attached hereto and incorporated herein. Therefore,the preparation of an Environmental Impact Report is not required. The Initial Study which provides the basis for this determination is attached and is on file at the Community Development Department, City of Tustin. The public is invited to comment on the appropriateness of this Negative Declaration during the review period, which begins with the public notice of Negative Declaration and extends for twenty (20) calendar days. Upon review by the Community Development Director, this review period may be extended if deemed necessary. REVIEW PERIOD ENDS 4:00 P.M. ON APRIL 19, 1999 Date C1 Elizabeth A. Binsack Community Development Director Y o COMMUNITY.DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT 300 Centennial Way, Tustin, CA 92780 (714) 573-3100 INITIAL STUDY A. BACKGROUND Project Title: Conditional Use Permit 98-007 & Design Review 98-007 Lead Agency: City of Tustin 300 Centennial Way Tustin, California 92780 Lead Agency Contact Person: Lori Ludi Phone: (714) 573-3127 Project Location: 12972 Newport Avenue Project Sponsor's`Name and'Address: EZ Lube 1601 Dove Street, Suite 230 Newport Beach, CA 92660 GeneralPlan Designation: Community Commercial Zoning Designation: Retail Commercial (C-1) Project Description: Construction of a 1,541 square foot oil change facility.with 2 service bays and an indoor/outdoor waiting area. Surrounding Uses: North: Commercial East: Commercial South: Commercial West: Commercial Other public agencies whose approval is required: ® Orange County Fire Authority City of Irvine E] Orange County Health Care Agency City of Santa Ana ® South Coast Air Quality Management 'Orange County District EMA Other B. ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least o impact that is a"Potentially Significant Impact"as indicated by the checklist in Section D below. []Land Use and Planning Hazards QPopulation.and Housing [:]Noise Geological Problems. Public Services Water Utilities and Service Systems Air Quality QAesthetics Transportation& Circulation Cultural Resources Biological Resources Recreation Energy and Mineral Resources F]Mandatory Findings of Significance C. DETERMINATION: On the basis of this initial evaluation: 0 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. F] 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 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 2) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation meas es that are imposed upon the proposed project. Preparers Title K'\ Date Z63 VIJE lizabeth A. Binsack, Coni nunity Development Director D. EVALUATION OF ENVERONMENTAL IMPACTS • Directions 1) A brief explanation is required for all answers except"No Impact"answers that are adequately supported by the information sources a lead agency cites in the parentheses following each question. A"No Impact"answer is adequately supported if the referenced information sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one involved(e.g.,the project falls outside a fault rupture zone). A"No Impact"answer should be explained where it is based on project-specific factors and general standards(e.g.;the project will not expose sensitive receptors to pollutants,based on a project-specific screening analysis). 2) All answers must take into account the whole action involved, including off-site,on-site,cumulative project level, indirect, direct,construction,and operational impacts. 3) Once the lead agency has determined that a particular physical impact may occur,then the checklist answers must indicate whether the impact is potentially significant, less than significant with mitigation,or Iess than significant. "Potentially Significant Impact"is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect may be significant. If there are one or more"Potentially Significant Impact"entries when the determination is made,and EIR is required. 4) "Negative Declaration: Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated"applies where the incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from"Potentially Significant Impact"to a"Less than Significant Impact." The lead agency must describe the mitigation measures,and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a Iess than significant level (mitigation measures from Section XVII, "Earlier AnaIyses,"may be cross- referenced). Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering,program EIR, or other CEQA process,an effect has been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section 15063 (c) (3)(D). In this case, a brief discussion should identify the following: a) Earlier Analysis Used. Identify and state where they are available for review. b) Impacts Adequately Addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards,and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis. c) Mitigation Measures. For effects that are"Less than Significant with Mitigation Measures Incorporated," describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site-specific conditions for the project. 6) Lead agencies are encouraged to incorporate into the checklist references to information sources for potential impacts(e.g., general plans,zoning ordinances). Reference to a previously prepared or outside document should, where appropriate,include a reference to the page or pages where the statement is substantiated. 7) Supporting Information Sources: A source list should be attached,and other sources used or individuals contacted should be cited in the discussion. 8) This is only a suggested form, and Iead.agencies are free to use different formats;however,lead agencies normally address the questions from this checklist that are relevant to a project's environmental effects in whatever format is selected. The explanation of each issue should identify: a) the significance criteria or threshold, if any,used to evaluate each question;and, b) the mitigation measure identified, if any,to reduce the impact to less than significance. EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS Less Than Significant Potentially With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant I. AESTHETICS—Would the project: Impact Incorporation Impact No Impa 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? E c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings? ® ❑ E d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? El II. AGRICULTURE RESOURCES:.In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California 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? ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use,or a Williamson Act contract? c) Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature,could result in conversion of Farmland,to non-agricultural use? E III. AIR OUALITY: 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)? El ❑ d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? ❑, ❑ e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people? E E Less Than Significant Potentially With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant V. 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 local 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 CIean 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? ❑ ❑ 49Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting bioloresources,such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? ❑ ❑ ❑ f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan,Natural Community Conservation Plan,or other approved local,regional,or state habitat conservation plan? ❑ ❑ ❑ V. CULTURAL RESOURCES: -Would the project: a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in§ 15064.5? ❑ ❑ ❑ 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? ❑ ❑ d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries? ❑ ❑ ❑ VI. 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 With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant Impact Incorporation _ Impact No Inr� 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? ❑ ❑ ❑ NO VILHAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS: Would the project: a). Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport,use,or disposal of hazardous materials? ❑ ® ❑ 0 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? ❑ ❑ ® ❑ 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 result in • a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? ❑ ❑ ❑ f) 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? 0 ❑ ❑ Less Than Significant Potentially With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant 0g) 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? VIII. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY: —Would the project: a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements? El 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 local groundwater table level(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)? El El ❑ ED c) SubstantialIy alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area,in through the alteration of the course of a eam or river,in a manner which would result in substantial osion or siltation on-or off-site? 0 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? EEl El f) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? El E 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 100-year flood hazard area structures which would impede or redirect flood flows? El El El i) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, inju y or death involving flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam? ❑ ❑ inundation by sciche,tsunami,or mudflow? ❑ ❑ ❑ LAND USE AND PLANNING—Would thero'ect: P J a) Physically divide an established community? El ❑ E Less Than Significant Potentially With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan,policy,or Impact Incorporation Impact No Imp regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including,but not limited 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. MINERAL RESOURCES—Would the project: a) Result in the loss of availability of a known 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 local 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 groundborne vibration or groundborne noise Ievels? ❑ ® ❑ c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise Ievels 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 levels 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.POPULATION 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? ❑ Less Than Significant Potentially With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant Impact Incorporation Impact No Impact c) DispIace substantial numbers of people,necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? ❑ ❑ ❑ XIII. PUBLIC SERVICES a) Would the project result insubstantial 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? ❑ ❑ ❑ Schools? ❑ ❑ ❑ Parks.? ❑ ❑ .❑ Other public facilities? ❑ ❑ ❑ 'IV. RECREATION— a) Would 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? ❑ ❑ ❑ 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? ❑ ❑ ❑ XV.TRANSPORTATIONITRAFFIC—WouId the project: a) Cause an increase in traffic which is substantial in relation to the existing traffic Ioad 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. arp curves or dangerous intersections)or incompatible uses (e.g_,farm equipment)? ` ❑ ❑ ❑ e) Result in inadequate emergency access? ❑ ❑ ❑ f) Result in inadequate parking capacity? 0 ❑ ❑ Less Than Significant Potentially Ivith Less Than • Significant Mitigation Significant Impact Incorporation Impact No Impact g) Conflict with adapted policies,plans, or programs supporting alternative transportation(e.g.,bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? ❑ ❑ ❑ XVI. 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 local statutes and regulations related to solid waste? ❑ ❑ XVII.MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment,substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species,cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels,threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community,reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? ❑ ❑ ❑ b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited,but cumulatively considerable? C'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 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 98-•007 &DESIGN REVIEW 98-007 BACKGROUND The project site, an approximate .3 acre vacant parcel, is located at 12972 Newport Avenue, at the northeast corner of Newport Avenue and Old Irvine Blvd.. The area in which the project site is located is surrounded by developed retail and commercial uses. The project site is located in the Retail Commercial (C-1) Zoning District and the Town Center Redevelopment Project area. The proposed project involves the construction of a oil change facility owned and operated by EZ Lube, including the following: 1.) Construction of a 1,541 square foot, 2-bay drive through oil change facility with an indoor/outdoor waiting area that will service approximately 40 vehicles a day. 2.) Construction of landscape planters, trash enclosure and paved surface for circulation and parking. Design Review 98-007 is required to authorize site design, architecture and landscaping; Conditional Use Permit 98-007 is required'to authorize the oil change facility. No other automotive repair or services are to be provided on the site. 1. AESTHETICS Items a&b—No Impact: The project site is not located on a scenic highway nor does it affect a scenic vista. Items c & d—Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporation: The proposed project will establish a new building at a prominent intersection within the community. The building has been designed to complement the surrounding architectural styles of existing buildings within the commercial center across Newport Avenue. Over 30% of the site is proposed to be Iandscaping. Landscaping is required to be provided around the perimeter of the site and within the parking areas. Landscaping adjacent to the public right-of-ways is required to screen the view of the service bays, consistent with the Auto Service Guidelines. The landscape planter area adjacent to Newport Avenue is 20 feet wide and will be reduced to 10 feet in width after the dedication of 10 feet for the widening of Newport Avenue. Lighting on the site will be required to be directed on-site to avoid glare on adjacent arterials and ® properties. Mitigation Measures/Monitoring Required: • 1.1 The applicant shall provide details of all proposed lighting fixtures and a photometric study showing the location and anticipated distribution pattern of Iight of all proposed fixtures. All new light fixtures shall be designed with the architecture of the building. All exterior lighting shall be designed and arranged as not to direct light or glare onto adjacent •properties, including the adjacent streets. All lighting shall be developed to provide a minimum of one (1) footcandle of light coverage, in accordance with the City's Security Code. 1.2 The site shall be landscaped consistent with the City's Landscaping and Irrigation Guidelines. Landscaping shall consist of a combination of berming and sufficient numbers of shrubs and trees to provide adequate screening, subject to the satisfaction of the Community Development Director. With the implementation of the mitigation measure and the conditions of approval, impacts related to aesthetics will be reduced to a level of insignificance. Sources: Project Application Tustin Security Code 2. AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES i Items a,b & c--No Impact: The proposed project will be located within an area that is vacant and was previously developed with a services station. No impacts will occur to any agricultural uses or farmland. Mitigation Measures/Monitoring Required: None Required Sources: Tustin General Plan 3. AIR QUALITY Items a&b—Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporation: With respect to long-term air quality impacts, the proposed project involves the construction of a facility that is substantially similar to the service station that was previously located at the site,however, no fuel will be dispensed. As such, no substantial increase in long- term emissions associated with stationary or mobile sources beyond the condition of the previous service station is anticipated. Minor short-term emissions of particulate matter may occur during grading. Short and long-term emissions associated with grading and the operation of the service bays are subject to regulation by the South Coast Air Quality Management District and the City of Tustin Grading Manual, which includes requirements for dust i control. EZ Lube(Conditional Use Permit 98-007&Design Review 98-007)Initial Study Attachment rl Page 2 of 12 ® g q Mitigation Measures/Monitoring Required: g 3.1 The installation and operation of service bays shall be performed in accordance with the requirements of the South Coast Air Quality Management District. The applicant shall provide evidence to the Director of Community Development of approval by the South Coast Air Quality Management District. 3.2 All construction activity shall comply with the requirements of the City of Tustin ,Grading Manual which requires frequent watering of the project site to control dust. Items c,d & e—No Impact: The relatively small magnitude of the project does not have the capacity to create a net increase of any criteria pollutant, expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrates, or create objectionable odors. With implementation of the above mitigation measures and conditions of approval that requires the applicant to conduct grading activities in compliance with the City of Tustin Grading Manual and obtain all necessary approvals and permits from the SCAQMD and the City of Tustin, any potential impacts related to air quality will be reduced to a level of insignificance. .Mitigation Measures/Monitoring Required: None Required Sources: South Coast Air Quality Management District Rules &Regulations City of Tustin Grading Manual Project Application Field Inspection 4. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES Items a,b, c, d, e & f—No Impact: The proposed project will be located within an area that is vacant and was previously developed with a services station. No impacts will occur to endangered, threatened or rare species or habitats, locally designated species or natural communities, or wildlife dispersal or migration corridors. Mitigation Measures/Monitoring Required: None Required Sources: Field Inspection Tustin General Plan EZLube(Conditional Use Permit 98-007&Design Review 98-007)Initial Study Attachment A Page 3 of 12 5. CULTURAL RESOURCES • Items a, b, c & d--No Impact: The proposed project involves construction of a drive through oil change facility on a site that is currently vacant, but was previously developed with a service station. No impacts to, paleontological, archaeological, historical, religious resources, or disturbing of any human remains,wilI occur. Mitigation Measures/Monitoring Required: None Required Sources: Tustin General Plan 6. GEOLOGY & SOILS Items a-i, a-ii,-a-iii &b—Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporation: The topography of the site is relatively flat and would require minor precise grading activity to prepare the site for new construction. Compliance with current codes will ensure that the design and construction of the proposed project reduces any potential impacts related to fault raptures, ground shaking, ground failure, liquefaction or unstable soils to a level of insignificance. Mitigation Measures/Monitoring Required: 6.1 All grading, drainage, vegetation and circulation shall comply with the City of Tustin Grading Manual. All construction activity shall comply with the Tustin Grading Manual which requires frequent watering of the project site to control dust. All street sections, curbs, gutters, sidewalks, lighting and storm drain shall comply with on-site improvement standards. Any deviations shall be brought to the attention of the Building Official and request for approval shall be submitted in writing prior to any, approval. Items a-iv, c, d& 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. With implementation of a condition of approval that requires the applicant to obtain all necessary approvals from the Community Development Department, the project design and construction will reduce potential impacts to a level of insignificance. Sources: Tustin General Plan City of Tustin Grading Manual Uniform Building Code Project Application • Field Evaluation EZ Lube(Conditional Use Permit 98-007&Design Review 98-007)Initial Study Attachment.4 Page 4 of 12 • 7. HAZARDS &HAZARDOUS MATERIALS Items a&b—Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporation: Operation - of the drive through oil change facility may expose customers and employees to petroleum products, motor oil and other automotive substances which are highly flammable and known to be carcinogen. The facility provides a service of disposing of automotive motor oil for the general public. This service may risk potential. contamination and exposing employees and the general public to hazardous substances. Mitigation Measures/Monitoring Required: 7.1 The applicant shall obtain all necessary approvals from the Community Development Department, Orange County Fire Authority Hazardous Materials Disclosure Office, Orange County Health Care Agency and Occupational Safety Hazard Association(OSHA). 7.2 The applicant shall be responsible for taking appropriate corrective action to address any surface contamination as required for any accidental spills as required to the satisfaction of the Health Care Agency. 7.3 The applicant shall be responsible for legally disposing of all motor oil • and other hazardous substances in accordance to the requirements and satisfaction of the County Health Care Agency. 7.4 Prior to approval of any use/site permits for site planning, issuance of any grading permits, or building permits, whichever occurs first, the applicant shall submit to the Fire Chief a list of the quantities of all hazardous, flammable and combustible materials, liquids or gases. These liquids and materials are to be classified according to the "Orange County Fire Authority Chemical Classification Handout". The submittal shall provide a summary sheet listing each hazard class, the total quantity of chemicals stored per class and the total quantity of chemicals used in that class. All forms of materials are to be converted to units of measure in pounds, gallons, and cubic feet. 7.5 Prior to the issuance of any building permits, the applicant shall contact the Orange County Fire Authority Hazardous Materials Disclosure Office at (714) 744.0463 to obtain a "Hazardous Materials Business Information and Chemical Inventory Packet". This shall be completed and submitted to the Fire Chief before the issuance of any building permits: Item d—Less Than Significant Impact: The previous development on the'vacant site was a service station that was demolished in 1995. After the demolition of the service station, the site was inspectedby the County Health Care Agency for soil contamination. Contamination was found and the property owner was required to clean-up the site and remove and/or treat any contaminated areas on the site before EZ Lube(Conditional Use Permit 98-007&Design Review 98-007)Initial Study Attachment A Page 5 of 12 any development on the site is permitted. In 1998 the County Health Care Agency re- inspected the site and found that the contaminated areas had been cleaned up and the site no longer has any contaminated soil. Mitigation Measure/Monitoring Required: 7.6 The applicant shall provide the Director of Community Development with a written statement of compliance from the Orange County Health Care Agency for the contaminated soil that existed due to the previous service, station development. Items c e f g &h—No Impact: The proposed project is more than a quarter of a mile of an existing or any proposed school sites. The project site is not located within a airport land use plan or within two miles of a public or.private airport. The proposed project does not interfere with any evacuation plans or emergency response plans. The project site is not within a wildland area, and would not expose individuals or structures to the hazards of wildland fires. Mitigation Measures/Monitoring Required: None Required. Sources: Tustin General Plan Orange County Fire Authority Orange County Health Care Agency S. HYDROLOGY& WATER QUALITY Item a-Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporation: The impervious surface of the project will drain into the existing storm drain system. Since the proposed use will be an automotive use on the subject property, petroleum products, motor oil and other automotive substances may accidentally spill onto the impervious surfaces 'of the facility and drain into the system. However, a Water Quality Management Plan administered by the City of Tustin Public Works Department and the Regional Water Quality Control Board would be required to mitigate and minimize runoff into the storm drain system. Any water deposited into the sanitary sewer system for treatment shall be in compliance with the Orange County Sanitation District requirements. Mitigation Measures/Monitoring Required: 8.1 All work shall comply with the City of Tustin Grading Manual. 8.2 This development shall comply with all applicable provisions of the City of Tustin Water Quality Ordinance and all federal, State, Regional Water Quality Control Board and Orange County Sanitation District rules and regulations as they relate to auto service facilities. The plan shall be designed in accordance with,-but not limited to, the following: EZLube(Conditional Use Permit 98-007&Design Review 98-007)Initial Study Attachment A Page 6 of 12 • Use a perimeter drain or slope pavement inward with a drainage to sump; • If a dead-end sump is not used to collect spills, an oil/water separator shall be installed. O The service bays shall be designed to prevent the run-off of spills. Spills can be contained within the site by either using'a perimeter drain or by sloping the pavement inward with drainage to a sump. In both cases, the drain shall be connected to the storm drain. Compliance with the above mitigation measures and conditions of approval will ensure that the design and construction reduces any potential impacts related to absorption rates, drainage patterns of surface runoff, or effect on the amount or quality'of surface or groundwaters to a level of insignificance. The project does not have the capacity to affect the direction of currents in surface waters or amount or quality of groundwaters. Items b, c, d,_6, g,h, i &j—No Impact: The project would not expose people or property to water related hazards such as flooding, change the course or direction of waters movements, or affect the quantity of groundwaters. • Sources: Tustin General Plan City of Tustin Grading Manual Public Works Department Orange County Health Care Agency Project Application 9. LAND USE PLANNING Items a, b & c-No Impact: The proposed project consists of constructing a drive through oil change facility with two service bays and an indoor/outdoor waiting area. The site is designated Community Commercial by the General Plan Land Use Map and is zoned Retail Commercial-Parking (C-1 P). Auto service stations, which include drive through oil change facilities, are permitted subject to the approval of a conditional use permit. As proposed, the location and design of the facility is consistent with the development standards of the C-1 P zoning district. The proposed project has been designed to provide a landscape buffer that screens the view of the pump islands, as recommended by the City's Auto Service Guidelines. The proposed project is similar to and compatible with other commercial uses in the vicinity and is located entirely within one parcel and will not divide or disrupt the area. The proposed project is not anticipated to impact land use -or planning. However, to fully integrate the project site with redevelopment of the adjacent commercial center, a reciprocal parking, access and circulation agreement with the property owner of the adjacent center will be required to be pursued. EZLube(Conditional Use Permit 98-007&Design Review 98-007)Initial Study Attachment A Page 7 of 12 Mitigation Measures: • 9.1 The applicant shall enter into an agreement with the City of Tustin Public Works Department to continue to pursue a reciprocal parking, circulation and access agreement with the property owner of the adjacent commercial center. The agreement shall require that If and when the revitalization of the adjacent center commences, a reciprocal parking, circulation and access agreement shall be obtained. If and when the agreement is executed; the curb cuts along Newport and Old Irvine shall be eliminated and a more integrated parking and circulation pattern shall be designed' and installed by the applicant with the adjacent center. The design of the revised circulation plan shall be submitted for review and approval by the Community Development Department and the Public Works Department. The applicant shall enter into this agreement with the Public Works Department prior to the issuance of the building permit. Sources: Tustin General Plan Tustin Zoning Code Project Application Field Evaluation 10. MINERAL RESOURCES • Items a&b—No Impact: The construction and operation of the facility will not use nonrenewable resources in a wasteful or inefficient manner. There are no known mineral resources located on the project site. Mitigation Measures/Monitoring Required: None Required. Sources: Tustin General Plan 11. NOISE ' Item a_b, c & d—Less Than-Si gnifi cant with Mitigation Incorporation: With respect to short-term noise impacts associated with construction, all construction will be required to conform to the Noise Ordinance and work may only be performed during permitted hours of construction. As such, short term noise impacts will be mitigated to a level of insignificance. No significant increase in long term noise impacts associated with generation of vehicular traffic is anticipated. Operations of the facility will be required to conform to the Noise Ordinance. Long term operational noise will be reduced to a Ievel of insignificance through compliance with the Noise Ordinance. A requirement that all service activities shall be conducted within the structure of the service bays shall also make the noise level insignificant. EZ Lube(Conditional Use Permit 98-007&Design Review 98-007)Initial Study Attachment-4 Page 8 of 12 • Mitigation Measures/Monitoring Required: 10.1 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/ 10.2 Construction hours shall be clearly posted on the project site to the satisfaction of the Building Official. 10.3 All operations related to the functioning of the facility shall be conducted in accordance with the Noise Ordinance. 10.4 All servicing of vehicles shall take place within the structure of the building. With implementation of the above mitigation measures and conditions of approval, potential noise impacts are reduced to a level of insignificance. Items e & f—No Impact: The project site is not located within an airport land use plan or within two miles of a public or private airport. Mitigation Measures/Monitoring Required: None Required. Sources: Tustin General Plan Noise Ordinance Project Application 12. POPULATION &HOUSING` Items a, b & c—No Impact: The proposed project is located on a vacant site that previou§ly was developed with a service station and surrounded by existing retail and commercial uses. The proposed project would not result in any direct increase in population nor induce substantial growth in the• area. No impacts related to population or housing are anticipated. Mitigation Measures/Monitoring Required: None Required Sources: Tustin General Plan Project Application Field Evaluation EZ Lube(Conditional Use Permit 98-007&Design Review 98-007)Initial Study Attachment A Page 9 of 12 13.,PUBLIC SERVICES i Item a—No Impact: The project site and surrounding commercial properties are currently subject to fire and police protection. The proposed project to construct an • auto service facility is similar to the auto service station facility that was demolished in 1995. No additional resources are required to maintain these existing service levels. The proposed project will not create additional services related to maintenance of public facilities, including roads. Mitigation Measures/Monitoring Required: None Required Sources: Tustin Police Department Orange County Fire Authority Tustin Public Works Department 14. RECREATION Items a&b—No D]2 acct: The proposed reconstruction of an existing service station would not affect existing facilities nor create a demand for recreational facilities. Mitigation Measures/Monitoring Required: None.Required Sources: Tustin General Plan Project Application 15. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC Item a —Less Than Significant Impact: The City's Traffic Engineer has reviewed the proposed project and found that the project, as compared to the vacant site, will result in an increase in traffic. However, the proposed project will not generate as much traffic as the previous service_ station that was demolished on the site in 1995. The proposed project will generate approximately 130 daily trips. A typical service station, similar to the previous development, generates approximately 1000 daily trips. The traffic generated from the previous service station development did not negatively effect the level of service for the adjacent arterials and intersections. Therefore, even with the increase of trips as compared to the vacant site, the proposed project is not anticipated to impact the planned level of service for the adjacent arterials and intersections. Mitigation Measures/Monitoring Required: No mitigation measures or monitoring required. Items b, c. d, e. f. &g—No Impact: A total of six (6) parking spaces are being provided consistent with the off-street parking standards within the Tustin City Code. The standard size parking spaces are located adjacent to the north property fine and EZ Lube(Conditional Use Permit 98-007&Design Review 98-007)Initial Study Attachment A Page 10 of 12 • are accessible from a two-way drive aisle. The one handicap parking space is located adjacent to the south side of the building and accessible from a two-way drive aisle. No safety hazards or barriers for pedestrians, bicyclists or vehicles or conflicts with bus turnouts are proposed. Adequate access is provided from a driveway off of Newport Avenue and a driveway off.of Old Irvine Blvd. Two existing drive aprons on Old Irvine Boulevard and on Newport Avenue, located near the corner of the intersection, will be removed with this project. Access shall be located further away from the intersection to reduce any circulation impacts on the adjacent intersection. No on-site parking or circulation impacts are anticipated. However,*to fully integrate the circulation of the project site with redevelopment of the adjacent commercial center, a reciprocal parking, access and circulation agreement with the property owner of the adjacent center will be required to be pursued.No rail, waterborne, or air transportation is affected by the proposed.project. With the implementation of mitigation measure 9.1 and conditions of approval, potential traffic impacts are reduced to a level of insignificance. In order to elevate any future circulation impacts the applicant shall continue to. pursue obtaining a reciprocal parking, circulation, and access agreement with the owner of the adjacent commercial center. Sources: Tustin General Plan Project Application Tustin Public Works/Traffic Engineer Mitigation Measures/Monitoring Required: (See Mitigation No. 9.1) 15.1 Vehicle stacking in the public right-of-way shall be prohibited and any violation shall be subject to citation. The operator of the facility is responsible for ensuring compliance and preventing stacking to occur in the public right- of-way. 16. UTILITIES & SERVICE SYSTEMS Items a b c d. e f& g—No !=act: The proposed facility will be connected to existing utilities and service systems in the area. No substantial alterations to any utilities will be required. Sources: Tustin Public Works Department Field Inspection Mitigation Measures/Monitoring Required: None Required 17. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE Items a.b &c—No Impact: The proposed project is the construction of a drive through oil change facility on a lot that is currently vacant. , The previous development on the site was a gas station which was demolished in 1995. The project EZ Lube(Conditional Use Permit 98-007&Design Review 98-007)Initial Study Attachment A Page 11 of.12 design, construction and operation will comply with the regulations of the Community Development Department, 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 Mitigation Measures/Monitoring Required: 17.1 Payment of the Transportation System Improvement Program (TSIP), Benefit Area "A" fees in the amount of$ 5.53 per square foot of new or added gross square floor ,area of construction or improvements will be submitted to the Community Development Department. The TSIP fees are intended to mitigate.traffic impacts within the Benefit Areas. EZ Lube(Conditional Use Permit 98-007&Design Review 98-007)Initial Study Attachment A Page 12 of 12 1 RESOLUTION N0. 3666 2 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE 3 CITY OF TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING•THAT THE CITY COUNCIL "CERTIFY THE FINAL - NEGATIVE 4 DECLARATION AS ADEQUATE FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 98-007 AND DESIGN REVIEW 98-007 AND ALL 5 FEASIBLE' MITIGATION MEASURES ' - HAVE BEEN 6 INCORPORATED ,AS REQUIRED BY THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT. The Planning Commission of the City of Tustin does hereby resolve as follows: s I. The Planning Commission finds and determines as follows: 9 A. That Conditional Use Permit 98-007 and Design Review 98-007 are 10 considered "projects" pursuant to the terms -of the California Environmental Quality Act; and 11 . B. A Negative Declaration has been prepared for this project and has 12 been distributed for public review. - C. Whereas, the Planning Commission of the City of Tustin has' 14 considered'evidence presented by the Community Development Director and other interested parties with respect to the subject 15 Negative Declaration. 16 'D. The Planning Commission has evaluated the proposed final Negative Declaration and determined that•the project is regulatory 17 in nature and therefore, would not have a significant effect on the environment. When individual, applications are:- submitted- for 18 consideration,independent environmental review will occur. 19 I1. A Draft Negative Declaration has been completed in compliance with CEQA and state guidelines. The Planning Commission has received and 20 considered the information contained in the Negative Declaration prior to 21 recommending approval of the proposed .project, and found that it -adequately discussed the environmental effects of the proposed project, 22 PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Tustin Planning. 23 Commission,held,on the 'I 2th day of April, 1999. 24 25 n. 26 LESLIEA. PONTIOUS 27 Chairperson 28 S 29 ELIZABETH A. BINSACK Planning,Commission Secretary 1 • 2 STATE OF CALIFORNIA) COUNTY OF ORANGE } 3 CITY OF TUSTIN ) 4 I, ELIZABETH A. BINSACK,the undersigned,hereby certify that I am the Planning 5 Commission Secretary of the City of Tustin, California; that Resolution No. 3666 was duly. passed and adopted at a regular• ;meeting of the Tustin Planning 6 Commission,held on the 12thrday.of April, 1999. 7 8 9 10 ELIZABETH A. BINSACK Planning Commission_Secretary II 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 J t" 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 1 RESOLUTION NO. 3664 2 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN, RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 98-007.DESIGN REVIEW 98-007 AUTHORIZING A DRIVE-THROUGH 7 OIL CHANGE FACILITYAT 12972 NEWPORT AVENUE. The Planning Commission does hereby resolve as follows: 6 1. The Planning Commission finds and determines as follows: 7 A. That a proper application for Conditional Use Permit 98-007 and Design Review 98-007 was filed by EZ Lube to request authorization to construct a 1,541 square foot drive-through oil change facility with two work bays and indoor/outdoor waiting areas 9 on the property located at 12972 Newport Avenue, also described 10 as Assessoes'Parcel No. 501-081-05. 11 B. That the. proposed use is allowed within the Retail Commercial District (C-1), with the approval of a Conditional Use Permit (TCC 12 Section 9232). 13 C. That a-public hearing was duly called, noticed and held 'on said application and denied by the Planning Commission on October 26, 14 1998. The Planning Commission's decision was appealed to the City Council by the applicant on November 2, 1998. A public 15 hearing was duly called, noticed and held on December 7, 1998 and January 19, 1999 by the City Council and remanded to the 16 Planning Commission for review of revised plans. 17 D. That a public hearing was duly called, noticed and held on said is application on February 22, March 22, and April 12, 1999, by the Planning Commission, 19 E. That the establishment, maintenance and operation of the uses 20 applied for will not, under the circumstances of this case, be detrimental to the health, safety, morals, comfort, or general welfare 21 of the persons residing or working in the neighborhood of such proposed use, nor be injurious or detrimental to the property and 21 improvements in the neighborhood of the subject property, or to the general welfare of the City of Tustin, as evidenced by the finding that, the proposed project, as conditioned, will not be injurious, detrimental to, or have a negative effect on surrounding properties 2' in that: 2' 1. The proposed project complements and provides a 26 support service to existing or future uses allowed by'the Zoning Code; 2-1 2. The scale, massing, and design of proposed structures 2s is appropriate for the area; 79 I Resolution No. 3664 • CUP98-007 &'DR98-007 2 Page 2 3 3. .As conditioned, the proposed site plan provides for a sufficient vehicle ingress, egress, on-site maneuvering and parking;and, 4. There will be no on-site or off-site traffic impacts and no 6 effect on the existing and planned level of service for adjacent arterials and intersections. Payment of 7 Transportation System Improvement Program fees will 8 be used to mitigate cumulative impacts on the transportation system. 9 5. The proposed landscaping will partially screen the view 30 of the two service bays from the public right-of-way. 11 F. Pursuant to Secfion 9272 of the Tustin Municipal Code, the 12 Commission finds that the location, size, architectural features and general appearance of Design Review 98-007, as conditioned, will 13 not impair the orderly and harmonious development of the area, the present or future development therein, or the occupancy as a la whole. In making such findings,the Commission has considered at least the following items: . is 16 . Height, bulk and area of buildings. 37 2_ Setbacks and site planning. la 3. Exterior materials and colors. 19 4. - - Type and pitch of roofs. 20 5. Size"and spacing of windows, doors and other openings. 21 6. Towers, chimneys, roof structures, flagpoles, radio and television antennae. 22 7. Landscaping,parking area design and traffic circulation. 23 24 8. 'Location, height and standards of exterior illumination_ 9. Location and appearance of equipment located outside of. 2' an enclosed structure. 26 10. Location and method of refuse storage. 27 11. Physical relationship of proposed structures to existing 28 structures in the neighborhood. 29 i I Resolution No. 3664 CUP98-007 & DR98-007 2 Page 3 3 12. Appearance and design relationship of proposed structures 4 to existing structures and possible future structures in the neighborhood and public thoroughfares. s 13. Proposed signage. 6 14. Development Guidelines and criteria as adopted by the City 7 Council. 8 G. A Negative Declaration has been prepared for this project in accordance with' the provisions of the California Environmental 9 Quality Act (CEQA)for final consideration by the City Council. 10 _ H. That the project has been reviewed for consistency with the Air 11 Quality Sub-element of the City of Tustin General Plan and has been determined to�be consistent with the Air Quality Sub-element. 12 II. The Planning Commission hereby recommends that the City Council 13 approve Conditional Use Permit 98-b07 and Design Review 98-007 to authorize construction of a 1,541 square foot drive-through oil change 14 facility with two work bays and indoorloutdoorwaiting areas on the property located at 12972 Newport Avenue, subject to the conditions contained in 15 Exhibit A, attached hereto. 16 PASSED AND ADOPTED by the'Planning Commission of the City of Tustin, at a regular meeting on the 12th day of April, 1999. 17 , 18 19 LESLIE PONTIOUS Chairperson 20 ELIZABETH A. BINSACK 21 Planning Commission Secretary 22 STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) 23 COUNTY OF ORANGE ) CITY OF TUSTIN ) 24 I, ELIZABETH A. BINSACK,the undersigned, hereby certify that I am.the Planning 25 Commission Secretary of the City of Tustin, California; that Resolution No. 3664 26 was duly passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the Tustin Planning Commission, held on the 12th day of April, 1999. 27 2s ELIZABETH A. BINSACK 29 Planning Commission Secretary EXHIBITA S CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT(CUP) 98-007 AND DESIGN REVIEW(DR)98-007 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL RESOLUTION.NO. 3664 GENERAL. (1) 1.1 The proposed project shall substantially conform with the submitted plans for the projectdate stamped April 12, 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 CUP 98-007 and DR 98-007 is contingent upon the applicant and property owners signing and retuming 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. (1) 1.6 Any violation of any of the conditions imposed is subject to the imposition of a civil penalty-of$100.00 for each violation and each day the violation exists. (1) " 1.7 The applicant shall be responsible for costs associated with any necessary code enforcement action. PLAN SUBMITTAL (1)' 2.1 When submitting for a building permit, submit four sets of plans, two sets of soils reports, structural and energy calculations, specifications and acoustical report. Electrical,'mechanical and plumbing plans shall be included. (1) 2.2' Indicate on the .title sheet the applicable codes, City Ordinances and the State and federal laws and regulations to include: SOURCE CODES (1) STANDARD CONDITION (6) RESPONSIBLE AGENCY . (2) CEQA MITIGATION EQUIREMENTS (3) UNIFORM BUILDING CODEIS (6) LANDSCAPING GUIDELINES (4) DESIGN REVIEW (7)• PC/CC POLICY. *'t 'EXCEPTIONS f Exhibit A—Conditions of Approval Resolution No. 3664 CUP 98-007 & DR98-007 Page No. 2 1994 Uniform Building Code with California Amendments 9994 Uniform Mechanical Code with California Amendments 1994 Uniform Plumbing Code with California Amendments 1993 National Electrical Code with California Amendments T-24 California Disabled Access Regulations T-24 California Energy Efficiency Standards City of Tustin Grading Ordinance City of Tustin Landscape and Irrigation Guidelines City of Tustin Private Improvement Standards City of Tustin Security Ordinance (1) 2.3 Indicate on the plans the fire protection rating of.exterior walls and openings or where openings,are not allowed per Table 5-A of the UBC. (1) 2.4 All grading, drainage, vegetation and circulation shall comply with the City of Tustin Grading Manual. All construction activity shall comply with the Tustin Grading Manual which requires frequent watering of the project site to control dust. All street sections, curbs, gutters, sidewalks, lighting and storm drain shall comply with on-site improvement standards. Any deviations shall be brought to the attention of the Building Official and request for approval shall be submitted in writing prior to any approval. (1) 2.5 Complete the hazardous material questionnaire and the air quality questionnaire and submit to the Building.!Division and the proper agencies. If the answer to any, of the questions is "yes", clearances 'from the Hazardous Materials Disclosure Office and the South Coast Air Quality Management District shall be submitted to the Building Division prior to approval. (1) 2.6 Provide complete details for accessible paths of travel throughout the site, including pedestrian circulation from public right of way to the buildings and throughout the new structures including cashier counter and office space. (1) 2.7 Exterior walls within twenty (20) feet of property lines shall be one-hour fire rated and require a minimum of 30" high parapet in accordance with Uniform Building Code Section 709.4 and Table 5A. (1) 2.8 Trash enclosures shall comply with Great Western Reclamation and City of Tustin standards. Separate trash enclosures are required for each parcel. (1) 2.9 All parapets shall be at least six inches (6") above any roof mounted equipment, vents, and exhausts. . (1) 2.10 The windows located in the service bay doors shall be tinted to obscure the view into the building. (1) 2.19 No exterior downspouts shall be permitted on any facade of the building which are visible from adjacent streets or residential/commercial areas. Exhibit A—Conditions of Approval Resolution No. 3664 CUP 98-007 & DR98-007 Page No. 3 (1) 2.12 Roof scuppers shall be installed with a special lip device so that overflow drainage will not stain the walls. (1) 2.13 Enclosure of electric and gas meters must be compatible with the building treatment. (1) 2.14 All exposed metal flashing or trim shall be anodized or painted compatible with main buildings. (1) 2.15 The site shall be landscaped consistent with the City's Landscaping and Irrigation Guidelines. Landscaping shall-consist of a combination of berming and sufficient numbers of shrubs and trees to provide adequate screening, subject to the satisfaction of the Community Development Director. (1) 2.16 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 consistent with the architecture of the building. All exterior lighting shall be designed and arranged as not to direct light or glare onto adjacent properties, including the adjacent streets. Parking lot and wall mounted fixtures shall be directed at a 90 degree angle directly • toward the ground. All lighting shall be developed to provide a minimum of one (1) footcandle of light coverage,in accordance with the City's Security Code. (1) 2.17 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 Community Development Director and/or Building Official. (1) 2.98 Construction hours shall be clearly posted on the project site to the satisfaction of the Building Official. (2) 2.19 All construction activities shall comply with the requirements of the City of Tustin Grading Manual which requires frequent watering of the project site to control dust. (2) 2.20 The applicant shall • obtain all necessary approvals form the Community Development Department, Orange County Fire Authority Hazardous Materials Disclosure Office, Orange County Health Care Agency and Occupational Safety Hazard Association(OSHA). (2) 2.21 The applicant shall provide the Community Development Director with a written statement of compliance from the Orange County Health Care Agency for the contaminated soil that existed due to the previous service station development. Exhibit A—Conditions of Approval Resolution No. 3664 CUP 98-007 & DR98-007 Page No. 4 USE RESTRICTIONS (1) 3.1 No other auto service use is permitted with the exception of the approved drive- through oil change facility. (1) 3.2 Service operations shall be performed entirely within the structure. No vehicle service shall take place in any parking space or drive aisle or partially protruding into a parking space, stacking area or drive aisle. (1) 3.3 Vehicle stacking-in the public right-of-way shall be prohibited and any violation shall be subject to citation. The operator of the facility is responsible for ensuring compliance and preventing stacking from occurring in the public right-of-way. (1) 3.4 No outdoor storage or display of materials shall be permitted. (1) 3.5 Vending machines shall be located within the approved structure. Outdoor vending machines.or activities are prohibited. (1) 3.6 The storage of junk or permanently disabled or wrecked automobiles shall,not be . • permitted. Used or discarded automotive parts or equipment shall not be located outside of the structure except within the designated trash storage area. No inoperative vehicles shall be permitted to be parked or stored on the site outside the building, including marked parking spaces. (1) 3.7 Storage or parking of buses.and trucks or similar vehicles is prohibited. This excludes tow trucks, pick-up tracks, and small vans incidental to the service station use. (1) 3.8 Parking and advertising of vehicles for sale or lease is not permitted. (1) 3.9 Restrooms shall be provided to the public at no cost and available during all hours of operation. The restrooms shall be maintained in a clean and sanitary condition. (1) 3.10 Provisions shall be made for the storage of used oil and lubricants pending recycling and approved by the Community Development Director. (1) 2.11 Exterior public address systems shall be prohibited. (1) 3.12 All requirements of the City's Noise Ordinance (Chapter 6 of the Tustin City Code) shall be met at all times. (1) 3.13 All litter shall be removed from the exterior areas of the premises, including • adjacentpublic sidewalk areas, no less than once each day. (1) 3.14 Public telephones on the property shall be located inside the building and modified to prevent incoming calls. No exterior pay phones are allowed. Exhibit A—Conditions of Approval • Resolution No. 3664 CUP 98-007 & DR98-007 Page No. 5 (2) 3.15 The installation and operation of the service bays shall be performed in accordance with the requirements of the South Coast Air Quality Management District. The applicant shall provide evidence to the Community Development Director of approval by the South Coast Air Quality Management District. (2) 3.96 The applicant shall be responsible for taking appropriate corrective action to address any surface contamination as required for any accidental spills, as required to the satisfaction of the Health Care Agency. (2) 3.17 The applicant shall be responsible for legally disposing of all motor oil and other hazardous substances in accordance to the requirements and satisfaction of the County Health Care Agency. PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT (1) 4.1 The applicant shall enter into an agreement with the City of Tustin to continue to pursue a reciprocal parking, circulation and access agreement with the property owner of the adjacent commercial center. The agreement shall require that when . the revitalization of the adjacent center commences, a reciprocal parking, circulation and access agreement shall be obtained. The curb cuts along Newport and Old Irvine shall be eliminated and a more integrated parking and circulation pattern shall be designed and installed by the applicant with the adjacent center. The costs associated with these improvements shall be paid by the applicant. The design of the revised circulation plan shall be submitted for review and approval by the Community Development Department and the Public Works Department. The applicant shall enter into this agreement with the City of Tustin prior to the issuance of.the building permit. (1) 4.2 A separate 24" x 36" street improvement plan, as prepared by a California Registered Civil Engineer, will be 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. Said plan shall include, but not be limited to the following: 13 Curb and gutter; Sidewalk, including curb ramps for the physically disabled; ■ Drive aprons; In addition, a 24" x 36' reproducible construction area traffic control plan, as prepared by a California Registered Traffic Engineer or Civil Engineer experienced in this type of plan preparation will be required. (1) 4.3 Preparation of a sedimentation and erosion control plan for all work related to this development will be required. Exhibit A—Conditions of Approval Resolution No. 3664 CUP 98-007 & DR98-007 Page No. 6 (1) 4.4 Preparation and submittal of a final grading plan snowing all pertinent elevations as they pertain to the public right-of-way along with delineating the following information: ■ Final street elevations at key locations. ■ Final pad/finished 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. ■ All flood hazards of record. (1) 4.5 Existing sewer, domestic water, reclaimed water and storm drain service laterals shall be utilized whenever possible. (1) 4.6 Any damage done to existing street improvements and utilities shall be repaired before issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy. (1) 4.7 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) 4.8 The 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 per This will 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 California Registered Civil Engineer and/or California Licensed Land Surveyor, shall be submitted to the Engineering Division for review and approval. (1) 4.9 This development shall comply with all applicable provisions of the City of Tustin Water Quality Ordinance'and all federal, state, Regional Water Quality Control Board and Orange County Sanitation District rules and regulations as they relate to service station facilities. The plan shall be designed in accordance with, but not limited to, the following: El Use-a perimeter drain or slope pavement inward with drainage to sump; and,' ■ ]f a dead-end sump is not used to collect spills, an oil/water separator is to be installed; Spills can be contained within the service area either by using a perimeter drain or by sloping the pavement inward with drainage to a sump. r Exhibit•A—Conditions of Approval Resolution_ No. 3664 CUP 98-007 & DR98-007 Page No. 7 ORANGE COUNTY FIRE AUTHORITY (1) 5.1 Prior to the issuance of any grading or building permits, whichever occurs first, the applicant shall 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 building permits. 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. (1). 5.2 Prior to the issuance of any grading or building permits, whichever occurs first, the applicant shall obtain approval of the Fire Chief of all fire protection access easements and shall dedicate them to the City. The approval of the Fire Chief is required for any modifications such as speed bumps, control gates or other changes within said easement. (1) 5.3 Prior to the issuance of any grading permits, the applicant shall submit and obtain.approval of preliminary plans for all streets and courts, public or private, from the Fire Chief in consultation with the Manager, Traffic Engineering. The plans shall include the plan view, sectional view, and indicate the width of the street or court measured flow line to flow line. (1) 5.4 Prior to the issuance of any grading permits, the applicant shall submit and obtain approval from the Fire Chief for street improvement plans with fire lanes shown. 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. (1) 5.5 _ Prior to the issuance of the certificate of use and occupancy the approved fire lane marking plan shall be installed. (1) 5.6 Prior to approval of any use/site permits for site planning, issuance of any grading permits, or building permits, whichever occurs first, the applicant shall submit to the Fire Chief a list of the quantities of all hazardous, flammable and combustible materials, liquids or gases. These liquids and materials are to be classified according to-the "Orange County Fire Authority Chemical Classification Handout". , The submittal shall provide a summary sheet listing each hazard class, the total quantity of chemicals stored per class and the total quantity of chemicals used in that class. All forms of materials are to be converted to units of measure in pounds, gallons, and cubic feet. (1) 5.7 Prior to the issuance of any building permits, an Orange County Fire Authority Water Availability Form shall be submitted to and approved by the Plan Review Section of the Orange County Fire Authority. If sufficient water to meet fire flow • requirements is not available, an automatic fire extinguishing system shall be installed, in a.manner meeting the approval of the Fire Chief. Exhibit A---Conditions of Approval Resolution No_ 3664 CUP 98-007 & DR98-007 Page No. 8 (1) 5.8 Prior to the issuance of any building permits, the applicant shall contact the Orange County Fire Authority Hazardous Materials Disclosure Office at (714) 744-0463 to obtain a "Hazardous Materials Business Information and Chemical Inventory Packet". This shall be completed and submitted to the Fire Chief before the issuance of any building permits. (1) 5.9 Prior to the issuance of any certificates of use and occupancy, all fire hydrants shall have a "Blue Reflective Pavement Marker' indicating its location on the street or drive per the Orange County Fire Authority Standard and approved by the Fire Chief. On private property, these markers are to be maintained in good condition by the property owner. (1) 5.10 Prior to the installation of the aboveground/underground tanks, plans shall be submitted to the Fire Chief for review and approval. FEES (1) 6.1 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. New development fees in the amount of $ 0.10 per square foot of floor area to the Community Development Department. D. Transportation System Improvement Program (TSIP), Benefit Area "A" fees in the amount of $ 5.53 per square foot of new or added gross square floor area of construction or improvements to the Community Development Department. E. Major Thoroughfare and Bridge Fees to the Tustin Public Works Department at the time a building permit is issued. The current fee is $3.03/square feet of additional building area. G. School facilities fee to the Tustin Unified School District subject to any agreement reached and executed between the District and the applicant. . H. Payment of .the Orange County Sanitation District No. 7 Sewer Connection Fees at the time a building permit is issued. The current fee is $472/1000 square feet of building area (a credit for the existing building is applicable per County Sanitation District Ordinance No. 735). Exhibit A—Conditions of.Approval • Resolution No. 3664 CUP 98-007 & DR98=007 Page No. 9 (1,5) 6.2 Within forty-eight(48) hours of approval of the subject project, tfie 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 sig nificantlylengthened. (2) 6.3 Within forty-eight (48) hours of approval of the subject project and prior to issuance of any building permits, payment shall be made for preparation fees for the negative declaration in the amount of $125.00 (one hundred and twenty-five dollars); to enable the City to prepare 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. 4 ITEM #3 Weport to the Planning Commission DATE: APRIL 12, 1999 SUBJECT: CONTINUED.PUBLIC HEARING: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 98-022 AND DESIGN REVIEW 98-026 APPLICANT: JACK STANALAND PLAZA LAFAYETTE,LLC 30872 S. COAST HIGHWAY#160 LAGUNA. BEACH,CA 92651 OWNER: PLAZA LAFAYETTE, LLC 30872 S. COAST HIGHWAY#160 LAGUNA BEACH, CA 92651 LOCATION: VACANT PARCEL TO THE NORTH OF 13031 NEWPORT AVENUE AND TO THE WEST OF 12901-12943 NEWPORT • AVENUE (APN 9401-221-04) ZONING: MULTIPLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL(R-3) ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: THIS PROJECT 1S CATEGORICALLY EXEMPT (SECTION 15311, CLASS 11) PURSUANT TO THE.CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY'ACT. REQUEST: ESTABLISHMENT OF A COMMERCIAL PARKING LOT IN A 50' BY 314' PORTION OF AN ABANDONED RAILROAD RIGHT-OF- WAY LOCATED IN THE MULTIPLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL (R-3) ZONING DISTRICT. RECOMMENDATION Adopt Resolution No.'3662 approving Conditional Use Permit 98-022 and Design Review 98-026. BACKGROUND AND DISCUSSION On March 22, 1999, the Planning Commission continued this item since the property was not posted in accordance with the City's public noticing,procedures (see Exhibit A - Staff Report). Subsequently, the property was posted on March 23, 19. 99, for the April 12, 1999, meeting of the Planning Commission. Planning Commission Supplemental Report Conditional Use Permit 98-022& Design Review 98-026 April 12, 1 999 Page 2 Before continuing the item, the Planning Commission received testimony from members of the public who were not available to attend the meeting on April 12, 1999. One member of the public, a Mr. McCauley, indicated that he supported a trail connection to the proposed parking lot, noted that there was an agreement with the previous property owner to install a gate in the wall of a similar project, and requested that the new owner consider installing a gate in the wall. Due to the interest .from the audience, the Commission directed staff to meet with members of the public and the property owner prior to the next public hearing. Public Workshop On March 29, 1999, a public meeting was held at the Clifton Miller Community Center (see Exhibit B - Minutes). Approximately fifty (50) people attended the meeting including the property owner of Plaza Lafayette, representatives from the County of Orange, and a rep resentative from the Southern Pacific Railway. Nine members of the public who reside in the immediate area spoke in favor of the trail. The majority of these residents were in favor of the proposed parking lot if a trail connection was provided. In general, the residents noted: The proposed trail would provide a recreational opportunity that is currently lacking in • the immediate area; • The proposed trail would provide a safer alternative for children traveling to school; and, c Development and maintenance of the trail would eliminate the presence of trash and debris that are currently left in the railroad right-of-way. However, residents of the Woodcrest Apartments indicated that the parking lot had the potential to disrupt them and asked whether the Tustin Police Department or Orange County Sheriff would respond to calls for -service if incidents occur at the proposed parking lot. The residents noted that calls for service were routinely transferred back and forth between the two agencies without a clear understanding of their jurisdiction. Two residents spoke in opposition to the trail stating that they have a lease with the Southern Pacific Railway to extend their rear yards into the abandoned railroad right of way. They noted that although they were told in the past that they would be given the opportunity to purchase the property in the future, their purchase offers_have been rejected by the Southern Pacific Railway. David Knowlton, representative of Southern Pacific Railway, indicated that the purchase offers had been too low to accept. These residents also indicated that they have concerns with the potential noise, disruption, and liability of a trail or parking lot in close proximity to their homes and questioned the need for additional parking for Plaza Lafayette. A representative of the County of Orange, Mr. Jeff Dickman, stated that the County is S ready to purchase the abandoned railroad right-of-way from Warren Avenue south to the .Planning Commission Supplemental Report Conditional Use Permit 98-022&Design Review 98-026 April 12, 1999 • Page 3 applicant's property line and construct the trail. However, before any offer can be made, the County needs an assurance.that the trail will hot terminate without a connection or access to the remaining portion of the trail south of'l rvine Boulevard. The property owner of Plaza Lafayette,,Mr. Jack Stanaland, stated that he had concerns regarding the security risks and liabilities associated with accepting public access in the rear of the property.. To alleviate these concerns, he had attempted on numerous occasions to obtain -a written agreement with the County of Orange to define the responsibilities of each party in relation to the trail connection. However, the County declined to enter into an agreement noting that they are not willing to accept responsibility. or liability for a trail connection that is on private property'and outside of their jurisdictional boundary. Mr. Stanaland indicated that he,is hesitant to'inst_all a gate without a firm understanding of whether or not the trail would be implemented. In response,staff offered the following corriments: ' © 'The'proposed projectdoes not preclude an on-street trail connection from Warren to Irvine Boulevard!along NewportAiienue, or-an off-streettrail between Warren Avenue south to the applicant's property. If a.condition is added requiring public access for a - trail, a nexus between the proposed project and the need for the trail should be included in the findings. If the County is desirous of providing a connection before the trail -is implemented, then an agreement could be reached between the County of Orange and the property owner 'because this link would be,a- portion of a regional facility that traverses'many jurisdictions. A number of operational conditions, are proposed to mitigate potential impacts on adjoining properties.-Staff would confirm with the Chief of Police that'the Tustin Police Department is responsible for responding to calls for service in the proposed parking' lot. . Concerns of the Applicant Since the public hearing on March 24 1999; the applicant has expressed concerns regarding the proposed conditions .of approval. A revised Resolution No. 3662 is attached for the Planning Commission's consideration. The following revisions were made to address the City's requirements and the applicant's concerns: m Condition 2.1 The applicant indicated that .there is an approximately two (2) foot difference between the proposed parking lot elevation and the Woodcrest Apartments elevation. The applicant requested that the height of the required six (6)foot, eight (8) inch block wall be measured from the proposed parking lot elevation: Although walls`alorig a common property Iine are typically measured from the side that is. higher in elevation (top of grade); Section 9271(i)(3) would allow the Planning Commission to modify this requirement through the Conditional Use Permit Planning Commission Supplemental Report Conditional Use Permit 98-022.8 Design Review 98-026 April-12, 1999 _ Page 4 �. process. The applicant also indicated that he.is preparing a block wail analysis to determine the optimum height of the wall.for security purposes. The applicant will provide the City with a copy'of the analysis once it is completed. No revisions are proposed at this time. 5 • Condition 2.5 r Condition No. 2.5 requires six, (6) inch concrete curbing:-to protect landscape materials. The applicant requested that-this condition be deleted since no landscaping will be provided in the-proposed parking lot area. Staff concurs with i the deletion of this condition. . • Condition No. 2.9 through 2.11 Condition No. 2.9 requires a gate-be installed and maintained•at the south end of the proposed parking lot to, limit access from the rest of the shopping center and Condition 2.10 requires the gatebe closed between the hours of 10:00 p.m. and 7:00.a.m. :Condition No. 2.1.1. requires security personnel to.patrol the proposed parking lot between the hours of,5:00 p.m. to 12:00 midnight. These conditionswere recommended to:address City Council concerns regarding potential noise and disturbances on adjacent properties. Provided access to the proposed parking lot is limited in some manner, Condition 2.9 through 2.11 could be revised as follows: 2.9 2.10 . Re— Par-W-Ra shall be allowed withIR there heuFsr 2.11 The applicant shall provide security personnel and/or an on-site manager to limit access to mel the parking lot to employees•only-and.to provide - on-site security. hebolepnef 5,99 p4n. ro ._.• , - © Condition 3.11 Condition 3.11 requires the applicant to amend existing lease agreements with each tenant to require an acknowledgement that employees are required to park in the proposed parking lot and rear of the center. The applicant indicated that all lease agreements, with the exception of Great Western Bank (currently vacant), have a clause which requires employees to park in the rear of the shopping center. Condition 3.11 is revised as'follow; 3.19 The applicant shall aflaend enforce existing lease agreements with 'each tenant which require employees afe r�^Tc�'Rrt to-park in the proposed parking lot and.rear of the center. Planning Commission Supplemental Report Conditional Use Permit 98-022&Design Review 98-026 April 12, 1999 Page 5 • Condition No. 3.12 Condition No. 3.12 requires a valet parking plan to be submitted for review and approval. The applicant has indicated that currently only Nieuport 17 is providing valet parking and the location of valet parking area is already included within their lease agreement. Aithough 'he agrees that providing valet service to all patrons would benefit, the center as a whole, the current lease agreement precludes Nieuport 17's valet service from accepting other vehicles. He indicated that he would work with City staff,to come up with an effective and enforceable valet parking plan.,Condition 3.12 could be revised as follows: 3.12 Within forty,-five (46) days of the approval of CUP 98-022 and DR 98-026, the applicant shall provide the following: a. The .applicant shall._provide a valet service for all patrons of Plaza Lafayette and shall post signs in visible locations stating that the valetservice is available to all patrons of Plaza.Lafayette. b. Valet personnel-shall park vehicles in,a manner that will maximize the number of parked vehicles. • G. The applicant shall provide a valet parking plan for review and approval by the Community Development Department to designate permanently (physically identify) the- number and location of valet parking spaces in accordance with Attachment E of the staff report dated March 22, 1999, or as modified by- the Community Development Department. d. The applicant shall submit written statements from all tenants, including all' 'restaurant tenants, and valet service operators amen ' the exist Rglease agFeelmlenfc• with Festa Fant ten8nfC fn re acknowledging the location and number of parking spaces that may be designated and used for valet parking in accordance With the approved valet parking plan. The appli^a„+-shall pr-Aide ey agFeements have been Fnedified Jus ina Willkom ' Karen-Peterson Associate Planner Acting Senior Planner Attachments: Exhibit A-Staff Report dated March 22, 1999 Exhibit B- Minutes of Public Workshop, March 29, 1999 Resolution No.,3662 ITEMT3 Report to the �� Panning ' Commission DATE: MARCH 22, 1999 SUBJECT: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 98-022 AND DESIGN REVIEW'98-026 APPLICANT: JACK.STANALAND PLAZA LAFAYETTE,'LLC 30872,S. COAST HIGHWAY#160 LAGUNA BEACH, CA 92651 OWNER: PLAZA LAFAYETTE, LLC 30872 S. COAST HIGHWAY#160 , LAGUNA BEACH, CA 92651 LOCATION: VACANT PARCEL TO THE NORTH OF 13031 NEWPORT AVENUE AND TO THE WEST OF 12901-12943 NEWPORT AVENUE (APN #401-221- 04) ZONING: MULTIPLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL (R-3) ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: THIS PROJECT IS CATEGORICALLY EXEMPT (SECTION 15311,. CLASS 11) 'PURSUANT TO THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT. r REQUEST: ESTABLISHMENT OF A COMMERCIAL PARKING LOT IN A 50' BY 314' PORTION OF AN ABANDONED RAILROAD RIGHT-OF-WAY LOCATED IN THE MULTIPLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL (R-3)ZONING DISTRICT. RECOMMENDATION Adopt Resolution No. 3662 approving Conditional Use Permit 98-022 and Design Review 98-026. BACKGROUND/HISTORY Introduction The applicant is requesting.authorization to establish a parking lot in'a vacant 50 foot,by 314 foot portion of an abandoned railroad right-of-way located to the north of the Plaza LaFayette shopping center at 13031 Newport Avenue and.to the west of the Woodcrest Apartments located at 12901- 12943 Newport Avenue (see Location Map). The parking lot would be utilized for employee parking only. The site is zoned Multiple Family Residential (R-3). The proposed use, when adjacent to a commercial district, is permitted in the R-3 district subject to a Conditional Use Permit (Tustin City Code Section 9226 (a) (1), 9225 (a),(1)and 9223 (b) (4)). EXHIBIT A Planning Commission Report Conditional Use Permit 98-022&Design Review 98-026 March 22, 1999 Page 2 ' The project is located in the Town Center.Redevelopment area; therefore, final design review approval rests with the Redevelopment Agency. However, Tustin City Code Section 9299 (b) (3) (c) grants authority to the Zoning Administrator to approve Design Review applications within the City's Redevelopment Areas in lieu of the Redevelopment Agency. The Zoning Administrator may forward the design review to the Planning Commission for action when deemed appropriate. Given previous actions on a similar project, the Zoning Administrator has forwarded the subject proposal to the Planning Commission. Prior Approvals The shopping center was constructed in 1986. In 1988, the Planning Commission approved Variance 88-05 to allow Plaza Lafayette to deviate from the Tustin City Code parking requirements to accommodate the establishment of three restaurant tenant spaces having a total of 337 seats. Variance 95-011 was approved to accommodate the establishment of a fourth restaurant. The two variances reduced the parking required for the center from 327 spaces to 241 spaces. Condition No 6.18 of Resolution 3413 was included to address potential parking problems and stated: "7f, at any time in the future, an on-site or neighboring tenant or customer advises the City, or-if the City is otherwise made aware and concurs, that a parking and/or traffic problem exists at the Plaza Lafayette shopping center as a result of the insufficient on-site parking availability, and it has been confirmed that the subject property is in compliance with mitigation measures 1 through 4 above, the Community Development and Public Works Departments may require the property owner to submit an updated parking demand analysis and(or traffic study, at no expense to the City, within the time schedule stipulated by the City,the property owner may delegate this responsibility, through lease negotiations to any tenant operating under Conditional Use Permit 95-019 and Variance 95-011. If said study indicates that there is inadequate parking or a traffic problem, the property owner shall be required to provide additional mitigation measures to be reviewed and approved by the Community Development and Public Works Departments. Said mitigation may include, but not be limited to, the following: a) Establish altemate hours of operation, or, b) Provide additional parking as needed, up to the minimum number required for the aggregate of shopping center uses pursuant to Zoning Code standards, by purchase and/or lease of property within 500 feet of the property or provision of the needed parking on-site. The securing of off-site parking would require approval of a revised Variance. Failure to adequately respond to such a request and to implement mitigation measures within the time schedules established shall be grounds for initiation of revocation procedures for Variance 95-011 and Conditional Use Permit 95-019" Since the approval of the second variance, the center has experienced parking problems. On December 3, 1996 and January 13, 1997, the Zoning Administrator and Planning Commission 'respectively approved a proposal to construct an employee/valet parking lot within the same portion of abandoned railroad right-of-way. On March 3, 1997, the City Council reversed the Planning Commission's decision and denied Conditional Use Permit 96-037 and Design Review 96-051 (see Attachment B- Resolution No. 97-16) based on the following concerns: Planning Commission Report Conditional Use Permit 98-022&Design Review 98-026 March 22, 1999 Page 3 Without restrictions, the parking lot expansion area has the potential oto create noise and other nuisance impacts on adjacent properties; The use of the employee parking lot between the hours of 10 p.m. and 7 a.m. has the potential to disturb the comfort and general welfare of persons residing adjacent to the proposed use; An unsecured employee parking lot area would permit access to non-employees, which could increase the potential for noise impacts on adjacent properties; and Although the use of the site as a commercial parking lot may be an appropriate use, the use of the site as an expansion of the adjacent residential uses may be a more optimal use of the site. Since March 1997, the City has continued to receive complaints regarding parking at the center. In response, the City's Traffic Engineer directed the preparation of a parking survey. The survey was conducted in April of 1998. The parking survey found the following: During peak periods, additional parking spaces appear to be needed; The valet parking area is not clearly marked as being available for all Plaza Lafayette patrons. Signs could be posted to indicate that the valet service is available for all Plaza • Lafayette patrons; and A more detailed parking study is needed to assess the need and potential strategies for addressing the periodic parking shortages.' As a result of the parking survey, staff required the property owner to submit an updated parking demand analysis and .propose mitigation measures to resolve the situation at the center. Consistent with Condition No. 6.18 of Resolution No. 3413, the applicant is requesting approval to provide additional parking within 500 feet of the existing center. Site and Surrounding Properties The vacant parcel is 15,700 square feet in size and is located directly north of the northwest corner of the Plaza LaFayette shopping center. Surrounding land uses include multiple family residential to the east and west, the existing Plaza LaFayette shopping center rear parking area to the south, and the remaining portion of the abandoned railroad right-of-way to the north. The site is bordered by County unincorporated land to the north and east. DISCUSSION Project Description The parking lot expansion would accommodate 37 compact spaces measuring eight (8) feet in width and twenty (20) feet in length (see Site Plan — Attachment C). To accommodate as many spaces as possible, all of the spaces are proposed to be developed'as compact spaces. Landscaping is not proposed within the parking lot expansion area since the area is not visible from the remainder of the shopping center and would only be used by shopping center employees. Planning Commission Report Conditional Use Permit 98-022& Design Review 98-026 March 22, 1999 ' • Page 4 Further, the width of the property and the parking lot-layout would not provide adequate width to provide parking, access, and significant landscaping such as trees. Parking and Circulation The applicant conducted a parking demand study to determine if the proposed additional number of on-site parking spaces will be adequate to serve the parking demand for the entire center (Attachment D). The parking demand study assumed a parking supply that includes the 37 new spaces and 2 spaces gained by re-striping the existing parking lot for a total of 271 spaces. The study was conducted for a period of eight (8) consecutive hours from 11:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. on Thursday and Friday in October 1998. The study's findings conclude: ® The highest parking demand was for 224 spaces at 12:00 noon on Friday, with a total occupancy of 47,753 square feet (the center is a total of 54,126 square feet). At peak hours, one (1) parking space per 205.83 square feet of floor area must be provided to accommodate the parking demand. Once the proposed parking lot is complete, the parking demand ratio would be one (1) parking space.per 199.72 square feet of floor area. ® The aggregate parking supply at project completion will satisfy the minimum parking requirements for the current occupancy of the center as projected by the study. However, the center will still be deficient in parking since the zoning code would require a total of 327 parking spaces for maximum occupancy of retail, office, and restaurant uses as documented in Variance 95-11. Condition No. 3.1 restricts the additional 37 spaces from being used to establish more intensive uses such as restaurant or medical uses. © The current parking utilization on the project site is not strictly enforced. Store owners and employees have a tendency to occupy the premium parking spaces. The study recommended that this practice be discouraged by including an acknowledgement at lease renewals that employees will be required to park in the proposed employee parking area. Condition No. 3.11 is included to require the applicant to amend the lease agreement with each tenant to require'an acknowledgement that employees are required to park in the proposed parking lot and rear of the center. The current valet service operation often creates traffic overflow onto Newport Avenue. In addition, the City's_ parking survey noted that the valet service needs to service all of the uses in the center. The study suggested the valet traffic be modified as follows: 1)Vehicles entering the project site during the peak restaurant demands should avail themselves of the valet services; 2) Valet personnel will park vehicles in a manner that will maximize the number of parked vehicles. Whenever practical, the valet personnel will park cars in tandem to maximize space availability. Condition No. 3.12 is included to require the following: The applicant shall provide a valet service for all patrons of Plaza Lafayette and shall post signs in visible locations stating that the valet service is available to all patrons of Plaza Lafayette. Valet personnel shall park vehicles in a manner that will maximize the number of parked vehicles. Planning Commission Report Conditional Use Permit 98-022 &Design Review 98-026 March 22, 1999 Page 5 ■ The applicant shall provide a valet parking plan for review and approval by the Community Development Department to designate permanently the number and location of valet parking spaces in accordance with Attachment E. ■ The applicant shall amend the existing lease agreements with restaurant tenants to restrict the location and number of parking spaces that may be designated and used for valet parking in accordance with the approved valet parking plan. The City's Traffic Engineer reviewed the parking demand study and concurs with its recommendations and staffs recommended conditions of approval. Public Safety Concerns To address previous City Council concerns, and potential impacts regarding noise, theft, and vandalism, the following conditions are recommended: Condition No. 2.1 requires installation of a 6'8" high solid masonry wall measured from the adjacent residential property. With approximately two (2) feet difference in elevation between the parking lot and the adjacent residential properties, it would be difficult for a person to climb over the wall. Condition No. 2.3 requires a minimum of one (1)foot candle of illumination through out the • site and light fixtures be directed- 90 degrees down so that no direct light or glare is projected onto the adjacent properties. © Condition No. 2.7 restricts-the installation and/or operation of out-door public telephones or public address systems in the parking lot. Condition No. 2.9 is included to require a gate at the entrance to the new parking area to restrict access. Condition No. 2.10 requires the gate to be closed between the hours of 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. Condition No. 2.11 requires security personnel to patrol the proposed parking lot on a regular basis to ensure people are not loitering and that all noise is limited-in the parking lot. Condition No. 3.1 limits the use of the proposed parking lot as employee parking only. This would limit the type and amount of traffic to and from the parking lot. Condition No. 3.2 is included to provide for the future review of the parking lot expansion area. This condition requires that additional mitigation measures be implemented if deemed necessary by the Community Development Director. Tustin Branch Trail Of the two Tustin Branch trail alternatives, one is an off-street trail along the abandoned railroad right-of-way and Plaza Lafayette between Warren Avenue and the existing on-street trail on Planning Commission Report Conditional Use Permit 98-022 & Design Review 98-026 March 22, 1999 • Page 6 Newport Avenue. A second alternative is an on-street trail along NewportAvenue between Warren Avenue and the existing trail along Newport Avenue (see Attachment F). In 1997 the County began the process to acquire the railroad property between Vanderlip Avenue and Tustin City limits to continue the trail to Plaza Lafayette. In 1998, this effort was given greater impetus when OCTA notified the County that$1.8 million from federal ISTEA funding was available to complete the Tustin Branch Trail project. However, this project has been put on hold since none of the three participating cities (Tustin, Orange, and Villa Park) nor the County has taken the project lead. If a lead agency can not be established within a reasonable time, the project funds will be re-allocated to other projects. The County of Orange has reviewed the proposed project and recommended the following: Installation of a gate at the northerly end of the proposed sidewalk to provide access to and from the future trail; Provision of a six (6) foot wide sidewalk at the northern end to provide a transition to the trail; a Locking of the gate from sunset to sunrise to mitigate concerns related to security and liability. The,recommendations were forwarded to the applicant, however, the applicant has declined to • install an access gate and has proposed to install a block wall separating the future trail and the proposed parking lot. Although staff met with the applicant and representatives from the County of Orange to develop a mutually acceptable solution, the applicant has security and liability concerns in 'allowing the public to pass through his center. The applicant has indicated that if the trail is implemented, he would be willing to reconsider installing a gate to connect the proposed parking lot with the trail. The sidewalk in the parking lot expansion area is six (6) feet wide, a width the County has indicated would be sufficient for a trail connection. Condition No. 2.4 is included to allow the Zoning Administrator to review the amendment to the Design Review to accommodate the trail connection. Jusgia.Willkom Karen Peterson Associate Planner Acting Senior Planner Attachments: Attachment A- Location Map Attachment B— City Council Resolution No. 97-16 Attachment C— Site Plan Attachment D— Parking and Circulation Study Attachment E- Valet Parking Plan Attachment F— Tustin Branch Trail Map Resolution No. 3662 • LOCATION MAP,`_ i Z1 J L F' l t � WARREN 14452 N .ol^ 14472 I m 1842�� w 14491 14492 i 14512 14501 to 14511 J 14512 i 522 1,1451 ��� 14503 14482 14511,]:14522 � 3 ' 14505 �I 14521 Q 14i i g1 +� +�t`� 14531+x,14542 h ,v , , 14512 14531 1.1532 t� i t 14511 !♦ Q - L`i0 � i 14552 , '1 Ch1 14551 -r :4552 v'Oi i•e uy , •+ 14522 U ,3t - 14551,:, 14521 L-459 ,- , t 1'.S6S 1{562 Z.+o, 14572~ ���� 145Bk 14561 14562 ahs* 14581 14582 +'1� -14591 .1459 s 14612.18 .R,' S 19 `r'a / ado 22,28,32, U �t462 1 2\ pj 38,42,48,52 a! 9 5 ► p. 14672,74, 14681 1 82 >>�ys 9 \.[1 1 76,78,80 11n ` 14582.84 54 14 2 o c- G .8 W 86.88.90 ,�� 14695 1 02 -�p•�i `r �� • Z _ a n WWr m m '� N [t= •1 12 N N C4 / I• ` ?�01 J Q PLAZA 1 22 14751 ¢ 147 Q NP1� JJO 0 I 14752 14771 _ 1476214772 ♦.?0 K� 14772 ~^ ��0 O4 � Q 14782 X, n !1 Ajh � IRVINE BOULEVARD NO SCALE A Tm 'i i--l,r�r-m Ar-s-1-7.1,-T.-, 1 I RESOLUTION NO. 97-16 2 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN REVERSING THE PLANNING . COMMISS-ION' S 3 , DECISION AND DENYING, WITHOUT PREJUDICE, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 96-037 AND DESIGN 4 REVIEW 96-051, A REQUEST TO ESTABLISH A PARKING LOT ON A VACANT 50' BY 314 ' PORTION OF 5 P.N ABANDONED RAILROAD RIGHT-OF-WAY LOCATED TO THE NORTH OF THE PLAZA LA FAYETTE SHOPPING 6 CENTER AT 13031 NEWPORT AVENUE AND TO THE WEST OF THE WOOD CREST APARTMENTS AT 12901-12943 7 NEWPORT AVENUE. 8 The City Council of the City of Tustin does hereby 9 resolve as follows : The City Council finds and determines as follows : A. ' That a proper annlication, Conditional Use Permit 96-037 and Design Review 96-051, was 12 filed by C.L. Burnett to authorize• the establishment of a parking lot on a vacant 50' ''-3 by 314 ' portion of an abandoned railroad right-of-way. located to the north of the Plaza 14 La 'Fayette shopping center at 13031 Newport Avenue and to the west of the Woodcrest 15 Apartments at 12901-12943 Newport Avenue . 16 B. That a public hearing. was duly called, noticed and held on said application on December 3 , 17' 1996 by the Zoning Administrator. The Zoning Administrator adopted Zoning Administrator 18 Action 96-011, approving the request to 19 establish the subject parking lot. C. That on December 10, 1996, Sharon Ramage, 20 owner of the Woodcrest Apartments, submitted _an appeal of the Zoning Administrator' s action 21 on this• project. _ 22 D. That a public hearing was duly called, noticed and held on said appeal by the Planning 23 Commission on January 13 , '1997 . The Planning Commission adopted Planning Commission 24 Resolution No. 3507, upholding. the Zoning Administrator's action and approving 25 Conditional Use Permit 96-037 • and Design Review 96-051. 26 ,E. That on January 17, 1997, Nancy D. Ramage, •27 G.R. Ramage, Jr. MD, Sharon Ramage and G.R. Ramage, III, the' owners of the Woodcrest 26 Apartments, submitted an appeal ' of the Planning Commission' s action on 'this .project . Attachment B Resolution No. 97-16 Page 2 1 _ F. That a public hearing was duly called, noticed 2 and held ori said appeal by the City Council on February 18, 1997 . 3 G. That the proposed use is all within the R- 3 , Multiple-Family Residential District with the approval of a Conditional Use Permit . 5 H. That establishment, maintenance, and operation 6 of a parking lot in a. residential district ' to serve an adjacent commercial shopping center 7 may be detrimental to . the health, safety, morals, comfort, or general welfare of persons 8 residing or working in the neighborhood of such proposed use, or be injurious or 9 detrimental to the property and improvements- in the neighborhood of the subject property, 10 or to the general welfare , of the City of Tustin, as evidenced by the following 11 findings : 12 1.. Without use restrictions, the parking lot expansion area has the potential to 13 create noise and other nuisance impacts on adjacent properties . 14 2 . The use of the employee parking lot 15 between the hours of 10 p.m. and 7 a.m. has the potential to disturb the comfort 16 and general welfare of persons residing adjacent to the proposed use. 17 3 . An unsecured employee parking lot area 18 would permit access to non-employees, which could increase the potential for 19 noise impacts on adjacent properties . 20 4 . Although the use of the site as a commercial - parking lot may be an -21 appropriate -use, the use of the site as an expansion of the adjacent residential 22 uses, would be a more optimal use of the- site than use as a commercial parking 23 lot . 24 I . Pursuant to Section 9272 of the Tustin Municipal Code, the City Council finds that 25 the location, size, architectural features and general appearance of the parking lot 26 expansion area have the ability to impair the orderly and harmonious development of the 27 area, the present or future development therein, or the occupancy as a whole. In 28 making such findings, the City Council has considered at least the following items: 1 Resolution No. 97-16 Page 3 1 2 ' 1 . Height, bulk and area of buildings . 3 2 . Setbacks and site planning. • 3 . Landscaping, parking area design and A traffic circulation. 5 A . Location, height and standards of exterior illumination. 6 5 . Location and method of refuse storage. 7 G . Physical relationship of proposed 8 improvements to existing structures in , the neighborhood. 9 7 . Appearance and design relationship of 10 proposed improvements to existing structures and possible future structures 11 in ' the neighborhood and public 12 thoroughfares . 8 . Development Guidelines and criteria as 13 adopted by the City Council . 14 J. This project is statutorily exempt pursuant to Section 15270 of the California Environmental ' 5 Quality-Act. 16 K. If negotiations among the property owners for the purchase of the site from Southern Pacific 17 Railroad by the residential property owners are unsuccessful, the applicant would have the 18 option to resubmit. the project for review by the City' s Zoning Administrator. However, the 19 resubmitted project shall be modified to address the Council' s concerns. 20 II . The City Council hereby reverses the Planning 21 Commission' s decision and - denies, without prejudice, Conditional Use Permit No. 96-037 and 22 Design Review 96-051, a request to establish a parking lot on a vacant 50' by 314 '• portion of an 23 abandoned railroad right-of--way located to the 24 north of the Plaza La Fayette shopping center at 25 26 .27 ' 28 Resolution No. 97"-L6 Page 4 I 13031 Newport Avenue and to the , west of the 2 Woodcrest Apartments at 12901--12943 Newport Avenue. 3 PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council, held on the 3rd day of March, 1997. c " 5 Tracy W' s Worley 7 Mayor 8 . 9 10 Pamela Stoker City Clerk STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) . 12 COUNTY OF ORANGE ) CITY OF "TUSTIN ) 13 14 I, " Pamela Stoker, City Clerk and ex-officio Clerk of the City Council of- the City of Tustin, California, do hereby 15 certify that the whole number of the members of the City Council of the City of Tustin is five; that the above and 16 foregoing Resolution No. . 97-16 was duly passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the Tustin City Council, 17 held on the 3rd day of March, 1997, by the following vote: 18 COUNCILMEMBER AYES: WORLEY, THOMAS, DOYLE, POTTS, SALTARELLI 19 COUNCILMEMBER NOES: NONE COUNCILMEMBER ABSTAINED: NONE 20 COUNCILMEMBER ABSENT: NONE 21 22 23 PAMELA STOKER CITY CLERK 24 25 26 27 28 SEESNEET2- eia aee[s:rv.aa n7.csr.rr_..Y__ Loy, VANOERLP WOROVAN INACT MM 2,160 rc a.al..se• _rr+.aJFur r'w•n r+ r w.rr .,J" Is..JJ ro.c aw,1.r.- I.s ea.r n.++•••. M.B9'�2_�2'x,+ • -� •�-ea .:..0...Mr ,.A 6O2 ii0-..ti......,. Loa �5• •�� i\, EASEMENT LEGEND � �.�.: �,f � ��.r 2hrJ - - - - •[a wM "_ � �,. IAI[.[xt 1.5[.1xt [<n.p.4 ..P1. p E , w.wr •-� -.. ,.._. I r.�-lti ._. _ -....... -• - \� .��' :��� a.�4ss r c,.r v%n'.�*,ry 1� ��t ."'iwi i 4Aa. .>•sT I � ,�'F��;� sf a J rP• r�.+..M.+.•, -y I y.fi! r � �4_rtr 0 rF1,"o'.•«aCxivJ"" / 1! en•.... �rfr�:. � �,f. � in:xwwro.wrrar r�r�y.r rwr ur,r I• 1 j i aV!ca iil;�Iij• +� .� ► /1 \ `� w. �Yh�\ -Od vs— w."IT111 ..nr.. .010iE�. `•• r7�r%� `` �' \ rNaJEa ... ,�. F•.rr a•raJrw :+ee H.iro torr rut 1}I i ,�` rxr orrrw r ..rort i�1,eru LI i r,. �. _,._LLQ I , : •�' � �, E I I ��I ..rs r..r ' .0 r l }r1.. P. d`""- _ ,LJ,r/ ,[•.• ! [, . ti , .\' 't' ftwrrn a++ser ni+.77T v..e ....r W_ ,T> ly 1 k/���-�./.---�1`i% ,,,�� � � •Ri 'Y .r[i'J. IML..LI MkYh v/r„ V.� I 1' IL !1 !7- -•_-� •4 I r i�-M�.�ti1_.Nl�a 1I1j ' f GV .I �„ s" - •''y' �lNW-aiiF'vii. r;L e � � � 1A I 4':Y o � 4'� .�'-•. � � A/ Jr -� ..ark.mvr` { cir,a-rae,iv .Pulrr.o.snr+„r �{'. r(v�/ •C\4/ � , ul'�1 --___.___.•-- .weeesnr _�_�_ 1 ; T'IuII• � I• - � '..-.:• .:�.r- f.�A .sFKll� ��� � /'' f _,ttl. -.�e�o-l.rr�.. — s ...r1w...r1..1.a1. I 11.. � .��• �� `,\`rr��.� r� .w a." '119 I I R .E.E. _ - r B i `P.arr,a,T ° / `;���y =`}c>\ -�S,s r�'` sr N,�-�•..-+\ A,rLP � � II i ,.I ��I fir: ITrY /'E L.r�\ •� � �'[� i.sQ � .ii:iu[Li15[AP:i wi+w:i:a w�iiii • e I ti _I I• l� I i 1J1r4� �/ / •• l yrs.":,, / \ VICINITY MAP p/ ///� /\,i •U.M1./ r.et r"`n snu' t Is \ j�6•'.Jr!" ,.r Y f4y�I�� w / I/ w � � �•S.`r•:•�.i \ I s • I I w�±�pi�r�1 _ (�.c" �. r<'�[/ � ` L E G E N D PPOMAll LW 9NW C[Nf[AWL [ASEy1CxT LM12 g t . I I �11 N """�is•w V j rC "z /I stP[[s Lwus n.x I+�elyI I. .� \ ', nI:rR1o1M1iw1at �:: R; V i tl 1 I, I' , •r / '/ / V'�:/ .��`... 11 J ENrM11.1 r j •,.',� S,PECIA KSS-K-S b I T 9 A `'; �'a PRESSuAC REOUC.S OC.C[ 6 S•i'\1'it ��T:. L'{ /.O O i. rA[[R A. '615pN E10-B9x ME EM, 0, C L STP,[MIEL fN �.h•� PENE APK1a PACEAs ...���P s�,"_� P i7 - l { 1p� •L, x�a`�'+. THE ES T[Lv[ I v 1 = y♦4 \''I Y \q to VIM" EP C.L11Lw.Ilx su.wLIN[ cs t I / / d• L, sy 1[ N-uL.Er4iL ..._.......�M r l / a ■' iv 1 / rA� *� C scnE s < •'I. i a ilk - -�� r I r 9 /�.` PAC FF ASP NALI C CONCRETE�[ai ES UOUWEu_,Fgi A, +Af[fl I �\ P .—O SES Z o9 - tAHp[6LLOSWE It IQ ;., • \ .�' f PARKING SUMMATIDN PG•.tar C= CO DVUJNAL LISE PERMI1 88-022 `[q4.ri \r�„ � B in1WFPP:Ib[L9 rC[S TtP C4 j� i ,ll 1,,Ir 41 ,' f\w�•t.p•'ly. 9AIM"21 WA[Es DESIGN REVIEW 9D-026 =•L• f N .F- C LMtUgEPM,Y.V451Y[[S L 19 1z \} �:� s• \'1- orA i ii Ac[s SITE PLAN k.- . FOA PLALA LAra,ETIE.LLC 11! C I •yl. i �, "•�"\L C • 1790 • aL...Yi]{••.Pr \\\!M••] Ih9K P0.91 1 P LA41AA W AC[Oni.CAi401Mnra11;/5 u9l2,6C1 •laT'0arpNEl FA• ITIN 499.124 IRVINE BOULEVARD .....T 10 .r .PFS.A.L.•..n�wc[Ox5y,n4[ma F.L«.F.] •x4[Sr o•.4[.L.L1,o.....+... I- - d/'] .r.0.F r11�r1 Jtr'3]•P r..1•x.1•,r:.. SMEETrI OF2 Attachment C .r lai,lr au,il ainlY] y,•,'i v n ,�Ir'.,1' arl P al.','�.1.'' u�V 1 6IAM 33A01d W3 r1 n,T$rC'f,T. ' n��l,w�+,i�'�Na,��'n^�'�'ri�.i n. � „1.1,'.'•rnb Iw t•11n,i I . lr �tr6)7[2A7 51N9W xV�v St tt `- ,o-p-.>.�.�,01.���rEZIDJ `�P+-nl ' ,n.....,.1 .A•_'• w.off».......,.....y _ ...,. � ....,..- . �: y,•11�.w�y Ti rA�_M r!L. . 1r+.�.,.t I....w.r�s-- d. 4 J c. aPawl,s,.o•sr 1 or.'� z sia NINMV Is= 1 4P" rC� j'9 PARKING ANALYSIS AND CIRCULATION STUDY AT PLAZA LAFAYETTE IN THE CITY OF TUSTIN, CALIF. Ref. No. 9810.03 Bate® December 1998 Paul Singer, RE. TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERING & PLANNING Attachment D Paul Singer, P.E. TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERING & PLANNING X163 Columbus Drive ® Anaheim Hills, California 92807 (714) 281-3222 December 10, 1998 Mr. John Stanaland Plaza LaFayette, LLC. 30872 So. Coast Highway Suite 160 Laguna Beach, Ca. 92651 Ref . No. 9810 . 03 Dear Mr. Stanaland: The following is the requested parking demand study and the circulation study for the Plaza LaFayette in the City of Tustin. The project is located at the northwest corner of Irvine Blvd. and Newport Ave. The' parking study was conducted commensurate with the requirements of City codes and by specific requests of City- staff. Additional parking that is required by City staff has been analyzed. The following study evaluates the project parking supply following addition of 37 new parking spaces located at the rear of the project and two (2) additional parking spaces gained by restriping the existing parking lot fronting Newport Blvd. " Parking turn-over studies were conducted at the -Center as presently occupied. Parking usage and on site traffic circulation was evaluated. Based on the study findings, the existing plus the added parking area will be more than adequate to serve all of the uses within the Center. Based on the findings of the existing' parking- usage, City Code parking requirements and comparable facility parking demand, adequate parking is provided to accommodate the land uses as currently configured within the Plaza LaFayette Center. The Center currently experiences occasional parking deficiencies . For this reason additional parking is hereby proposed at the rear of the buildings. This parking will be restricted to employees and owners of the businesses. Si erely, Ey�`p�sra, SfGFfy� NM 0085 * 1DIp 3-31-DO Paul Singer, P.E. . if OF CAti�E��� 9810 .03R Page 1 • r^` a J Table of Contents Introduction: Page 2 Location Page 2 Project description Page 2 Project parking supply Page 2 Study Elements : Page 3 City requirements Page 3 Code required parking Page 4- Post project parking supply Page 6 Parking usage Page 6 Parking ratios Page S Circulation and Access:* Page 9' , Parking practices Page 9 Circulation _ Page 9 Valet parking recommendations 'Page 10 Study Findings and Conclusions: Page 11 In conclusion Page 11 List of Tables Building occupancy Table 1 Page 4 Tustin Parking Code Table 2 Page 5 Code 'required.parking Table 3 Page 5 Parking usage Table 4 Page 7 List of Figures Location - Site 'Plan Figure 1 New Parking Area Addition Figure 2 Area 1 - Parking .. Figure 3 Area-- 2 - Parking Figure 4 Appendix EVMODUCTION: Location: The study project is located on the northwest corner of the intersection of Irvine Blvd. and Newport Ave. known as Plaza LaFayette in the City of Tustin, California. Project location is shown on Figure, 1. Currently access to the center and the existing buildings is accommodated from Newport Blvd. The occupancy of the project site includes retail shops, offices and restaurants and service establishments . The project is a-mixed use shopping center. Project Description: The existing center is intended to serve the general area by providing shopping, service and restaurant opportunities to the area. The following study is a requirement of the City to provide substantial documentation as. to the adequacy of currently available parking , and with the additional parking to be provided. The City requires a parking study to assure the customers to the Center that adequate parking is available. To provide this parking, an additional 37 parking spaces are proposed to be added for employee use. This arrangement will minimize impact to the adjacent residential area as well as provide the maximum number of marked parking-spaces . Project Parking Supply: The parking supply on the project site consists of .232 spaces plus two additional spaces after restriping. In addition, 37 new parking spaces will be provided at the rear of the project. These additional spaces will be designated for employees of the Center only. For the purposes of this study the existing parking supply and parking layout was assumed to remain with certain modifications to accommodate additional handicap parking spaces without losing or reducing the total parking space count. Parking and access configuration is shown on Figure 2, Site Plan. Note: The circled numbers shown on the site plan indicate detail plans of the handicap parking space configuration. Page 2 r.t.u.rcw[,�+:.ax a• r LOT It. VAHOERL!P ANO ROwAm TRACT alµ 5/l60 CK3!'l 6lfA1CY,ClLL QL' cs. P.r s••dJuLl /r AV Y! Ap M r/rr�F.•.SUSC CaVG M, rrY tt I ChrG11[Acn Y H.89' 2� Grar.wu Ar to er�+Ya n 602.[46 521rlcMtr a++•a. '1 irsr { dCLurc✓ q r. L IN C1k Iti tt ' I�� •6• 6rIlSr OfA•1�,1�4$F. G r�.[sSEyLNT J h� � .LrYA•.eiY �e�esS >� lJ•ster�.r".e m I ,SCI, 1 fl'YX.W/ 1� 1 h 7, � Q ! t • rseaar.w..ce1 4 1� �J- i' rG rs. a � ' rit t{ avec h / re L.S _ �t� •- ^� rI FLOWER I i rWor —G i3. t ZA + T N �i . �ps � � �• t ,d t303i • I I S.�• �3:'�� , ONT.3.5 3SL �s f t � I r( � I• LL •B I�JI/ t44GM[J 1 � i 1 �e, � �t i ..dry f-'� V/ •�' ��o'o'/e �y Q d b �,•.••./ / o ryyr. V sy 41 J Indicates detail. handicap parking area modification as shown on Figure 3, 4 and 5 .Ni z n 't3 a I IRVINE BOULEVARD Paul Singer, AE. SITE ]PLAN Fig. 1 TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERING & PLANNING 2 I F Q •r Y • x z s r 'p r _ 7-7 �xis� PA�KWs•M�A . , Paul Singer, RE NEW PARKING TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERING & PLANNING; AREA ADDITION Fig2 STUDY ELEMENTS: City Requirements : The City of Tustin follows a comprehensive Parking requirement standard. The following Parking Demand study will address the existing parking supply on thEi project site and will compare the supply with the demand. In addition to the above, the City of Tustin, Conditional Use.. Permit 98-022 and design review 98-026 will be used to define existing parking requirements with the proposed building uses . The City CUP and Resolutions state that a minimum of 241 parking spaces will be provided on the project site. This study was commissioned to determine the adequacy of the' required parking. For this reason a specific parking demand study was conducted and • is hereby presented. In order to prepare a comprehensive study the following elements were included: a. - Parking turnover studies were conducted at the Plaza Lafayette Center. The study was conducted for a period of eight (8) consecutive hours per City staff instruction, from 11 AM through 8 PM on a Thursday and Friday, 22nd and 23th day of October 1998 . The study survey parking count details are shown in the parking count field sheets included in the appendix of this report. b. - The Plaza Lafayette Center is composed of three buildings and occupied by diverse uses. The building uses are summarized in Table 1 and show the square footage of each aggregate building occupancy. Page 3 Table 1 Plaza Lafayette Center Building Occupancy By Use. Building Use: Aggregate Square feet. Restaurants 15, 301 sq.ft. Offices 7, 84.7 sq.ft . Vacant 6, 3G3-- sq. ft. Retail*' 24, 515 sq. ft . Kiosk 100 sq.ft., Total square, feet of buildings: - 54,].26 sq. ft. * The building use- includes a -specialized exercise unit of 3, 050 , square feet. The use is not a' health spa. It is a specialized, by appointment only use. The City of Tustin Parking Code for •'the- existing and proposed building occupancies is shown on Table 2'. ; Code Reauired Parking: The City of Tustin parking code is contained within the City Zoning Ordinances for each land use. , -- Page 4 • - Table 2 Parking Code City of Tustin Use: Code required parking: Retail Stores and Service, Business: 1 space per 200 sq.ft 24, 515 sq.ft. of floor area. 123 spaces Vacant (retail) : 1 space per 200 sq. ft. 6, 363 sq. ft. of floor area. 32 spaces Restaurants : 1 parking space for -450 seats each 3 seats . 150 spaces Kiosk: 1 space 1 space Total Code required parking spaces : 306 spaces Code required parking was determined based on aggregate square footage of buildings and specific land uses commensurate with the City of Tustin Code. Individual building use was compared to the specific use within the center. Code parking was thereby summarized. -A total of 306 parking spaces are required for all of 'the combined uses within the Center. This parking count is not achievable on the project site as currently configured. A total of 232 parking spaces are currently-provided on the project site. There are 127 parking spaces at the main frontage lot of the buildings and 105 parking spaces in the rear of the buildings with direct access to the establishments under existing conditions . The addition of 37 parking spaces will yield a total of 271 plus two restriped on site parking spaces. To meet Code required parking an additional 35 spaces are required. To mitigate this deficiency, valet parking will be utilized during peak periods. Tandem parking will be arranged thereby mitigating parking overflows. The retail establishments in the Center are normally closed at peak dinner hours at the restaurants . This fact may partially mitigate parking overflows from the restaurant peak demand. • Page 5 • Post Protect Parking Supply:_ Site improvements will add an additional 37 parking spaces to be located at the rear of the complex for employee use. Restriping of the existing, main parking area, will add two (2) additional spaces . The additional two parking spaces will be gained following restriping of areas shown on the enclosed Figure 3, Figure 4 and Figure 5 . A total of 232 parking spaces plus 37 employee parking spaces and two restriped spaces for a total of 271 on site parking will be available following completion of the recommended restriping and paving of the rear parking area. Parking Usage: To verify adequacy of the existing parking supply, a parking turnover survey was conducted during the highest usage hours . These hours were determined to be on a Thursday and Friday from. 11 AM through 8 PM. each day. Data collected as required for study elements include: Parking turn-over counts, City code parking requirements, On- site parking supply. - Building occupancies, by square footage of all buildings was summarized. Aggregate parking demand for the highest study hour was compared to highest parking occupancy. A ratio of parking, based on this comparison was obtained. The parking rate usage is shown on Table 4. Page S • � C 1 See Figure z' "f for Location Existin.a. Proposed Sidewalk Sidewalk H H H 65 ' 65 + Existing: Proposed: Currently there is only The currently marked handicap one disabled driver parking space could be modified parking space provided and restriped to accommodate two in this marked area. handicap parking spaces within the same area. This restriping will yield one. additional space to the on site parking supply. ' Typical Parking Space = 8 .5'x 1.9 ' Paul Singer, P.E. AREA 1 TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERING & PLANNING Parking r ig.J See Figure 1 _ for Location Existing Proposed Sidewalk Sidewalk H H I Existing: Proposed: Currently only one handicap The currently marked handicap parking space is provided in parking space may be restriped this space that could accommodate to accommodate two handicap two parking spaces. parking spaces withisi the .same area. This will yield one additional, on-site parking space to the parking supply. Typical Parking Space = 8 .5 'x 19 ' Paul Singer. P.E. AREA 2 TRANSPORTATION ENGINELRING $ PLANNING Parking Fig-4 i Table 4 Parking, Usage* and Parking Occupancy at Lafayette Plaza Center Status of Building Area: Leasable square feet: Total available leasable space = 54, 126 sq. ft. Currently occupied units = 47, 753 sq. ft. Currently vacant units= 6, 363 sq. ft . ZZ'4 Spaces , Highest parking,.Occupancy 12 : 00 Noon Friday: 2 9 5 . Parking supply - occupancy '232 .0 spaces Net vacant spaces worst condition: w 8 spaces Currently Occupied Units: 47,753 sq. ft. 47, 753 224 205 .83 sq.ft . building. per parking space. * Parking usage reference to highest parking occupancy survey. A survey was conducted on Thursday and Friday October 22nd and 23rd 1998 . Number indicates surplus parking spaces under worst case scenario. i Page 7 i . Parking Ratios: The parking ratio, when the parking lot construction project is completed, .will. be substantially improved. The post project parking ratio to square feet of building will be improved from the existing as follows: 1 parking space per 205 .83 square feet of floor area -- "existing 1 parking space per 199 .72 square feet. of floor area -- proposed This ratio averages 5 parking spaces per 1, 000 square feet of leasable area. Sased. on this reference, the aggregate parking supply at project completion, will satisfy the minimum parking requirements for the Center.. Employee parking space addition as well as -peak tandem parking arrangement will satisfy the parking demand. The parking.- on the project site was maximized. No additional parking solutions are available. The additional employee parking area will free the existing parking lots and greatly alleviate the perceived parking problem. - r Page 8 • CIRCULATION AND ACCESS: Parking Practices: Currently parking utilization on the project site is not strictly enforced. Store owners and employees have a tendency to occupy the premium parking spaces . Those spaces directly in front of the establishments .— This practice will be discouraged and in some manner the store owners convinced that it is in their best interest to discourage their employees from parking in the front, premium parking spaces . It. is recommended that when lease renewals for the individual businesses is negotiated, that a clause be added to the lease agreement detailing employee parking and designating the new, rear parking area for employees only. Access and Circulation: Valet services provided by the project restaurants should utilize the available parking area during peak parking demands at the restaurants . In addition tandem parking for valet use only should be provided at the main aisle that is 'parallel to Newport Ave. Valet parking processes should be provided in an orderly manner. Valet drivers are to observe a maximum 15 MPH speed limit. This fact should be posted by paint markings on the pavement at the valet parking area and the area leading towards the rear of the buildings . Post-- SPEED LIMIT is MPH - Pavement Legend - The existing access driveways to the project site was evaluated. The ingress and egress at the LaFayette Center via the two existing driveways adequately serve the project site. Page 9 Valet Parking Recommendations. At times, the valet parking operations create a tendency to back up' traffic onto Newport Blvd. It is hereby recommended that' the valet service personnel be made aware of this condition and take all necessary steps from causing vehicular -back up onto, 'the public street. As much as is practically possible, without offending. .prospective visitors and customers of the center, during the busiest times when. vehicles enter. and leave the premisses, directional traffic should be sorted as follows : a, Vehicles entering the project site during the peak restaurant demands will avail themselves of the. valet services . b, Valet personnel will park vehicles in a manner that will maximize the number of parked vehicles . Wherever practical, the valet personnel, will park cars in tandem to maximize space availability. -, Page 10 • STUDY FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS: Study Findings: The study findings, indicate that following addition. of the 37 parking spaces are for use by the employees and shop owners of the Center. Adequate on site parking will therefore be available for the shopping center customers and visitors . ' Employees and store owners should be-politely but firmly required to park 'at the rear of the stores. This practice is to their own benefit as it encourages 'clientele convenience. As an optional item, as the current lease agreements expire and new ones are drafted, a clause could- specify employee and owner parking will be restricted to the rear parking area only. Valet employees should maximize parking' opportunities by tandem parking methodology as' best suited to the area parking configuration. It is recommended that 15 MPH speed limit legends be painted along the pavement of the -front parking area driveways. t - ., • Page 11 i I In Conclusion: The project currently and certainly following completion of the new 37 parking spaces, will have much improved parking and parking distribution to. provide convenient services to the visitors and shoppers of- the center. ' It was determined by the above detailed study, that adequate parking will be provided, as shown within the parking demand study described above, the- parking area when used to its most effective level will be adequate to accommodate the parking demand. That valet parking practices will be improved and that the public ' streets adjacent to the project site will not be detrimentally effected by traffic entering or departing the center. a 1 Page 12 • APPENDIX Paul Singer, P.E. TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERING & PLANNING • r I PLAZA LA FAYETTE LEASE SUMMARY LEASED ADDRESS SUITE TENANT SQ.FT. SQ.FT. BUILDING 13011 Bldg, 1st Floor 100 Tustin Brewing 4,548 4,548 8,40% 1slFloor 100A Owner 1,345 1,345 2.48% 1st Floor 101 R.Pellatler Interiors 704 704 1,30° 1st Floor 102 Starting Line 3,050 3,050 6.63% Isl Floor 103 Mark Jordan Portraits 1,200 1,200 2.22% 1st Floor 104 DHF Design 1,652 1,652 3.05% 1st Floor 105 Rakish,Inc. 2,262 2,262 4.18% 1st Floor 106 Frank's Italian Menswear 1,652 1,652 3.05% 1st Floor 107 Crestline Nutrition 1,292 1,292 2.39% 1st Floor 108' Needlepainl,Unitd. 1,580 1,580 2.92% list Floor 109 GrII11n,H.&J. 1,526 1,526 2.82% 1 sl Floor 110 Emeral Salon 3,374 3,374 6.23% 1st Floor 111 Winston's Estate Gallery 1,746 1,746 3:23% 1st Floor 112 Fish 2600 2,100 2,100 3.88% 1slFloor 113 Greek Cuisine 1,444 1,444 2.67% 2nd Floor 201-203 Four Corners R.E. 2,377 2,377 4.39% 2nd Floor 205 Burnett Cevelopment 1,222 1,222 2.26% 2nd Floor 207 Travel Tyme 1,080 1,080 2.00° 13011 Building Totals 34,154 34,154 63.10% 13021 Bldg, Kiosk Petals A La dart 100 100 0.18% 13031 Bldg. 1st Floor 115 Great Western Bank 6,363 6,363 11.76% . 114 c.A,%e T 2nd Floor 200 Burnett Cevelopment 3,345 3,345 6.18% 2nd Floor 202 Burnett Cevelopment 855 855 1.58% 13031 Bulling Totals 10,563 10,563 19.52% 13041 Bldg. Paln du Monde 2,427 2,427 4,48% 13051 Bldg. Nieuport 17 Restaurant _ 6,882 6,882 12.71% 13041-51 Building Totals 9,309 9,309 17.20% PROJECT TOTALS 54,126 54,126 100.00% TSI Transportation Studies, Inc. A Traffic Data Collection Company La Fayette Center Tustin, CA . 1"hursday 10-22-98 Friday 10-23-98 Front Back Front Back 11:00am 43 59 61 68 12:00pm 103 121 101 115 01:00pm 90 119 87 123 02:00pm 84 79 82 89 . 03:00pm 66 72 70 80 04:OOpm 67 .7I 77 66 05:OOpm 87, 72 71 75 06:0Opm -102 -100 100 108 07:00pm 104 117 102 110 1720 E.Garry Ave.Ste. 119,Santa Ana •GA 92705 • (849)852.8460 •Fax(849)852-8447 Sent By: ; 714 734 8120; Oct--13-98 3:3'PN; Page 1. Community Development Department City of T stin 1 300 Cen; nniat Way Tustin CA 92780 (714 573-3100 .-Octobcr 7, 1998 `i • ack Stanaland laza Lafayette,LLC. !30872 So.Coast Highway, Suite 160 -�aguna Beach,California 92651 s UBJECT: COMPLETENESS OF CONDITIONAL, USE PERMIT 98-022 & I;r!l SIGN REVIEW 98-026 bear- Mr. Stanaland: ""bank you for your application, submitted September 15, 1998; far a parking lot expan ion to Plaza Lafayette at_ 13011 Newport Boulevard. This project has been identified as Con itional C?se Permit 98-022 and Design Review 98-0..6. f :The Community Development Department has reviewed your application and in confpmance �ith Govemment Corte Section 65943 this is notification ' �' r that your submittal is considered 6complete. For your application to be considered cernplete, all .information,, exhibits, and materials identified-in the attached Exhibits A and B must be provided_ Items identifled+th an �sterisk (*) shall be addressed with any future submittals. Items with a.(c) will be potential conditions of approval unless the submitted materials address the comment. In add' on to 'L'xhibit A. we offer the foilowittg continents: As noted in a meeting-with you an May 28, 1998, and in correspondence to you dated ugust, 10, 1998. the City identified a parking, and circulation deficiency tit PlazaLafave a and requested that you provide appropriate mitigation in accordance with Conditions18 of Resolution No. 3413. :approval of your request is subject to the discretion of the oning Administrator, and if appealed, the Planning Commission and City Council. Shau d this 1 project be denied,the obligation to mitigate the parking and circulation deficiency would still be in effect. : As you know, the City Council denied A previous project that proposed additional:p uidng behind Plaza Lafayette. Residents of the Woodcrest Apartments actively participated in the public hearing process. We would strongly encourage you to meet with the property ers .� and residents to discuss your project and possibly allay their concerns prior to a ublic hearing on the project:, Sent Ey: ; 71.4 734 8120; Oct-13-88 3:32PM;. Fage 2/6 • Mr , .:Stanaland October 7, 1998 Page2 . i�So that the Community Development Department m al consider you to he in compliart a with dCoridition 6.18 of Resolution No. 3413, please submit all=quested materials by Octb er 27, = 1998. Please contact me so that I can arrange to meet you :and personally ace' t your tresubmittal. If you have any questions or concuss related to this matter, please cont me at ' (714)573-3123. , Sincerely, = I Karen Peterson ' ssociate PIanner ;Attachments: 1rxhibit A-Comments and Corrections Daniel Fox, AICP, Senior Planner { •is f Sent Ey: ; 7147S4 8120; Oct-13-98 2:32PM; Fage 318 ;{ 1 COMMENTS AND CORRECTIONS CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 98-022 AND'DE5IGN REVIEW 9$-026 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT Planning Division .. . N 1.1 Please provide-eight(8)sets ofrevised plans, stapled and folded to 8': x 11 . 1.2 Provide a parking analysis that evaluates how the provision ot!additional t parking will address the existing parking and circulation deficiency. he parking analysis should be prepared by a California Registered T afic Engineer andlor California experiencedRe istered Civil-En'inecr ' is $ $ type or analysis. T"ae analysis should also identify how Conditions614 �,✓ 6.15, 6.16 and 6.18 of Resolution No.. 341 ►. 3 (attached) have leen - implemented. Be sure to include information related to parking opmelipns and restrictions in' effect for the entire tenter (e.g... valet service, 11;nr e { restrictions, etc.). This information should be provided in anarrative nd ' illustrated on a site plan. l ( ) 1.3 Employee-only parking is a more appropriate use for the proposed pat mg area. Valet service may be too disruptive to adjacent residential itscs, 1 especially in the laie cvening hours. Please modify the plan according7),. i i (") 1.4 Please provide a site plan that shows the entire center, including loct on and numbers of existing and proposed parking spaces. The plan slto i clearly "show points of access to the retail spaces from ,the proed parking area. All easements should be shown and identified on the ite plan. Providc written evidence from each agency.that holds an easein�mt that they support project approval and implemcntation. ! (*) 1.5 A four(4) foot wide landscape area is proposed between then sidewalk ' d ' parking spaces. Since this area is located Wthe rear of the conicr, it'ri ay be appropriate to reduce the width of the planter ana-increase the wi h of the 20' drive aisle. A number of bollards could be installed to defin he boundary between the parking area and.sidewalk. (*) 1.6 The proposed plan showsa total of thirty-seven (37)parkingspaces wi a dimension of eight (8) feet by nineteen (19) feet. If the landscape pl i is reduced as noted in #1.4, tach parking space should be 9' by 20'!= !. no overhang. i Sent 3y: ; 714 734 6120; Oct-13.98 3:33P'd; Page 413 Exhibit A October 7, I998 i Page 2 , 1.; Provide a section detail of the proposed sidewalk/multi-use trail, pgking spaces, and drive aisle and the existing parking arca. This wi31 help clarify- ' how the existing impjvvements wi1l transition into the proposed area. E 1.8 The County of Orange Public Facilities &Resources Department indict cp cs that the proposed seven (7) foot walkv-ay is of adequate width to i accommodate a trail use (see comment 5.1). Please indicate on the itc k plan where the:rail would be accommodated within the remainder 4 the center. i {`) 1.9 On the site plan, indicate the location of proposed lighting fixL es. ..1 Provide a separate detail of the proposed light fixvires. (*) 1.10. On the site plan, indicate the location of proposed walls and pro-A: a section detail. Section 9271(2) requires a solid mas wall six 6 eq onry { feet and eight (8) inches in height, to be constructed on the boundary be en commercial and residential properties. (c) 1.11 Resolution No. 3414 approved Variance 95-011 allowing a reductioj of required spaces from 327 parking spaces to 241 parking spaces. e S approval of Conditional Use Permit 98-022 and Design Review 9 26 � and installation of thirty-seven (37) parkins spaces will partially fulfil Mitigation Measure 6.18 of Resolution -No. 3414 which required he provision of additional parking up to the minimum number required or the aggregate of shopping center uses. The provision of additional pa ng spaces shall not be used to increase or intensify restaurant scatirx:g or J commercial/retail square footage. r--� S Building Division (�) 2.1 Provide a site plan that shows the number and location of parkings Jes for.the entire commercial center and include the number of parking.soja es accessible to disabled persons. Additional accessible parking spaces day i� be required based on the total number of existing and proposed pa:>dng ! Spaces. 2.2 Provide details of outdoor lighting in the parking areas, landscape eas, on the buildings and at entrance doors as required by the City of T}t'n Security Ordinance. Since lighting will be of concern to adjq t residents, it is suggested that several low wattage lighting bollards or]S i seri :jy: , ; 714 734 6120; Oct-13-98 3:33PM; Page 5!3 Exhibit A October 7 1998 Page 3 lighting'standards be•used instead of the two lighting standards shown on the plan. ' 2.3 When submitting fora building permit, submit four sets of plans ang to sets of soils reports. (c) 2.4 X11! 'grading, drainage, vegetation and circulation shall comply- withhe City of Tustin Grading Manual. All street sections, curbs, gu re., sideW.alks, lighting, and,. storm drains shall comply with or #ite improvement standards. Any deviations shall be brought to the amp on of the Building Official and a request for approval shall be subrnittq in writing prior to approval.: PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT (`) 3.1 Submit .a metes and bounds description of each parcel and an eaCtt bit 4; which c;carly shows the configuration and dimensions of each parcel..; (*) 3.2 Provido written authorization from the Orange'County Sanitation Did �'ct IEI that construction over their easement will be allowed. a { , ORANGE COUN I AUTHORITY (*) 4.1 Plot the location of existing on-site and off-site building faotprinis in relation to the proposed parking lot area. COUNTY OF ORANGE P BLIC FACILITIES CES DEPART {*) 5.1 The proposed seven (7) foot walkway is of adequate width to accommodate a trail use. However, it is not clear how the cxi� ng walkway will connect to the proposed walkway. It is suggested pv ng „part of the landscaping at the north end of the existing parking 1pi to : l provide.a transition between the existing and proposed walkways. 5.2 A gate should be provided at the north end of the proposed walkwa to provide a future connection to the County trail. .� FEES- 6.1 ES6.1 Please submit 525.00 in conjunction with the next submittal for pay4nt of Cees for preparation of a Notice of Exemption. : • Sent By: ; 714 734 8,27; Oct-13-98 3:34P.M; Page 6/3 • Exhibit A . .October 7, 1998 Page 4 (c) 6.2 Prior to issuance of any building pcnnits, payment shall bemade ELI]applicable fees, including but not Iimited to the following. PayYrlent s all- be required based upon those rates in effect at the tithe 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 p]an check and inspection sl to the Community Deve]opment Department based upon the st current-schedule. r � {Y) 6.3 Within forty-eight ' ' {48) hours of approval of the subject projects he ! 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 t ! o file the approri to environmental documentation for the project. If within such forty-�i('ht .{ (48) hour period that applicant has not delivered to the Cornmmntty Development Department the above-noted check, the statute of limitations for any interested party to challenge the environmental determination ! undc;the provisions of the California Environmcntal Qualit Act ld be signi ficantly lengthened. y couk .1 . r ill@ Jw. . r' �� • S Community Development Department City of Tustin NOTICE TO 300 Centennial Way COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT CUSTOMERS Tustin, CA 92780 (7141573-3100 The City of Tustin operates on a 9180 work schedule. This schedule results in our City Hall being open from 7:30 a.m.to 5:30 p.m.Monday thru Thursday. Friday schedule will alternate: 8:00 a.m.to 5:00 p.m.,one Friday,and offices closed on the following Friday. See back for calendar. The Building Division holds staff meetings on Wednesdays from 4:00 p.m.to 5:00 p.m..Staff are unavailable during this meeting. Inspectors will be available by phone from 7:00 a.m.to 7:30 a.m.with field inspections commencing shortly after 7:30 a.m. Inspectors may also be reached by phone at the end of the day. PHONE LIST Elizabeth Binsack Director 573-3106 Rita Westfield Assistant Director 573-3106 BUILDING DIVISION TITLE PHONE JoAnn Kang Somers Building Technician 573-3132 H.Leighton Muckey Building Technician 573-3131 Chuck Defruiter Building Inspector 573-3137 Rick Millan Building Inspector 573-3136 Robin Mundy Building Inspector 573-3138 Ric Lazaro Plan Checker 573-3133 Soroush Rahbari Plan Checker 573-3120 • Building Official 573-3130 BUILDING INSPECTION REQUEST LINE-RECORDER 5733141 ' PROVIDE PERMIT NUMBER-JOB ADDRESS AND TYPE OF INSPECTION NEEDED PLANNING DIVISION TITLE PHONE Planning Counter General Information Line 573-3140 Dan Fox Senior Planner 573-3115 t o G Lori Ludi Associate Planner 573-3127 Karen Peterson Associate Planner 573-3123 Scott Reekstin Associate Planner 573-3016 Minoo Ashabi Assistant Planner 573-3126 Brad Evanson Assistant Planner 573-3118 Mark Galvan Code Enforcement Officer 573-3134 Felix Garcia Code Enforcement Officer573-3135 Ron Johnson Code Enforcement Officer 573-3122 George Wiesenger Code Enforcement Officer 573-3149 REDEVELOPMENT TITLE PHONE Jim Draughon Senior Project Manager 573-3121. Dana Oadon Senior Project Manager 573-3116 Dave Gottlieb Senior Project Manager 573-3128 BUSINESS LICENSE DIVISION TITLE PHONE Barbara Reyes • Business License Technician 573-3144 ORANGE COUNTY FIRE AUTHORITY ORANGE COUNTY HEALTH CARE AGENCY Inspections 559-7$37 Environmental Health Division 667-3600 - General OfficelHeadquartets 744-0400 Public Health Services 667-3737 ORANGE COUNTY SANITATION SOUTH COAST AIR QUALITY MANGEA4E\"T DISTRICT Y . General Office 962-2411 General Office (909)396-2000 • IRVINE RANCH WATER DISTRICT TUSTIN WATER WORKS General Ofice 453-5300 General Office 573-3375 SEE BACK FOR CALENDAR EXHIBIT A • COMMENTS AND CORRECTIONS CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 98-072 AND DESIGN REVIEW 98426 COLI'NIUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT Planning.-Division (*} 1.1 Please provide eight (8) sets of revised plans, stapled and folded to 8 %z" x (*) 1.2 Provide a parkin analysis that evaluates how the provision of additional parking will address the existing parkin and circulation deficiency. The parking analysis should be prepared by a California Registered Traffic Engineer and/or California Registered Civil Engineer experienced in this type of analysis. The analysis should also -identify how Conditions 6.14, 6.15, 6.16, and 6.18 of Resolution No.. 3413 (attached) have been implemented. Be sure to include information related to parking operations and restrictions in effect for the entire center (e.g., valet service, time restrictions, etc.). This information should be provided in a narrative and illustrated on a site plan. (*} 1.3 Employee-only parking is a more appropriate use for the proposed parking area. Valet service may be too disruptive to adjacent residential uses, especially in the late evening hours: Please modify the plan accordingly. (*) 1.4 Please provide a site plan that shows the entire center, including location and numbers of existin'- and proposed parking spaces. The plan should clearly show points of access to the retail spaces from the proposed parking area. All easements should be shown and identified on the site plan. Provide written evidence from each agency that.holds an easement that they support project approval and implementation. (*} 1.5 A four(4) foot wide landscape area is proposed between the sidewalk and parking spaces. Since this area is located to the rear of the center, it may be appropriate to reduce the width of the planter and increase the width of the 20' drive aisle. A number of boIlards could be installed to define the boundary between the parking area and sidewalk. 1.6 The proposed plan shows a total of thirty-seven (37) parking spaces with a dimension of eight (8) feet by nineteen (19) feet. If the landscape planter is reduced as noted in #1.4, each parking space should be 9' by 20' with no overhang. lbit A esolution No. 34,13 Page 5 {� ) 6.11 Authorization for the on-site sale of beer and wine - (BC License Type 1"2311) is contingent upon the -use of the subject premises remaining a restaurant. Should this use. z; change, authorization for this use permit shall become null and void. (7) 6:12 There shall be no billiard tables, video games, dancing or live entertainment on the premises at any time, unless approval of a Conditional Use Permit is obtained for these activities . (7) 6.13 All persons selling alcoholic beverages shall be 1B years of age - or older and -shall be supervised by someone 21 years of age older. A supervisor shall be present in same area as point of sale . (2) 6.14 All non-disabled employees and store owners/ managers of the shopping ,center shall be required to park in the rear of- the shopping center to provide -additional parking .in the front. Notification of this requirement shall be written into all tenant " leases. , A copy of a standard lease form with said language incorporated therein shall be ' submitted to. the Community Development Department prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy for the proposed restaurant/microbrewery. r (2) 6.15 Prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy for the proposed restaurant/microbrewery, -directional sianace shall .be provided to inform Matrons that parking is available in the 'rear of the shopping center. The installation and maintenance of directional signage shall comply"vith Section 9409C of the Tustin City Code Sian Regulations. ' A .- directional signage plan shall be submitted to the ,Community Development for approval, and building permits shall be issued, prior - to the installation of directional signage. (2) 5e16 +During, peak months, nsuc.h as December, or at other times as •determined necessary in writing by -the Public Works Director and/or Community Development Director, based. , upon on-site traffic and circulation' issues, valet ' parking for .the.proposed.Tustin Brewing Company shall`be provided.- The Nieuport '17 'restaurant currently has valet service provided from approximately 11:00 a.m. to 10 :00 p.m, daily; valet service for both uses may be consolidated. The property owner shall receivd written notice from the Public Works Director and/or Community Development Director at such time that an increase in valet service is deemed warranted. Said increase in valet service shall be provided' for the time periods specified by the Public Works Director and/or Community Exhibit A Resolution No. 3413 P=ge 6 Development Director and shall be implemented immediately upon notification. (2) 6017 At the time of Plan Check submittal, . a revised time- restricted parking. plan "shall. be submitted to the Community Development Department for approval . Prior to submittal to the Community. Development Department, the property owner shall provide. written notice of the proposed time-restricted parking revisions to the Plaza LaFayette tenants, and shall obtain written acknowledgment from the tenants that: 1) they have received notification .of the proposed revisions; and 2). that they concur with the proposed revisions . The property owner shall then provide .the oricinal sicned acknowledgment forms ' to the Community Development Department as evidence that a majority of the Plaza 'LaFayette tenants concur with the proposed revisions to the parking lot time restrictions . Possible modifications to the existing plan may include the following: a. Removing time restrictions after 6 : 00 p.m. " i b. Extending time restrictions on a portion of the parking spaces located in the front-central arca of the shopping • center, excluding those spaces directly adjacent to store entrances, to one hour, thus requiring, patrons who would be in any of the restaurants for more than an hour to park in the rear lot adjacent to the westerly property boundary or use the valet parking. (2) 8` If, at any time in the future, an on-site or neighboring 'tenant or customer advises the City, or if the City is otherwise made aware and concurs, that a parking and/or traffic problem exists at the Plaza LaFayette shopping center as a result of the insufficient on-site parking availability, and it has been confirmed that the subject property is in compliance with mitigation measures 1 through 4 above, then the - community Development and Public Works Departments may require the property owner to submit an updated parking demand analysis and/or traffic study, at 'no expense to the City, within the time. schedule stipulated by the City; the property owner may delegate this responsibility, through lease negotiations, to any tenant operating under Conditional Use Permit 95- 419 and Variance 95-011. if said study indicates that there. is inadequate parking or a traffic problem, the property owner shall- be required to provide additional • mitigation measures to be reviewed and approved by the 'Community Development and Public Works Departments . Sa b t A olution No. 3413 5e 7 Mitigation may include, but not be following: limited to, the a' Establish alternate hours of operation. �:. _ . =` b• Provision of additional parking as needed up ,to #� minimum number. :requ.ired for the aggregate of ' shopping center uses pursuant to Zoning Code standards, by Purchase and/or lease . of property within 500 feet of the propert or f the needed parking on site. The securing f offsite -parking would require approval of a revised Variance. Failure to adequately respond to such st implement mitito gation measures within the time schedules established shall be Grounds for initiation of revocation procedures for Variance 55-95and Conditional Use caL, 95-019 . r , _ it EES (1) 7,.1 Prior to issuance ofany building permits all (5) be made of all applimited licable fees, including but to the following. Payment shall be required based anon 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 Demartment based on the most current schedule. (1) 7 .2 Within forty-eight. (48) .hours of (5) project, the a approval of -the subject pplicant - shall deliver to the' Community - Development 'Department, a cashier' s check Payable to the COUNTY CLERK int' the amount of dollars) to enable the Cit to file . the (awenty -five environmeriate ntal documentation for the project. PIfewithin such forty-eight (48) hour period that applicant has not delivered to the Community Development Department the above--noted check, the statute of limitations .far any interested party to challenge the environmental determination under the provisions of the California Environmental Quality, Act could 'be significantly lengthened. SEE WLET 2 rTs1r.GG MrxIGG M1•✓N41 � LO,II R V VANCEPI.R AND NGMAN TRACT um 71160 R.1.11-11 r [G e.rwre•a• - _ �f{ vr / Yifr �i�atlM CN(6! (p.tr pnrri. I _ N.B9'742'Y�r� P' �-ecr.cr.w.a.Y wr.......„. •� 0G2 NCS—r•+•� �� < < Y EASEMENT- LEGEND :.h 536:.40: tea, y 's� I{' �_�es3,•% C . oeiti�w+ a r •� �R,.. K `#q _..•b.' / Eap�.e . Ero•o..a .•rel r ): yy .+1{1 Irl, II�1 ?r .nw.r� ':(�ir �`"\ rev � �•= �l- .o c•" .ilrnrMa iais.l.r • 1�A I.� r� I� I wr.t'vJ.. ,,Lp � /•`,�1S( \� I r•' pV��s � •. M1..i.... Irry.r:Y� NTr Mrra• a -_ .I.I � i PlLl�/�. �� ` `.../:��'� '� '`\s - r hAtJVrh'r..v.Oh'M sr•�,yi.J!•f 1jJ' �Lr?,� `�1 s' ,.4,s� N•32) �Rr /1 V. �-q''el��...,� TR J iPYa'V:5�'x.:°!`"• i ..rVr n.r r•ori( 7h,1 CJrT.,.rr ,r ZR t F S', \, i .'h\yl F([\,+ 1 J,.yer;m r•r,•. n iia+ r-rs•r.+r j 1:40' .IAr .I .aurrin _ i 11. ti;l �i. 1 \\ a f C.•r P'MlreV I r Z.Y k�•ro1 vHtrry ..�y I �� I rr rr frJ�r,..�. IE.. '� V �rrr k' "h \�a Y`\ rno�F�'r ,r I�`. m- or.•t<r.r n�� • r•.r.rrlr `h'.'II. I LI .. � �'rf uwr .«. ;� �V tea/ _.__LI.�J? !�i}jij � r. ,fir\�//\ •►�' y „� ruvr r-..r :.n-^rr-'�'� urxrrrr er i � � 3} �� I`• L ! � �F e`.�� ��; :Ni__. __ .4 / r,..' \I... i�I .i�.ra c_ r �� arGn �,. ��\ I a. .wr::ry 'n.e�r�irv!'.n:r. k �3 %t`ey" - 1 I• y fJ���\t /t'�. � . ® co...r.Grereas, n.rr ru `a»crw-.wl.0 Y�fe $N I " \.I. 1 r C�',',r\ Uo e4�.�� •i [� o-. r>.• er r + �y •,,I• I ..neenrna 9 I I' "� ♦9��jY ,j�., �, jsv%/ •\ti.� + lNls.(oNwl, ..{ II `Ir �- , _-�-�'__ .{' � �- , ..,ate, ,. . t { ,e. ��:5~ R(p[•I.Lh..aS[5 I ,r r,�r � f L II Irr �44 :� a'.Q`� '�•.\�,. t� d I a TLO•C S OR .- , A ,%L rrT RfoycsRN S, � I I I� • '[ __.ss ar �' I f � ` r �saar '°' :: "�.��.'�.. F.�" 6�1 `'� I \ •L'�Y a Rrrg1 5. I � � ' '� � fy// k'�`i' �•'Y.+y1� � Tao rn lr.El,K•.d..r.p,h911[9 5 •••�� k IT'S '[ ,' \ / II +?' s4 �\ \ 1.3EF _ .��j I.I 1 r I I I / • ° / r% 4 VICINITY MAP V.i IT,ssT ,`� I o 'i fir`, / I E �—f l_ it 1 _c-��� ' ae•� / \� /r¢• �d> `\ L E G E N 0 v.lG,[nr.LIN[ I. ..,p_ Z. �'� \` 1 S1RF[T[FNTIRLNE i \ [AF[KfiT Llrrt .I< fi. .,Y� / ' CUM MD CUTTER ""W"T CESINkfOl CLELNgRoCo / POKER ROLE oRP ?! 5���\ C CONIETt VESslluR RS I p0il ••• fJr Y. rk i + ��, Q�. / fRE55lME PE9 .G DEVICE ewv T,T[R-EIER a.Y i T , �.1� 1 / a / (V 'L �\ •' lE ErIIgo- IPIE®. .11 4 4 'OK TE O , / }"h STREET MAR r 'U ,, e,3%%L .. •. MR.EDOE dslnc D'D -STTT 3 �y nr �' INIR.IN4 CrIC[ Rb 1v T_ .rte 2E.RME MESLF IY•LrE �Sv 'Op w CURB IC ' V"• 1'' i%.rNirEI.ENr Ei ' 1pe.r f R I r / Y r alMesal• 0• C./ Ili /, a CNaL—FENCE ^•ter • 1N --:lm- 3 {••— 4n Sw ILII[ as Y I y f .,s,3• 'rr`i�? eLDCL[-iIr w_�......t 3G. Y I V p1 / [�OSaISLIEEi Sr // l(rL15CA.E L9 Ldli / /�'ly RSRrvaLTIC COWAIE pCa1Eg upNWFNI rW 4CaS NaiFa ' zvl,. s-CEl .S w TARO LICNT W TEN •• xn al rrl. �. ] e s. GLOSIRIE TE VCk T �/(�� TJ L9EAP.0 C. _ /• •''1 ■ arksrl PARKING MM I earl of �1ffl- CURDITk1NA 98.022 7 USE PERxsIE y ,.J LI'•••• I ii i �".�• R Is•nlr..alucEs _f. DESIGN REVIEW 88-026 nvn[rnR.Masl.c[wsomw=ir-vwcEs SITE PLAN . ._. �•,o'y5, ;}�p r; � 'T;:-.r ay •r�N� -'FQp ' Y°, �,�r,1'I li\r (1• / ' T'Y 990$OUIIAI COPa11rLNyA,SHITE 10 W R;..r..I• n -/ 1`5 LAGAECA[II,CAEIIGAN1a 916Y y,r,•T..,♦ \R" r n x Ixvrtl r R.p1E 1TNia91-}rP0 C IRVINEr� BOULEVARD A. ❑IaNVG 21z. ..til v SPECT 1 0 Attachment E An l h im Mali of• �' Orange r.- MEATS AVE ►'•ilia SAL L RD. Park j TAFT AVE. TAFT,Aq 4�e if i11I[I1 till l fi I[I -- — Villa Per --�- - - Town Cent * ❑ ❑❑❑ ❑❑❑ e� naheirr� ❑ VILLA PARK RD. / o Arena! KATELLA AVE. • - © Anaheim COLUNS,AVE. Stadium• llillillfj� N � ' usOrange d 5 ..� a /• . Chapman /• j X University -© CHAPMAN RYE l+ `Old Town Orange LA VETA , FRCL EFNAY w /• ��_ FAIRHAVM a AVE. Santa11a Esplanade / P a ` w w � Tustin Branch Trail 17TH STREET Existing Trait Railroad Right-of--Way Purchase C==== / J s Wlf�� r` Railroad Right-pf--Way Purchase , and Bike \1�\ uray f)eveiopment: Plaza - _ � i Laiayerc Proposed Interim On-Street II1111111II1 IST f STREET Bikeway Connection L Tustin �� f Square Heights Proposed Final Off-Street ❑❑❑❑L7� �, 1 f MAIN ST. Center 'e; Bikeway Connection Did ' , X61 Town Major Destinadons Tustin •, a -Schools Activity Centers MsFtIDDEN AVENUE Transit Centers Attachment F r .I ;i ,r ar Minutes. from the March 291h.meeting will be mailed separately RESOLUTION NO. 3662 • A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN TO APPROVE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 98-022 AND DESIGN REVIEW 98-026, AUTHORIZING THE ESTABLISHMENT OF A PARKING LOT ON A VACANT 50' BY 314' PORTION OF AN ABANDONED RAILROAD RIGHT-OF-WAY LOCATED TO THE NORTH OF THE PLAZA LA FAYETTE SHOPPING CENTER AT 13011 NEWPORT AVENUE AND TO THE WEST OF 12901-12943 NEWPORT AVENUE. The Planning Commission of the City of Tustin does hereby resolve as follows: I. The Planning Commission finds and determines as follows: A. That a proper application, Conditional Use Permit 98-022 and Design Review 98-026, was filed by Plaza Lafayette, LLP. to authorize the establishment of a parking lot on a vacant 50' by 314' portion of an abandoned railroad right-of- way located to the north of the Plaza La Fayette shopping center .at 13011 Newport Avenue and to the west of 12901-12943 Newport Avenue. B. That a public hearing was duly called, noticed and held on said application on March 22, 1999, and continued to April 12, 1999, by the Planning Commission since the property was not posted in accordance with the City's public noticing procedures. At the direction of the Planning Commission, a workshop was held on March 29, 1999, with the property owner, representatives of the County of Orange, and interested members of the public. C. That the proposed use is allowed within the Multiple-Family Residential District (R-3),with the approval of a Conditional Use Permit. D. That establishment, maintenance, and operation of a parking lot in a residential district to serve an adjacent commercial shopping center, as conditioned, will not be detrimental to the health, safety, morals, comfort, or general welfare of persons residing or working in the neighborhood of such proposed use, 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, as evidenced by the following findings: 1. The parking lot expansion area will be used for employee parking only, thereby reducing the potential for noise and other nuisance impacts on adjacent properties. 2. Lighting will comply with the City's Security Ordinance, will be directed downward and will not produce glare or have a negative impact on adjacent properties. 3. The proposed parking spaces will not be permitted to count as required parking spaces for the shopping center or be used to accommodate -additional parking intensive uses, such as restaurants or medical uses, in the shopping center. 4. The additional parking spaces will indirectly provide more parking for Resolution No. 3662 Page 2 patrons of the shopping center, thereby mitigating parking demand impacts as required by Condition 6.18 of Planning Commission Resolution No. 3413 (Variance No. 95-011). 5. The adjacent residential uses will be buffered from the proposed parking lot expansion area by a solid 6'-8" block wall and/or existing garage or carport walls. E. Pursuant to Section 9272 of the Tustin Municipal Code, the Planning Commission finds that the location, size, architectural features and general appearance of the parking lot expansion area will not impair the orderly and harmonious development of the area, the present or future development therein, or the occupancy as a whole. In making such findings, the Planning Commission has considered at least the following items: 1. Height, bulk and area of buildings. 2. Setbacks and site planning. 3. Landscaping, parking area design and traffic circulation. 4. Location, height and standards of exterior illumination. 5. Location and method of refuse storage. 6. Physical relationship of ro osed im rovements to existing structures in the neighborhood. 7. Appearance and design relationship of proposed improvements to existing structures and possible future structures in the neighborhood and public thoroughfares. 8. Development Guidelines and criteria as adopted by the City Council. H. This project is categorically exempt (Class 11) pursuant to Section 15311 of the California Environmental Quality Act. I. 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 consistent with the Air Quality Sub-element. li. The Planning Commission hereby approves Conditional Use Permit No. 98-022 and Design Review 98-026 to authorize the establishment of a parking lot on a vacant 50' by 314' portion of an abandoned railroad right-of-way located to the north of the Plaza La Fayette shopping center at 13011 Newport Avenue and to the west of the Woodcrest Apartments at 12901-12943 Newport Avenue, subject to the conditions contained in Exhibit A, attached hereto. Resolution No.3662 Page 3 , PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Planning Commission of the City of Tustin at a regular meeting held on the 12� day of April, 1999, LESLIE A. PONTIOUS Chairperson ELIZABETH A. BINSACK Planning Commission Secretary STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF ORANGE } CITY OF TUSTIN } I, Elizabeth Binsack, the undersigned, hereby certify that I am the Recording Secretary of the • Planning Commission of the City of Tustin, California; that Resolution No. 3662 was duly passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the Tustin Planning Commission, held on the 12th day of April, 1999. Elizabeth Binsack Planning Commission Secretary• EXHIBIT A ' RESOLUTION NO. 3662 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL CONDITIONAL. USE PERMIT 98-022 AND DESIGN REVIEW 98-026 GENERAL (1) 1.1 The proposed project shall substantially conform with the submitted plans for the project date stamped April 12, 1999, on file with the Community Development Department, except as herein modified, or as modified by the Director of Community Development in accordance with this Exhibit. The Director of Community Development may also approve minor modifications to plans during plan check if such modifications are to be consistent with the provisions of the Tustin City Code. (1) 1.2 Unless otherwise specified, the conditions contained in this Exhibit shall be complied with prior to the final inspections for 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 the use is established within six (6) months of the date of this Exhibit and substantial construction is underway in compliance with Condition No. 1.4 of this resolution. Time extensions may be granted if a written request is received by the Community Development Department within thirty(30) days prior to expiration. 1.4 Within thirty (30) calendar days of the approval of CUP 98-022 and DR 98-026, the applicant shall submit to the Community Development Department all necessary plans and information needed to obtain a building permit for the improvement of the parking lot. a. Any and all necessary corrections for the construction level plans shall be resubmitted to the Community Development Department within fourteen (14) days of being notified by the City that'corrections are ready to be picked up. b. All construction permits shall be obtained from the City within seven (7) days of being notified by the City that the plans are ready for permit issuance. c. All construction shall be completed within ninety(90) days of permit issuance. (1) 1.5 Approval of Conditional ' Use Permit 98-022 and Design Review 98-026 is contingent upon the applicant and property owner signing and returning an "Agreement to Conditions Imposed" form as established by the Director of Community Development. 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 Exhibit A Resolution No. 3662 Conditions of Approval for CUP 98-022 & DR 98-026 Page 2 (1) 1.6 The applicant shall hold harmless and defend the City of Tustin from all claims and liabilities arising out of a challenge to the City's approval of this project. SITE IMPROVEMENTS (4) 2.1 In accordance with Tustin Eity Code Section 9271(i) related to the required separation between commercial and residential uses, the parking lot expansion area shall be screened from surrounding residential properties and the abandoned railroad right-of-way to the north by a 6'- 8" high solid masonry wall measured from the finish grade on the adjacent residential properties. This wall shall be required on, or adjacent to, the north, east and west property lines. If the wall is built directly on the property line, the written approval of the adjacent property owners will be required at plan check. The wall is not required to be built along the rear wall of the existing garages. In the event that the garages are removed in the future, the property owner of the shopping center shall be required, within sixty (60) days of removal without further notification from the City of Tustin, to construct a 6'-8" high solid block wall as a barrier in the exposed areas, subject to review and approval by the Community Development Director. Plans for the 6'- 8" high solid masonry wall shall be submitted to the Community Development Department at plan check. (4) 2.2 All of the parking stalls in the parking lot expansion area shall be a minimumof eight (8) feet in width and 20 feet in length. The drive aisle shall be a minimum of 24 feet in width. The turnaround space shall be a minimum of twelve (12) feet in width and 20 feet in length and shall be located a minimum of three (3)feet from the north property line.. (6) 2.3 Lighting for the parking lot expansion area shall comply with the City of Tustin Security Ordinance and shall provide a minimum of one (1) footcandle of illumination throughout the site. All exterior light fixtures shall be directed 90 degrees down and not produce direct light or glare or have a negative impact on adjacent properties: A photometric study and manufacturer's detail of all proposed light fixtures shall be submitted at plan check for review by the Community Development Department. (4) 2.4 A raised concrete walkway of at least six (6) feet in width shall be required along entire length of the east of the parking lot expansion area. the-perir�etw- DevelepmeRt Di€eGtOF6andsea �l�GFetB of-etheF FHateFlal aGe af_ walls. (1) Community Developmentnernnfnr Fnay be pinned between thei r nrh and the V1'alls. (1) 2.6 The applicant shall be responsible for the daily maintenance and up-keep of the parking lot expansion area, including but not limited to trash removal, painting, graffiti removal and maintenance of improvements to ensure that the facilities are maintained in a neat and attractive manner. Property maintenance equipment which is attended by loud or unusual noise is prohibited on Sundays and City observed federal holidays, before 7:00 a.m. and after 6:00 p.m. Monday through Exhibit A Resolution No. 3662 Conditions of Approval for CUP 98-122 & DR 98-026 Page 3 Friday, and before 9:00 a.m. and after 5:00 p.m. on Saturdays. All graffiti shall be removed within 72 hours of a complaint being transmitted by the City to the property owner. Failure to maintain said structures and adjacent facilities will be grounds for City enforcement of its Property Maintenance Ordinance, including nuisance abatement procedures. *** 2.7 The installation and/or operation of outdoor public telephones or public address systems in the parking lot expansion area shall be prohibited. (4) 2.8 All parking areas and walkways for the parking lot expansion area shall be steam cleaned and maintained free of trash and debris on a regular basis as needed. All damaged and cracked areas shall be repaired as needed. The use and operation of property maintenance equipment is prohibited.on all hours on Sundays and federal holidays, before 7:00 a.m. and after 6:00 p.m. Monday through Friday, and before 9:00 a.m. and after 5:00 p.m. on Saturdays. (4) 2.9 A six (6) feet high gate shall be !Rstalled and maintained the pFGpE)sed (4) 2.10 The gate shall be elese tile hOUFS of 49,00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. and Fie paFking shall be allewed within these liews. (4) 2.11 The applicant shall provide security personnel and/or an on-site manager to limit • access to pa#ef the parking lot to employees only and to provide on-site security. between the he arc. of 5.:00 p.m. to 42*00 midnight (4) 2.12 If the off-street portion of the Tustin Branch Trail between Warren Avenue and Newport Avenue along the abandoned 'railroad right-of-way is installed, - an amendment to CUP 98-022 and DR 98-026 shall be considered by the Zoning Administrator to accommodate a connection 'between the off-street trail to the proposed parking lot when all issues including, but not limited to, security and liability are resolved between the property owner and the County of Orange. USE RESTRICTIONS *** 3.1 The thirty-seven (37) parking spaces located in.the parking lot expansion area shall not be used to establish or accommodate more parking intensive uses such as restaurants or medical uses in the shopping center. (5) 3.2 The use of the parking lot expansion area may be reviewed,by the Community Development Director on a biannual basis. If, in the future, the Community Development Director determines that noise, security, and/or other nuisance problems exist on the site or in the vicinity as a result.of the establishment of the parking lot expansion area, the Community Development Director may require the applicant to provide additional mitigation including, but are not limited to, the following: a. Reduce hours of use including, but not limited to, peak hours only. Exhibit A Resolution No. 3662 Conditions of Approval for CUP 98-022 & DR 98-026 Page 4 b. Retain additional security personnel. Failure to satisfy the above condition shall be grounds for revocation of CUP 98- 022.. (5) 3.3 Notwithstanding the provision of additional parking spaces, all conditions of approval of Planning Commission Resolution Nos. 2502 (Variance No. 88-005) and 3413 (Variance No. 95-011 and Conditional Use Permit 95-019) shall remain in full force and effect, unless made null and void by future City approvals. Condition 6.18 of Resolution No. 3413 shall not be considered to be satisfied since the number of parking spaces provided on-site does not meet the minimum number required by the Tustin City Code for the development. (5) 3.4 Within forty-five (45) days from the date of the approval of CUP 98-022 and DR 98- 026, the parcel to be used for the parking lot'expansion area shall be held together with the adjacent shopping center parcel (Assessor's Parcel No. 401-281-10) as one parcel. The applicant shall file a lot line adjustment acceptable to the City of Tustin to ensure that joint use of the two lots continues for the duration of the parking lot use with said document being subject to City Attorney approval and recorded on the property prior to issuance of any permits. 3.5 The use of the parking lot expansion area shall be limited to employee parking only. Customer parking shall be prohibited. • *** 3.6 Prior to the final inspection for arty building permit, "Employee Parking Only" signs shall be posted at the entrance to the parking lot expansion area, with sign details and locations to be approved by the Community Development Department. *** 3.7 No structures shall be constructed within the parking lot expansion area. (1) 3.8 Outdoor storage shall be prohibited within the parking lot expansion area. (1) 3.9 All construction operations, including engine warm up and deliveries of materials and equipment, shall be subject to the provisions of the City of Tustin Noise Ordinance as amended, and may take place only during the hours of 7:00 a.m. until 6:00.p.m., Monday through Friday, and 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.'on Saturday, unless the Building Official determines that said activity will be in substantial conformance with the Noise Ordinance and the public health and safety will not be impaired, subject to application being made at the time the permit for the work is awarded or during progress of the work. No Sunday or holiday construction shall be permitted. (1) 3.10 "No Loitering" signs shall be posted on the site, with sign details and locations to be approved by the Community Development Department. **" 3.11 The applicant shall amend enforce existing lease agreements with each tenant which require tG FeElUiFe aH aGkRewledgemeRt tha employees We FequiFed to park in the proposed parking lot and rear of the center. *** 3.12 Within forty-five (45) days of the approval of CUP 98-022 and DR 98-026, the i applicant shall provide the following: Exhibit A Resolution No. 3662 Conditions of Approval for CUP 98-022 & DR 98-026 • Page 5 - a. The applicant shall provide a valet service for all patrons of Plaza Lafayette and shall post signs in visible locations stating that the valet service is available to all patrons of Plaza Lafayette. b. Valet personnel shall park vehicles in a manner that will maximize the number of parked vehicles. C. The applicant shall provide a valet parking plan for review and approval by the Community Development Department to designate permanently (physically identify) the number and location of valet parking spaces in accordance with Attachment E of the staff report dated March 22, 1999, or as modified by the Community Development Department. d. The applicant shall submit written statements from all tenants, including all 'restaurant tenants, and valet service operators amend the existing lease agFeements with FestauFant tenants te FeStFit acknowledging the location and number of parking spaces that may be designated and used for valet parking in accordance with the approved valet parking plan. The applieaRt shall pFevide euidenGe te the hL' eE;t().. Of GOMMURity Development that the affeements have been Fnedified. PLAN SUBMITTAL (1) 4.9 All grading, drainage, vegetation and circulation shall comply with the City of Tustin Grading Manual. All street sections, curbs, gutters, sidewalks, street lighting and storm drain shall comply with on-site improvement standards. At plan check, indicate on plans the applicable codes, City Ordinances and the state and federal laws and regulations to include: 1994 Uniform Building Code with California Amendments 1997 Uniform Mechanical Code with California Amendments 1997 Uniform Plumbing Code with California Amendments 1993 National Electrical Code with California Amendments T-24 California Disabled Access Regulations T-24 Califomia Energy Efficiency Standards City of Tustin Grading Ordinance City of Tustin Landscape and Irrigation Guidelines City of Tustin Private Improvement Standards City.of Tustin Security Ordinance (5) 4.2 In compliance with the Uniform Building Code (application for permit), the applicant, designer, architect or engineer must submit grading plans to the Building Division for review and approval prior to the issuance of a grading permit. (5) 4.3 In compliance with Uniform Building Code (excavation and grading), the applicant shall submit four sets of excavation/grading plans and two preliminary soil reports to the Building Division for review and approval prior to the issuance of a grading permit. r Exhibit A Resolution No. 3662 Conditions of Approval for CUP 98-022 & DR 98-026 Page 6 (5) 4.4 In compliance with the City of Tustin's grading manual, all grading, drainage, vegetation, circulation, street sections, curbs, gutters, sidewalks, and storm drains shall comply with the on-site improvement standards. (5) 4.5 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 grading permit. (5) 4.6 In compliance with the Department of Justice (Office of the Attorney General) the designer, architect or engineers proposed grading plan must comply with the American Disabilities Act(ADA). (5) 4.7 In compliance with Tustin City Code, the project shall comply with the'Security Ordinance. FEES (1) 5.1 Prior to issuance of any building permits, payment shall be made of all required fees. Payment shall be made based upon the rates in effect at the time of permit issuance and are subject to change. a. All applicable building, grading and private improvement plan check and permit fees to the Community Development Department. b. Orange County Fire Authority plan-check and inspection fees to the Community Development Department based upon the most current schedule. C. Within forty-eight (48) hours of approval of the subject project, the applicant shall deliver to the Community Development Department, a cashier's check payable to the COUNTY CLERK in the amount of $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. ITEM'r44 O *- eport to the , Planning 'Commission DATE: APRIL 12; 1999 SUBJECT: , CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 98-037 APPLICANT: BALLY TOTAL FITNESS 8700 WEST BRYNMAWR ROAD CHICAGO, IL 60631 PROPERTY OWNER: WILLIAM ZAPPAS TRUST 700 EL CAMINO REAL TUSTIN, CA 92780 LOCATION: 630 EL CAMINO REAL ZONING: CENTRAL COMMERCIAL .DISTRICT (C 2P); - TOWN CENTER REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA , ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: THIS PROJECT' HAS BEEN 'DETERMINED CATEGORICALLY EXEMPT (CLASS 1) PURSUANT TO THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 15301 OF THE. CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT. REQUEST: AUTHORIZATION TO ESTABLISH A HEALTH CLUB AT 630 EL CAMINO REAL RECOMMENDATION That the Planning Commission adopt Resolution No. 3665 approving Conditional,Use Permit 98-037. BACKGROUND AND DISCUSSION The applicant is requesting approval of a Conditional Use Permit ;to establish a 30,000. square foot health club within an existing commercial center. The project site is located at 630'E1. Camino Real, in the EI Camino Plaza. The scope of the project consists of tenant improvements to an existing building which was the former location of a Marshalls retail store. Exterior modifications to the existing building consist of new paint'and;signage. Site and Surrounding Properties EI Camino Plaza is located on the southeast comer of Sixth Street and EI Camino Real and north of the 1-5 freeway. Other tenants within EI Camino Plaza include the Elizabeth Planning Commission Report CUP 98-037 April 12, 1999 Page 2 Howard's Curtain Call Theater and a variety of retail, restaurant and office uses (See Location Map—Attachment A). The subject property is zoned C-2P (Central Commercial) and is within the boundaries of the Town Center Redevelopment Area. Surrounding uses consist of professional offices to the south, office and wholesale uses to the west, automotive repair and residential uses to the north, and restaurants,.auto repair, professional offices and a motel to the east. Project Description The applicant's proposal is intended to be part of the national corporate chain of Bally Total Fitness health clubs. Uses programmed for the proposed 30,000 square-foot facility include child care, aerobic class instruction, weight equipment areas, and sports care therapy. The approximate breakdown of the submitted floor plan (Attachment B) is as follows: Manager's Office 1,200 square feet Exercise Equipment . 14,500 square feet Aerobics Floor 2,600 square feet Locker Rooms 4,200 square feet Child Care Room 950 square feet Sports Care Therapy 850 square feet Spin Training/Stretch Area 1,200 square feet . Reception/Lobby Area 1,200 square feet Retail Area 500 square feet Sauna/Spa Area 1,000 square feet Storage/Mechanical Areas_ 1,800 square feet TOTAL 30,000 square feet The proposed hours of operation are 5:30 a.m. to 12:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, and 8:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m., Saturday and Sunday. A maximum of 21 employees are anticipated for each shift. The proposed retail use will be ancillary to the health club facility and will include items such as fitness apparel. The child care facility shall only be used by those clients that are currently using the facility. Condition No. 2.3 restricts the child care facility to only patrons of the health club that are within the premises. The applicant has indicated that the sports therapy area of the facility will include massage services which are incidental to medically treated sports therapy and will be performed under the supervision of licensed medical doctor on the premises. Condition No. 2.5 has been included to require the presence of a doctor on the premises and Condition No. 2.8 requires that all massage therapy/sports care technicians obtain the appropriate licensing from the State of California. Each massage therapy/sports care technician will also be required to undergo licensing approval by the City of Tustin License and Permit Board • prior to beginning work at the establishment. Conditions 2.9 and 2.10 of Resolution No. 3665 are proposed to limit massage treatment to designated areas and require sufficient lighting in these designated areas. Planning Commission Report CUP 98-037 April 12, 1999 � Page 3 Availability of Parking Joint use parking at EI Camino Plaza has been established in accordance with the Tustin City Code which allows a reduction in the amount of required off-street parking for a site with multi-tenants subject to the Planning Commission's approval. Since the project site is proposed to change from .a retail use to a health club, an updated joint use parking analysis is required. The following discussion summarizes the findings of the parking analysis (Attachment C): • Parking counts were taken in January 1999 at the El Camino Plaza. The peak demand hours were determined to be 7:00 p.m. on Fridays and Saturdays and were attributed to the hours of the adjacent dinner theater. At peak demand, there were a total of 162 vehicles on Friday and 201 vehicles on Saturday. There were 357 and 318 vacant parking spaces, respectively during peak demand. The professional offices and retail uses within the center typically do not operate during this peak hour. The restaurants within the center that would be operating during this peak hour demand approximately 44 parking spaces. As such, there is an estimated surplus. of 313 spaces on Friday and 274 spaces on Saturday during peak demand. • s Since the Tustin Zoning Code does not set forth specific parking ratios for health clubs, parking counts were taken in January 1997 at a 22,000 square-foot 24-hour Fitness Center in Anaheim, California to estimate parking for similar facilities. The data was then used to establish a model ratio of parking space demand to floor area during peak periods, The heaviest peak demand hours occurred from approximately 4.30 p.m. to 7:00 p.m., Monday through Thursday. The analysis found that the peak parking demand occurred with 94 vehicles, or a demand ratio of 4.27 spaces per 1,000 square feet. Using this assumption, a minimum of 128 parking spaces would be required for the proposed health club. As noted above, approximately 318 and 274 parking spaces are available at EI Camino Plaza during the peak demand hours on Fridays and Saturdays, respectively. © In addition to demonstrating that sufficient overall parking would be available to serve all the uses within the center, the parking analysis also determined that enough parking would be located within a convenient distance to the proposed use. This was done by observing the parking usage patterns at El Camino Plaza during typical weekday peak periods. Out of 366 parking spaces deemed conveniently accessible to the proposed health club, 293 spaces were unused. The City.Transportation Engineer has reviewed and concurs with the study with respect to the content, methodology and analysis used, and has accepted the adequacy of its findings and conclusions. Signage The applicant proposes to re-use the existing non-conforming roof sign and install one wall sign on the south elevation of building. (See Elevations -Attachment D): Condition No. 3.2 Planning Commission Report CUP 98-037 April 1 2, 1 999 Page 4 has been included to require that the final sign plans and exterior colors be submitted to the Community Development Department for approval. Compatibility In considering the approval of a Conditional Use Permit, the Planning Commission must find that the establishment, and the maintenance or operation of the use applied for, will not under the circumstances of the particular case, be detrimental to the health, safety, morals, comfort and general welfare of the persons residing or working in the neighborhood of such proposed use, nor injurious or detrimental to property and improvements in the neighborhood or the general welfare of the City. The operating characteristics of the proposed use, as conditioned, should have no detrimental effect on surrounding uses. As discussed previously, the scale and intensity of the- proposed use is not sufficient to generate parking demand impacts. The subject property has an adequate number of conveniently located parking spaces to accommodate the requested use and sufficient parking for all uses within the center. The hours of operation are consistent with the.other commercial uses occupying the center. Other than exterior paint and signage, no other exterior modifications are proposed, so there are no circulation or aesthetics issues associated with the proposal. Therefore, ' based on the analysis provided, staff recommends that the Planning Commission adopt Resolution No. 3665 approving Conditional Use Permit 98-037. . L0, Karen Peterson Associate Panner Acting Senior Planner Attachments: A. Location Map B. Floor Plan C. Parking Study D. Elevations Resolution No. 3665 s:pereport/cup96-037LL.doc f ATTACHMENT A Location Map i LOCATION MAP/Lf' $Woo? ' L r . r e 1 r 1 ry ' M h ..3 �!6 •''\. srp �3 500 •.a ! •ti s7a; 'srs Do! S0-3 .so f7! r s73 370' X60 ' f..7.41 �e n rv�. •�•5�.> - n W °h •= sS7' f 343 3.0. M f `mm^..o ! '9'31 i r J L,ry 33a SE pp°// - ! •'�._ Las _ '��`'� f; 670f _ f 67, 67p y • 607 60, - 4 i Cq/ I as?' 6S* P(AxAHO u •67J I7 � , 63 Vi65. f 666 6s7 f. yggs f 65. R o'ei 1 11 � 660 639 n $� aSS 4., 66t 668 m m e m g f ^ tF\•6�LL G� .aC. h ti r .G f s f QLL••� C j • IF s4yr �: qa j30o :. NO SCALE ATTACHMENT B Floor Plan I � FLOOR FLAN NOTES I I a M1� W Lo aR,.11m,W+�Mllu. 1 j ,cIGL M�OyLA�L ' {�4Knm rIIW GULa O4sY WW IYnfna' � .___ � l'�] G• m IM GU.,e9lGla,r,wIR iY rICY I � � �1fGf -1 A - P �el:In rxlaltw Yay.,l°W M I _ I I • �m8� I i n wa nrlr..x,u�xv r I I __ _____ ® 1 Qr•YIv oW YYLrwIWiv YVeW fW Mla ! I { � i Q Qi!n yr Y>m Gpnw.i nva WlL - — O - - 0 R ra S �s ''uW esn,l°6 ti � I lT C� j me,��.• � � p _ •r Yr,el,m+�I�WGeI w la°'.rrtW r, - y —. ,. as ' , -• -'s •'a: ------ ----------- —� Y 7#g nlG+.m no., - - - • - S.. F.ri,Qy r_____ ___ -I_____ ___ __ _____i I 1.4nWua...m alt- - F ...� I 1 I rue '01kd-�'I'•<rral;* f , - I• - i ! � 1 1 1 '� ' Se I '•I: ; i I I .cn•N4,mruasrlm m re• I •'!, 'pBY{ I I i 141 ,4�•,�I:. 4••' / T I I •I. U111., � I I®1.' (el i I 1 I I � j I I 0 Ii c1ra LI�LL.V •M�rcA✓Ws. {Il¢l �y��[ 1 � I I I � I ' I I YGI+,O R,•f. L91 ® ® , I A t f + • IO i LL I 1 v.C�- -Ixss,Ma. I -- 1ni` I,•..' I I'w I $W� V --y 1 Oleo LEGEND --- ----- =------ -- - - I a d M I s,up rrJ urere elauc rwi --® Y ' ©I � ler lo•w+urre a,ocR rvaL I "�•- IIn I ; I S� } "y3.c.-I f ,*. � 4 n I, ,�� L� �u J � j Ier rark ano r� j I ,,-11,,•---® A-.4 I I'- � le, § 'I § -I i »ea�s i I i n■. 0 0� b •• b FLOOR PLAN A2 .I•� �I I ATTACHMENT C Parking Study ' - II 6 W A P Al `]UPA Traffic Engineering, Inc. TRAFFIC &TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERING January 19, 1999 Mr. York Schulz Director of Club Development Bally Total Fitness Corporation 7755 Center Avenue, Suite 400 Huntington Beach, CA _92647. SUBJECT: BALLYTOTAL FITNESS-PARKING STUDY EL CAMINO PLAZA, TUSTIN Dear Mr. Schulz: • This letter report presents a parking analysis of the proposed Bally Total Fitness center to be located within suite 630 of the existing El Camino Plaza shopping center which is located on the southwest comer of El Camino Real and 61 Street in the City of Tustin. These analyses are.based upon discussions with City Staffs information provided by you, field studies and parking counts, and standard reference material. PROJECT DESCRIPTION The proposed project is.a fitness center which will occupy 30,000 square feet of vacant retail space within the EI Camino Plaza shopping center. Figure l illustrates the location of the proposed suite within the shopping center. Figure 2 shows the proposed floor plan. Currently the City of Tustin does not have a parking code for a fitness centers. This study has been directed toward determining a parking rate for the proposed fitness center along with the evaluation of the adequacy of the parking supply to accommodate existing and future parking demands. i ^f?/1^1T C�..�L 17aS_a_ T_e___. � h__•. .ren _ r - .._.. �. ����� .� __. -__ _ _ _ '— Camino Plaza. eeaa � tTf JT11_ 177FT il PROJECT s� ! w pis SUITE W4 6, J W s i W Q 6e \ \\\\ \\\'� �\ \ IN\ � I �' i [:a\����\\\ � 1� •\fit- ��'�`'\`•t / � � . IDS Z ,1 •9 3 - -� U. �• EL CAMIN4 REAL '11 IMneand_ ' El Camino ,sa Plaza PROJECT SUITE LOCATION FIGURE I McFaddenI ' rc1 W�►JIDFkE SZa1Wi • I 1 S rp. �r . `+•�+ Y� loe•c.+o •T,•� �r:rulr rr EPhJ7.79 CNS �Ra NaYHT M!� ' i*I .. �ra�•.`r".a K 7.."p`_-"_._n•ter � -tnmM�usF _ !+ �•T� 1 Pr.P.E; W4}�yiT� I � �• reuo. .+ • ••� ti. •� ! . �lK�.S ! T�tCMK wr ��I !1•1ie i TT f t. ra wosla �*' lrao rrr 1-� Gke , T x�:esf►:..'-1 - 1 �e - -� ------- --------- r � / j �f 1 ?)(LL— LL , lil MlW r,M�pt.Iq.�L.� 1 ^Q JJ 1 � a4yRI ,C:Cd I.noRN At11M�-� " fid. I .. �yrwnl• i PROPOSED FLOO K I �irrm+e.�e+1..�L• FLOOR PLAN WP-4.TAW ENGINEERING, INC. FI 4 1 I• -2- i EXISTING CONDITIONS The existing uses within the El Camino Plaza shopping center were verified and are listed in Table 1 along with the associated square footages. As shown in Table 1, there are a total of eight (8) vacant suites. The proposed project will be located within suite 630 which is 30,000 square feet. There are a total of 519 existing marked parking spaces that currently serve the El Canino Plaza shopping center. FIELD STUDIES The EI 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 3 and the count data can be four ' g d m Appendix A. The number of vehicles parked in the study area are documented in Table 2. As shown in Table 2, ' the peak parking period for the El Camino Plaza shopping center was observed on Saturday(1/9/99) 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. FITNESS CENTER PARKING RATE As mentioned previously, the City of Tustin does not have a parking rate for fitness centers, therefore, a parking rate needed to be established for the proposed project. A number of different sources were referenced and other Cities contacted to provided a basis for a parking rate. First,nine cities in Orange County were contacted to provide a data base of parking rates for fitness centers, these Cities were Irvine, Fountain Valley, Orange, Santa Ana, Huntington Beach, Lake Forest, WPA Traffic Engineering,Inc. Bally Total Fitness Parking Study Job #990050 City of Tustin TABLE 1 PARKING DEMAND PER CITY CODE-.EL CAMWO PLAZA' Bally Total Fitness,Parking Study y _ �All`dING P.lRJYlNG REj2UzM; 600 H&R Block -1,800 sf 1250 sf 71 602 Vacant 4200 sf 1200 sf 6.0 6O4 Maml's Jewelry&Loan 1,000 sf 11200 sf 5.0 610 Alteration Cleaners 606 sf 1/200 sf 3.0 620 Best Hair Carie 600 sf 1200 sf 3.0 630 Proposed Site-Vacant 30,000 sf 7.8/1,000 sf 234 632A Bargain 4,ODO sf 1200 sf 20.0 632E Board Shop 2,000 sf 11200 sf 10.0 632C National Mortgage Center 2,000 sf 1250 sf 8.0 638 Lanni Sweets and Spices • 3,200 sf 36 1/3 seats 12.0 640 Baby Outlet-Dress Me Up Mom I.5DO sf 1200 sf 73 650 Tustin Health Spa 7,000 sf i 1200 sf 35.0 654 Vacant 2,000 sf 1/200 sf 10.0 656 Real Estate Office 2,OD0 sf 1/250 sf 8.0 658 Vacant ZGOO sf 49' 113 seats 163 660 Shoe Repair 600 sf 1200 sf 3.0 662 T7's Submarine 600 sf 12 I/3 seats 4.0 664 420 Inc. 600 sf 11200 sf 3.0 668A Vacant 600 sf 1/200 sf 3.0 668B Vacant 725 of 11200 sf 3.6 671 Mom's.Lounge 1,650 sf 35 I/3 seats 11.7 674 Vacant 825 sf I200 sf 4.1 676 del Valle Real Estate' 825 sf '1250 sf 33 678 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 1/3 seats 153 684 labor Ready 1,240 sf 11250 sf 5.0 688 Labor Ready 2,040 sf 1!254 sf 8.2 690 Curtain Call Dinner Theatre 10.477 sf. 300 113 seats 100 692 Beauty Salon 777 sf 1200.sf 3.9 694 //mails 563 sf 1/200 sf 2.8 696 Re-Trizads and Etc. 1,375 sf 1200 sf 6.9 700 Vacant 2,ODD sf 1200 sf 10.0 706 Bronco Cleaners 2,200 sf 1200 sf 11.0 708 Our Boutique Consignment 75D sf I120D sf 3.8 710 Parry Time 4,750 sf 1200 sf 23,8 .712 Videoland 3,750 sf 11200,sf 18.8 :.TOTAL SPA CES RWUZRMPER CT7YCODE 644 `a'ob llJl� NV"V DATMWY'd ezeld nulwe3 I3 an oil su OD LMT P"19 wlnel � ' me M, m by R , � rn I7/723 rn OCR gill 9• 1 � l T1-- I �f I 89D9 U9 _4_ TABLE 2 PARKING DEMAND ANALYSIS Bally Total Fitness,Parking Study im. -SP.4�CP 'T COU�V3' A� vul; .nom::"'.: ,r.r s�±h _ .r.�.�.� �l7 ' S. `H��► T1 Jl PtlG� 1 FI:E�T'}ICES*y ^`' PSGjD ' ERCODE ( O u}tt�1 ,�`' � �.I9 Ta�r4� '�?emand � • F z S'aturd" 'r� `iSaturd a do a z T�'ae[rn pry TOTAL (!B/99j (3�, DOSF): . 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 12:30 PM 126 �93 t 393 426. 12:45 PM 123 99 396 420 1:04 PM 128 102 391 417 1:15 PM 116 101 403 418 1:30 PM 122. 1 102 397 417 4:00 PM 117 127 402 392 4:15 PM 101 126 418 393 4:30 PM 113 120406 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 53 234 287 (1) "Vacant Suites" does not include the proposed project.suite. • Laguna Hills,Costa Mesa and Brea. Table 3 displays the parking rates for fitness-centers associated with each City and the number of parking spaces that would be required for the proposed project under each rate. Based upon these data an average rate was obtained of 7.8 spaces per 1,000 square feet, which translates into 234 parking spaces. 'A second source "Parking Generation"1 was referenced to,obtain a parking rate for fitness centers. Within "Parking Generation",Code 495-Sports C1ublHeaIth Spa,an average rate of 4.37 per 1,000 SF is provided along with an equation of Ln(P)=0.72 Ln(x)+2.35. Based upon this data,utilizing the average rate a total of 131 parking spaces would be required. Utilizing the equation a total of 121 parking spaces would be required. Based .upon a parking study' conducted by WPA Traffic Engineering, Inc. a count had been conducted at an.existing Family Fitness Center in the City ofAnaheim. The Family Fitness Center was 22,000 SF with similar amenities to that of the proposed Bally Total Fitness facility. This count • data ban be foundin A endix B. Based u the peak n pp on p p umber of parked vehicle's, 94, a parking rate of 4.27 spaces per 1,000 SF was established. Utilizing this rate,-the proposed project would require 128 parking spaces. Table 4 summarizes the parking rate data collected from the varies sources provided above. As shown in Table 4,the average rate from the sampling of thecities in Orange County provided the highest rate which would provide a`worst case"analysis. The rate of 7.8 spaces per 1,000 SF was applied to the proposed project for a projected demand of 234 parking spaces.' "Parking Generation", 2'Edition;Institute of Transportation Engineers(ITE);August 1987. • z "Anaheim Hills Festival Parking Study";prepared by WPA Traffic Engineering,Inc.;' dated November 11, 1997. WPA Traffic Engineering,Inc. Bally Total Fitness Parking Study Job#990050 ;� -City of Tustin TABLE 3 SAMPLE OF ORANGE COUNTY CITY'S PAAIU NG CODES Bally Total Fitness,Parking Study Nf '8EROF-PARKflVG CIS' f F,ARSIIVG CODE ;3 t SPACES REQLMED yJ 1'I 1 r zl -� -. z k-I 5 s• 9 _ l/i17I-+'{..T J -: + ....,,w3_�:'i {moi,1..1:- - - _ •�r Irvine 1 Space Per 150 SF 200 Fountain Valley 1 Space Per 250 SF+ 120 1 Space Per Employee 15 Orange 5.7 Spaces,Per 1,000 SY 171 Santa Ana 1 Space Per 28 SF devoted to. 436 physical activity Huntington Beach 1 Space Per 100:SF of Aerobic Area+ 27 1 Space Per 20Q SF for remaining Area 137 Lake Forest .1 Space Per 150 SF 200 Laguna Hills 1 Space per 100 SF 300 Costa Mesa . 10 Spaces Per 1,000 SF 300 Brea 1 Space Per 150 SF 200 �lvetageltafe: �.8 S' Por` er �2D ,S 234' 3 P: _7_ TABLE 4 SUMMARY OF PARKING RATES FROMNARIOUS SOURCES Bally Total Fitness,Parking Study • W_ 3 'fl t 4 ` N 1 •E _F'. j f�/'�.L+. .. i11.).CfYE..WS, bLt .0 �1 r - .Fl� �T0-TA L FITNESS - T.1 {1f ! N'..f f Y i •i- f i li -. E Survey of Orange County Cities 7.8 Spaces Per 1,000 SF (Avg.) 234 "Parking Generation" 4.37 Spaces Per 1,000 SF or 131 or Ln(P)=0.72 Ln(x)+2.35 121 Existing Count At A Similar'Facility 4.27 Spaces per 1,000 SF 128 (Family Fitness Center) - i 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: RETAIL 1 Space Per 200 SF OFFICE 1 Space.Per250 SF RESTAURANT 1 Space Per 3 Seats Based upon the City Parking Code's listed'above along with the projected number ofparking spaces required for the proposed.Project, a total of 642 parking spaces would be required for the entire shopping center with the vacant suites. Table 1 lists each land use within E1 Camino PIaza 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 ifthere is justification for aparking variance. The parking demand analyses will not only account for the existing spaces utilized, but the spaces required by the vacant suites within the El Camino Plaza shopping center and the demand for the proposed fitness center. 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 2. For .convenience, the parking demand counts were translated to "REMAINING AVAILABLE SPACES", so the remaining parking supply could be compared to the projected-parking demand. The projected demand needs to account for both the vacant suites in the study area and the proposed. `Bally Total Fitness facility. • WPA Traffic Engineering.,Inc. Bally Total Fitness Parking Study Job #1990050 City of Tustin Seven suites in the El Camino Real shopping center, other than the proposed 630 location, are presently vacant. These suites total 9,350 SF, which would translate to a parking demand of 53 spaces based on City codes, The proposed project of a 30,000 SF fitness center would require 234 spaces; The-vacant suites and the proposed fitness center, therefore, result in a combined added parking demand of 287 parking spaces. Table 2 shows that the 287 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-minute period and assume full parking code for the vacant suites at these particular times of the day. SUMAMY 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 of287(5'3,-vacant suites and 234-proposed fitness center)would be adequately served by the peak parking supply of 357 and 318 available spaces during.a Friday and Saturday evening,respectively. 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,please contact us. Respectfully submitted, "A TRAFFIC ENGINEERING,INC. Weston S. Pringle,P.E. Registered Professional Engineer State of California Numbers C16828 &TR565 • WPS:HN #990050 TWPA Traffic Engineering,Inc. Bally Total Fitness Parking Study Job ##990050 City of Tustin • APPENDIX A Parking Count Data E1'Camino Plaza-Parking Count g( dorner of EI Camino Real and Sixth Street Time: riday:January 8`h aturday:January 9� oth Days are from 11:30 AM to 1:30 PM and 4:00 PM to 7:00 PM Note: Count by 15-minute intervals FRIDAY:JANUARY 8'H, 1999 PA,RSFNG 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 10. 0 46 28 4 88 11:45.AM 1I 1 56 33 5 106 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 1:15 PM 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 32 6 101 430 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 PM. 20 1 . 52 ' 37 8 118 5:45 PM 19 1 . 49 35 7'• 11 I 6:00 PM 20 I 51 48 12 I32 6:15 PM 18 1 58 57 8 142_ 6:30 PM 22 1 65 52 11 15I 6:45.PM 18 1 62 65 9 ': 155 7:00 PM 19 1 66 67 9 162. EfCamino Plaza-Parking Count s/w corner of El Camino Real and Sixth Street Time: Friday: January 8`h Saturday: January 9.1h Both Days are from 11:30 AM to 1:30 PM and 4:00 PM to 7:00 PM • c Note: Count by 15-minute intervals SATURDAY: JANUARY 9TH, 1999 PARUNG AREAS=NUMBER OFPARKED•CARS TIME A, B C D E TOTAL #of Existing 754 13 109 140 103 519 Parking Spaces 11:30 AM 7 1 52 50 7 117 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 5 40 42 8. .99 1:00 PM 10" 0 45 41 6 102 1!15 PM 11 6 44 38 8'. 101 1:30 PM 14 0 45 35 81 102 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 11 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 I 1 1 86 93 . 10 201 s APPENDIX B 24 Hour Fitness Center Count -41 FAME YMNESS CENTER 040OUR FlT ,S,q} ANAMEIM &AMM COWT '•{<.'; ;..;yo- -ay.:.}.a::':;' '�+,o.�:..,f:.,-- ::`s?�;..:;ii:.x'.a`?�5,:.•rt.c•ri:d�#..;7�+'�Ci'�;�tvxfiiti"�»:;�•`'+.':rS.;f:�. 'a: : •[.eo �'itti:4 ti`.-- '^ik-. ;::&:t� �':\:; ti<`�f.2::'sS;:.�Q..f.7�w:; s::•;fc:•:�::; �,.: s•�. n'5-+- �c:,r:v�-.iR.S{.v.,;4rr•f.':.''.•-r _ -:.<wh:. . r,..?�•,,t2.:t.,�.:..kt:�b-a.:<f•.�cy:.; .; 5: .-�$iFto%?:;i'^�?y�7`C�,f i}5?ir:•.`. -_� �e /��� gyj�y.� (�}. ..-•;:.>� 'i:a�;. -{�,,�,""..: +4�.�kk k aC`ic�-. < •o-r.yx`un - ,7�- Y" ^*t-Y� ya 7 1`rh+:{—t:wxv;:;}v=�e ? :[.lL�'Ii�1} j1 {'� wn- We y '=8{,>.: � ;.. (t-•i ,t:x...:..a•;w;h:xa+:-trvr..»•:n..,:r.:.,•, ":i•7. �c.;.�.y,;.. �i 4:•;:;,4 A,5 iJAl 's-}s .'br?'k".>:•ti:.n'„�tw{;ras, t:;',c.,..a ?C:•.?.. .: -:. ...}- .P. :.' :� .�...8"y5::$:.^,��,',,5'+s,..:�.rct:5::;:i�:.;{ ~�.,;.:oi;'''a?:.:...•er;'y, .;•�''u�":s:Gti:.j-:i`:�`�`:y�. -Af--�.;, ;�.,�,; }� M�h�s{>� :?fie „<A..�u::,`�#�'.> �rr. .-,�A'�.�.-..•�.fi:-..;::.e}"' ' `:!C•?:.9:?w..:.S�\.t,.;:�5"'v.xs-::`;p�- >-U''�x y':::-' fix- r r 2:00 PM ' (37) 27 . 2:30 PM ; (37) 29 .3:00 PM (37) 29 3:30 PM (37) 27 4:00 PM 37 , 47 4:30 PM 51 43 5:00 PM 60 31 5:30 PM 76 24 6:00 PM 94 23 M 6:30 PM 78 23 7:00 PM 50 17 7:30 PM 26 .6 8:00 PM 12 5 . (37) - The counts on Friday were conducted between 4:00:PM to 8:00 PK therefore,the count data shown between the hours of 2:00 PM to`3:30 PM were estimated based upon.the existing count data. Anaheim 24-Hour Fitness Center is 22,000 SF. ATTACHMENT D Elevations MITE t"OVIM ,emus errs SIR IRA=.b"" (rum•.02ON Q.na SID" • Vd 11'x' SOUTH ELEVATION M IMA .rC. 11su�.052MORm . 11'-f f• ffFwm 4C I'M } MITE I"0446 lEnSs TACH SIT TOTAL FITN E rT ' m-fa __ 1e�eeralm sam era mAraA ear 11,0fs1 Imm.CODAS Irmm•SN.0 a..JVA H2OVdi . IrnuQ.b2P7 .. 8 _ I I I A I I x I � y 1 ` 7 M1 BAST CLEVAT I ON RESOLUTION NO. 3666 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE 2 CITY OF TUSTIN, APPROVING CONDITIONAL-USE PERMIT 98- 037, AUTHORIZING THE ESTABLISHMENT OF A HEALTH 3 CLUB AT 630 EL CAMINO REAL. 4 The Planning'Commission does hereby resolve as follows: 5 ' 6 I. The Planning Commission finds and determines as follows: 7 A. That.a proper application, Conditional Use Permit. 98-037, has been filed by Bally Total Fitness, requesting 8 authorization to establish a health club at 630 El Camino 9 -Real, Tustin. 10 B. That the proposed use is allowed within the Central Commercial (C-2P) District with4he approval of a Conditional 11 Use Permit. 12 C. Thata public hearing was duly called, noticed and held for ^ 13 said application on April 12, 1999 by the Planning 14 Commission. 15 D. That the establishment, maintenance, and operation of the use applied for will not, under the circumstances of this case, 16 be detrimental to the health, safety, morals, comfort, or 17 general welfare of the persons residing or working in the neighborhood of-such proposed use nor be a detriment to 18 the property and improvements in the neighborhood of the 19 subject property, nor to the general welfare of the. City of Tustin as evidenced by the following findings: 20 1. A parking analysis was conducted by a licensed traffic 21 engineer, which determined that the'subject property 22 has an adequate number of conveniently - located parking spaces to accommodate the requested use 23 and sufficient parking for all uses within the •entire center. 24 25 2. The hours,of operation are.consistent with the other commercial.,uses occupying the subject property. 26 27 3.1 No exterior,additions are proposed, so the project will -have no -effect upon- the vehicular or pedestrian 28 circulation patterns. • 29 I Exhibit A • Resolution No. 3665 2 CUP 98-037 3 Page 2 4 4. Minor exterior modifications proposed, which includes exterior color and new signage, will not affect the 5 aesthetics of-the area in which the use is proposed. 6 E. That this project is Categorically Exempt from the 7 requirements of the California Environmental. Quality Act, pursuant to Section 15301 (Class 1). 8 9 F. That the project has been reviewed for consistency with the Air Quality Sub-element of the City of Tustin General Plan 10 and has been determined to be consistent with the Air 11 Quality Sub-element. 12 if. The Planning Commission hereby approves Conditional Use Permit 98-037 authorizing the. establishment of- a health club at 630 El 13 Camino Real, subject to the conditions contained within Exhibit A, 14 attached hereto. 15 PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Planning Commission of the City of Tustin, at a regular meeting on the 12th day of April, 1999: Ib 17 18 LESLIE A. PONTIOUS 19 Chairperson 20 21 ELIZABETH A. BINSACK 22 Planning Commission Secretary s 23 STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF ORANGE } 24 CITY OF TUSTIN ) 25 ' I, Elizabeth A. Binsack, the undersigned, hereby certify that I am the 26 Planning Commission Secretary of the City of Tustin, California; that 27 Resoultion No. 3665 was duly passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the Tustin Planning Commission, held on the 12th day of April, 1999. 28 29 ELIZABETH A. BINS ACK Planning Commission Secretary EXHIBIT A • CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 98-037 CONDTIONS OF APPROVAL RESOLUTION NO. 3665 GENERAL (1) 1.1 The proposed use shall substantially conform with the submitted plans for the. project date stamped April 12, 1999'on file with the Community Development Department, except as herein modified, or as modified by the Director of Community •Development in accordance with this Exhibit. The Director of Community Development may also approve minor modifications to plans during plan check if such modifications are to be consistent with the provisions of the Tustin City Code and other applicable codes. (1) 1.2 Unless otherwise specified, the conditions contained in- this Exhibit shall be complied with as specified or 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 are issued within twelve (12) months of the date of this Exhibit and substantial construction is underway. Time extensions may be granted if a written request is received by the Community Development Department within thirty (30) days prior to expiration. (1) 1.4 Approval of Conditional' Use Permit 98-037 is contingent upon the applicant- and property, owner signing and returning an "Agreement to Conditions Imposed"form as established by the Director of Community Development. (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 for this project. (1) 1.6 Amendments to Conditional Use Permit 98-028 may be considered and approved by the Planning Commission. (1) 1.7 Any violations of the Tustin City Codes or Conditions of Approval of this Conditional Use Permit may be considered grounds for the initiation of proceedings to revoke the Conditional Use Permit. (1) 1.8 Any Health Code or other violations, as determined by the County of Orange Health Care . Agency, may be considered grounds for the initiation of proceedings to revoke the Conditional Use Permit. SOURCE CODES (1) STANDARD CONDITION (5) RESPONSIBLE AGENCY REQUIREMENT (2) CEQA MITIGATION (6) LANDSCAPING GUIDELINES- (3) UNIFORM BUILDING CODEIS (7) PCICC POLICY (4) DESIGN REVIEW '` '` EXCEPTION Exhibit A Resolution No. 3665 CUP 98-037 Page 2 • USE RESTRICTIONS `** 2.1 There shall be an- owner or manager who is responsible for the operation of the facility on the premises at all times that the facility is open for business. (1) 2.2 The subject property shall be maintained ina' safe, clean and sanitary condition at all times. . (1) 2.3 The child care facility shall only service the patrons of the health club while they are using the facility. (1) 2.4 All massage therapy and sports care technicians' must obtain a license to operate at this facility from the License and Permit Board. (1) 2.5 A licensed medical doctor shall be on the premises and responsible for all therapy operations during the hours that all massage therapy and sports care therapy is being conducted. If a licensed medical doctor ceases to be responsible for all therapy and present on-site, the owner, manager, or operator shall cease operation of massage services- until a Massage Establishment Permit is obtained from the License and Permit Board for the facility. (1) 2.6 Massage therapy and sports care activities authorized under this Conditional Use Permit shall not commence until the License and Permit Board approves and issues business licenses for individual technicians conducting massage therapy/sports care within the facility. (1) 2.7 The employees of the facility and all massage therapy/sports care technicians shall operate in strict compliance with the operating conditions imposed by the License and Permit Board and requirements specified in Article 3, Chapter 7, Part 1 of the Tustin City Code, unless more restrictive conditions are imposed by the Planning Commission. (5) 2.8 All massage therapy/sports care technicians shall have appropriate licensing from the State of California and such licensing shall be clearly displayed on the premises. `** 2.9 Massage treatment and/or application of oils, lotions or other related services shall be allowed only in the designated "Sports Care" treatment room. (1) 2.10 A lighting level equivalent to no less than ten (10) foot-candles shall be maintained in public rooms, walkways and at any point within each - room or enclosure. where massage therapy/sports care services are • performed at all times such services are being provided. A photometric study showing the ,location, distribution of light of all Exhibit A Resolution No. 3665 w CUP 98-037 Page 3 proposed-fixtures and details of light fixtures shall be submitted to the Community Development Department for review and approval. *** 2.91 No person shall enter, be or remain in any part of the facility while in the possession of, consuming or using alcoholic beverages or drugs except as pursuant to' a .prescription for such drugs. The owner, operator, responsible managing employee, manager or licensees shall not permit any person in violation of this condition to enter or remain,upon the premises. (1) 2.12 The owner, operator, responsible managing employee, manager or licensees of the facility shall cooperate fully with all City officials, law enforcement personnel and Code Enforcement officers, and shall not obstruct or impede their.entrance into the licensed premises while in the course of their professional duties.' (5) 2.13 ..The hours of operation shall be limited to 5:30 a.m. to 12:00 a.m. Monday through Friday and 8:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. Saturday and Sunday. PLAN SUBMITTAL (1) 3.1 No change or alteration of the approved floor plan shall occur without prior approval in writing from the Community Development Director. If the Director determines that the scope of the proposed alteration warrants review and approval by the Planning Commission, an application to revise the Conditional Use Permit shall be submitted and,a new public hearing shall be conducted prior to authorizing the . proposed modifications. (5) 3.2 , A final and complete,.detailed project sign program including design, location, sizes, colors, and materials shall be submitted for review and. approval .by the Community - Development Department. All proposed colors and materials require review and approval by the Community Development Department prior to application. (3) 3.3 At Building Plan Check, four .(4) sets of construction plans, electrical details and structural calculations shall be submitted. (4) 3.4 The applicant shall obtain all necessary permits from the Building Department prior to construction of any.`improvements that require a permit pursuant to the Uniform Building Code and Tustin City Code. (1) 3.5 All building locking devices added to� the premises shall meet those requirements as set forth in the Building Security Code. ' (3)_ 3.6 In compliance with the Uniform Building Code (Application for Permit),;the applicant, designer, Architect or Engineer must submit Exhibit A Resolution No. 3665 CUP 98-037 Page 4 building plans to the Building Division for review and approval prior to the issuance of a building permit. (3) 3.7 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 Arnust provide designs for accessibility for the physically challenged to the Building Division for their review and approval prior to the issuance of building permits. (3) 3.8 In compliance with the Department of Justice (Office of the Attorney General) this condition is for the accessibility for the proposed project, the designer, Architect or Engineers proposed grading plan must comply with the Americans .with Disabilities Act (ADA) (Federal Register). _ (3) 3.9 Provide project data that includes the type of construction and group of occupancy of the building and whether fully sprinklered or not. (3) 3.90 Provide and show allowable area analysis of the building based on the type of construction and occupancy group. Indicate on plans • location of area and occupancy separation walls if any. (5) 3.97 Plans shall be submitted to County Environmental Health services and clearances shall be obtained and submitted to the Building Division.priorto issuance of.a building permit. FEES (1) 4.1 Prior to issuance of any building permits, payment shall be made of all applicable fees. 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. �. Orange County.Fire Authority plan check and inspection fees to the Community Development Department based upon the most current schedule. (1&5) 4.2 Within forty-eight (48) hours of approval of the subject project, the applicant shall deliver to the Community Development Department, a cashier's check payable to the COUNTY CLERK in the amount of $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 Exhibit A Resolution No. 3665 - CUP 98-037 Page 5 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. _ i =r- - . - .. . - - - .. ..-� .. - . , , — � . .. . . ,:. . - . - - ' ' . .. -: - ..-: .: ,.,.,:.,.,...,.-.''-., - ,- " ' :l.-�--..'-"..-.-.. .:.",.,"' I ' ;."-': '-- " ''..:-.:...- , , --,.,.,. .� ........I- .:.," .". .:,:.."".:....-:.".". .,--..'..-.-.'�:-.:*.-.'.---*-..,.�-�----.,..-.--, --,- --- - - , - . . . .. . . .-':' -I...' " . ' . -., . . -- -::- �........ , ' " ' . . - - --.- - ' . '':.'' , �:--:.'. .. , .1 I-:: -.-,-.-. .. . .- ---�- --..'-�-- - --- - %"...".......- . .. . . , .. .. --. .--.---,.-----:--.....-- . .' .--- - - - - ,_' --- '.-.'.__ .., ..:--.-:-",.".-..,-...-. ..�,--.,.'..-'- . ... ..- --. --.:.�-.-:. I.'.."'..- ...–.. . ., ..... .,-,.. ' ' " :d. ... . . , . - - " " ' '", ' :"":,:.,.:-,'' :",--.-.-.:--�:.-..'.�........ .'--. - , - --''-"' ' -- '-'-'*- . . ** .. . . .. - , '' ' ' . - .:.. , . -- -..--.1,..-- . .7:.,:.,..-..::.,-;.".,.:,.,..-::-..,:........:.-..-..-.-..:....-:,..-':,-...-.-:.'-'.'....- . . . ........-......... . , .... ..- - I- * --I--- I-I- I- - I---..---,.-------- ..- .. ...-... . .. .-- - ....-........ -, , . ... ''I. - - ----1-- - ...- --- - - - - ----�.:-, -.-. .. . .....-...,...-.-...,..-.'.'-," ............:..:... .-..-..:..',.,-.'.* '-'-.--,.:..:... . ..-.",-:-l".:-.l'-.l....:.".*-:-, -'"""'.--------.-.-.�.-.---I I I...'--I.-:...-I..,..-,.,-,. '-*.'.'".'' *'.'.*' * --�'-.---'-:.'-'::- - .' . ,. .. " - - , .---*:-I . *,* -, - - - ' *' '''' -'''' ' - - - . -- -' ''-:*%'.,.-.:.--'.- -. . . . -- ..,.. - -,---- ------. ----..--.- --�, -,..,..-.'.'.'.:--.�".:.. - :.,. . -- -- - . .: � --.-..,-' -..,.,-, . *' - *' ... .." � ... , " ,- .�... I.. .-. ..-:. .......:.. .. .-. ... ' -,.,. ---- - - " . . . . ".' ' I" * .'. -.-..----�-.,-- � * - - .. , **,:, ,:-- -.. . . - . - ....- . , ..- .::, -.... - ,- -- � . - .- - .". . . .- -.. - ...' - ,...-. , .0 .- - - - - - - - ..:- ' , ' '- - '-.:-: . .. . '. .1 - '-'-'' .--:.,,-...�.,.....".:'.-:-�-'.-.-�-. --. -.-.--..-:.-' - - . " , � . , ... . � , . . -:.. -- --.'--'�--'*-: . .. :: ; . +1. :. •1 . ;; _ �; �- ,0 ti'. t 5 :• 007.- s >' ;. _ •i _ __ • - _ 'F'' '�-'i Y _ - N . _ - ... '. ,. ~F - . - ITEM rr5 1� y o 49eport to the _ Planning ,Commission DATE: APRIL 12, 1999 SUBJECT: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 99-004, DESIGN REVIEW 99-003 APPLICANT: PACIFIC BELL WIRELESS 2521 MICHELLE DRIVE, 2N° FLOOR TUSTIN, CA 92870 ATTN: SHAWN O'CONNER PROPERTY OWNERS: PACIFC BELL 14451 MYFORD ROAD TUSTIN, CA 92870 ATTN:-LUIS FRANCO LOCATION: 14451 MYFORD ROAD (APN 432.473-21) ZONING: PLANNED COMMUNITY INDUSTRIAL (PC-IND) ENVIRONMENTAL -STATUS: THIS- PROJECT IS CATEGORICALLY EXEMPT (CLASS 1) PURSUANT TO SECTION 15301 OF THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT REQUEST: AUTHORIZATION TO RAISE THE HEIGHT OF AN EXISTING MAJOR WIRELESS FACILITY FROM FIFTY (50) FEET IN HEIGHT TO SIXTY ONE (6.1) FEET. RECOMMENDATION That the Planning Commission adopt Resolution No. 3663 approving Conditional Use Permit 99-004 and Design Review 99=003. BACKGROUND The applicant is requesting approval to increase the height of an exist6g wireless facility eleven (11) feet to an overall height of si* one (61) feet to improve Personal Communication Systems (PCS) signals. The proposal includes removal and replacement of an existing pole on the existing monopole. No other modification to the number of S antennae, equipment, or site are proposed. The site is located in the Planned Community Industrial (PC-IND) complex south of the Interstate 5 known as Irvine Industrial complex (see Attachment A-.Location Map) bounded by industrial development on all sides. Planning Commission Report CUP 99-004, DR 99-003 April 12, 1999 Page 2 The existing wireless'facility is considered a "Major Wireless Communication Facility" as defined by the Wireless Communication Ordinance (Ord. No. 1192). Any modification to a major facility requires approval of a Conditional Use Permit and a Design Review by the Planning Commission. The existing monopole exceeds the maximum height of twenty five (25) feet as set forth by the Irvine Industrial Planned Community district regulations. However, structures over twenty five (25) feet in height that meet the requirements of the Federal Aviation Agency can be approved by the Planning Commission. The overall height of sixty one (61) 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). Project Description Prior to adoption of the Wireless Communication Ordinance, the Community Development Department approved installation of a fifty (50) foot tall monopole antenna and a Base Transceiver Station (BTS) unit at the proposed location on January 31, 1996. The wireless facility contains two metal radio equipment cabinets and six (6) single antennae attached to the monopole structure. The antennas will be raised eleven (11) feet in height to overcome signal disruptions due to recently developed buildings in the vicinity. The site is within a parking area provided for three buildings on the site, owned and operated by Pacific Bell. The northwest portion of the parking (where the monopole is located) and two nearby buildings are enclosed by a six (6)foot high block wall with restricted access. With mstallation'of the original monopole and its equipment, six parking spaces were affected and stripped for no-parking. However, there is sufficient on-site parking without these six spaces. The. area to the east of the site outside the City boundary has been recently developed with new industrial/office buildings, which were not in existence when the original wireless facility was constructed. Although the' new office development has contributed to the degradation and attenuation of PCS signals from the existing facility, it has also created a visual buffer to the site from Jamboree Road. The monopole is screened from Walnut Avenue by industrial buildings and mature eucalyptus trees (see Photo Study). The site would be partially screened from east and south of the site by the new industrial development in the. City of Irvine. Development to the north and west of the site is existing. ANALYSIS In determining whether to approve the Conditional Use Permit, the Planning Commission must determine whether or not the proposed major wireless facility 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 can be supported by the following findings: • 1} That modification, maintenance, and operation of a major wireless communication facility, as conditioned, will not be detrimental to the health, safety, morals, comfort, Planning Commission Report CUP 99-004, DR 99-003 . April 12, 1999. Page 3 ,or general welfare of the persons residing or working in the neighborhood of such proposed use, 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, as evidenced by the following findings: a) The proposed facility, as conditioned, would not be detrimental to, or have a negative effect on, surrounding properties in that the proposed facility will replace an existing major wireless facility fifty (50) feet in height with a sixty one (61) feet monopole in an Industrial zoning district. The proposed height is compatible with the surrounding buildings and mature eucalyptus trees. b) Consistent with site selection criteria . in Tustin City Code Section 9276(F)(2)(a)(3) which identifies placement in commercial and industrial zones as a preferred location for such facilities, the site is located in the industrial zone. Also, consistent with the locational guidelines in TCC Section 9276(H), the facility will not be located within 100 feet of any existing, legally established major wireless communication facility nor within 300 feet of residentially zoned or used property. c) The proposed facility, as conditioned, is compatible with uses in the • surrounding area in that the monopole is screened by new office and industrial development minimizing the visual infnasiofi on the surrounding community. d) The proposed new height exceeding twenty five feet.is permitted in the Irvine Industrial Complex Planned Community Industrial (PC-IND) zone with approval of a Conditional Use Permit by the Planning Commission. e) The overall height of sixty one (61) feet would not penetrate the "imaginary surface" which is at 100' in height at the project location as defined in the Federal Aviation Regulation Part 77 and adopted by the Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC). Minoo Ashabi Karen Peterson Assistant Planner Acting Senior Planner Attachments: A. Location Map B. Submitted Plans C. Photo Study Resolution No.3663 ma:pereporflcup99-004, DR99-003. I � r -� LOCATION MAP,`�r� L E , r i E ` i • r ' � r / 1, •_fes ••`•• - /• 17601 r ••~• - —.—.. ..—..Ln FRJ.MRIW�yEWE--r.• ------------- IL d l / 768, I f All k sI RAILWAY ! f J 1 r l -r OF i �•: �� ` c� NO SCALE GENERAL NOTES O. wlL.t,M wYLa'd'+IlroTit daOTR r.e COerllua<t Ma.vr.say ' .''•fir' �'. l'aq Nren l9,hw/a nl RLb r.p w/R P M 4Kwl IaTT v ir'lpLlsl ''T: xi — DAIE: BELL- 1-09-99 008 .,. .wwllwrNwoarA'rNeno�e.eaa,raelvetrfawrwruaa. � (\`:� 1 ENGINEER: rfyea de a1ICm.AT b NLergy,ca.T ro M Ofal aww [ •� l��,, .•' R • -�• n�t.�arorn.o.rwtcWmui � O•='� -� ... DRAWN BY: S.D. p�ewrrao �r iM nn.ec'TluYit - .. - REMSIONS ifrwar^m.�.o'�1v5."eTrPc'•c e sm.... ' evc usosm +mn 3 e Mb b [ef% .wn aw�,wo arrwr.o•w�..o�"wacilrw++u.°�°`�..wiw m .•-• . M AapnrGl.00 bI raoµm Ifrr ferNlAlrN N Aw.Y a'TS::� ' .:�GO,r,rl pOlrlrGtl ll•wr�1RftLTpl . rfrlrfrunrra wrrar nc�.w.mn+or n...�tr,n •'r,�Y.` '• - ' . ' e�Are!!P�O1}r�OYWO br Rf-0'riOmMwlOtLtR ' � .. , �„ , • ', • M aYrL l'OIIaK1YI tWl wrae Nrrs Arr]enrAT.ta ioI r.G.EOl •• • . • - ' ,.l mwum Nrr,�a,ycrlaee rAarofiaerwrdafrr reel br 7.• ♦ nrwraY 1411p a M l tALT1a RYtw[anrKT�up,{� .. ` - ' 14451 ', MYFORD ROAD..: RI(mefYTW MLrtt,erP Mra.f[I�YMC(ffA.cT. �� •. M lonlyt;iOre wV tlf NeN'PY{m RI M V/lYYAfD rpllyT,Ura P ..,y� M�rnncwwr.rrwuel�Nar�Nnea.Iw�.ceT-Q _ � TU ST1 N•;••; CA LI FMA. ...IAIIPI nw,tiao lauA rc.seeen. �`�1`," •,• �,saLT011..ri r,.ac ru an.+eie.ro lwrn..Af Auelow O wrrrefaevwoaf w.,,v wea wa'a b,m "•I -�" onpalle al Na L/%L[2rlf a tldurO T/a2 r1�prL ' .� .. N''On1�� SITE N0.4 CM-002—Q1 —P 1 _< coMp frw,�LY]L,IGT�,L!ntEMb�wTt+PP[A•1vicePM Y I• _ /� ^ . rfrrOwl�ewKrPI lLfavR AiM ra1JYTM 4NL wTP V V QO 'wclurotpaaWefwwIarrm wm MlAlral rr+sosAra � •: ,-{h.- - ' A[t>Op1�Pe rl/Urr\6+ TAMlw Mn.cwcasfvs�awrwnrT.,er..cam o.e,oTmce j1`►� .'.x' V a r+rrra ar w earralcrta rfuest way Imm aelwla MNa{bE..TMrrarrle[►M laaY4EAl�erMarVaM NV TI! � frr 3Z �PMw'r`AA Ne.Mrw trn.r.aner .�...m M.b«da>..e.arow�I�YlT GENERAL NOTES CONTINUED PROJECT SUMMARY SHEET IND . o[ 111113L4.IMM�f aIO - .A� i•• • fAlbr UOfrILYnl Mu.lfq�mMlw RKQPeT OdI ayA IRKd •� '.''J � ..• "'r" •-• 's .,� ''S,tiR a.'<"• � FKeI(;eeL lawafpr/Im - cae,v.Trwaplxf,wrKawaflaou.fa.uwry.lafWus,wr wa x ++��.Tn>rae.rawn..nr�a�wanuvn►waile.r,. .r.a� ..,i. TS'�. •' 77TLE SF!✓rET, 'PRO o wfcatr M1.rrr colfaa.[War rwa.E!Ipac,w,vo famam Aro ftlnuArar relcrmae iao TA nr.4aflrluO aae ro Q .. ' rrMNw,aT. +n.om.rrvrwcm�..orKwcena.mu+en'rea ••+'• '1��°.%r' � „ .:• . TITLE Sl Y�r,G n rw aew eafnwera tlwa r.eree Ther Prw,tlfwwiomw �.�'%'•� "• •. - `''• n. Fera rrnr.rlar lruar rlea.rm AwwaNrllYLls,laa nr .arwnwbN,r rea¢a wv ro+ee g�Y. rare a4s _ VIG.MAP.GEN.NOTES w.�sa.arr,eam r..,aerla r...,.rne to na rAcun.w aiI - a d raaxl rR,l.wrioo+WeW rwc eas�awbent >•.. aMiaa�w rive c�em eY R�Mal oar, .•.�: �p�wYtlle,rticfe r» e ' w�y11!w1e Jra a rerar.lra M Ilrr ro R Gew•em M EE, qua r.r una.ey.sn.w AATw.oeraay mw s,a n /�-I oM ie ere Maax.rar.eeex..ne roa ua n.Mna "' . '•E .. i rw a►r-m ' SITE PLAN d M1500.DETAILS s+.a andr.ar+..•a mwwm.0 rwru.PM.wansr �mure�et ntlt. earsKi.lie rear- ialeAn.orf4rTNGTIDa ... ..._.....ej . - . .. Tee mrrwc+us lw'rL N.Q l naar m rsnmr ears iwl�NTeN�cmr'�'�era�w„�T Wn M Iw►K . M�rOre•6lReVtlpre►1'wvwl[iO.A[1G pr�u�[asIRClIP4 rKJY dltlm{L]GIVr1llyymro ' w.arr.Ye tr'IacwerrKTo..rfa s.N aver ow..w+rr aevu.ea wollwrAN wlwnbf Ta.Tw..,nur A_2 MONOPOLE ELEVATIONS IMr IwAr araal�pe ro aax,Kwwl resin M rtYbflY. • • C?' rKurr d Af.fret M rKux raa[4dfT aM1 M � ufnelncly cult Iv ro n nNT M fenlK IaN wqw n as1..r..Mo elrPaafl a be eqi,roanxe flNerler ro w """'o'�°""wwrowwrne"eoosrrw�u..,®o. o .*,trarue...o.renw MISC.DETAILS •�••o a.at e...m e.,r narrm•..ara.r a.M rORev,r�..aa Nwa,w IJrI w A Maq.allY 4e/N(AOwel by/Rll � a rKre L�OL�, A tloa P MM MT/e,a a Warrpl Ai[be.q.R. .. 'L lilbrN Mnela WMr Navel r RKm.YmKr Ifni a rM,tlm ro ' irrt V r-FaLT♦� � d � PNNMIt,xa OfOTlerrels f,ls 4l brJM W.eKl w.aa •. KWam+weei � S • rwa w w.nr A wwvr IrUM pa..I P arep ufrlwn ro.a 1Moe.ITee enoern - _ wee vefcae,rt+aol'la aY lwcalwn P.eaawae rera ue rwfpwr ewer,Ifeee ---•+••. NOME t P Hoer e,rpqN M ClefMONOPOlE l3 TO BE PROtRD�BYnrwa'.«s.rwnP r41 MV warm N IaOr MaiPAUFIG BELL ML'ULC 58CVILE55, r rca.+el'c a W+c W+�w Mar,T llerelasP wvcarr'r•.R I�.(p4P41YOY Rf Ivry, rep•IaM1N'Iar ro borl po-RarlsY•w.o.r w Anw.a.,r.reuq �� ' - wrwe.rq canon rao rlfT+er►Ira.o.r un.t anwa wrl..vras a" �. urNrti..ern.mPWn..,or�.i.uT.� VICINITY MAP CONTACTS R GPeeYLR I wVL AO,V MV wV'aL,�rUVwY paha rM,rllff'e m lroeiY.T Golf a!.P(fi/m/.r.V of M nA rtll M Irk Res ,'traM tyl fv�1 Nt A Mr4+m r w.G+LL(tMsa N• (a • � �r wa aw.ccy.ec,wof+.ulw..raat+ac,w warww.vao, rw,r.em m f�.e Iaal rae.as eapnpaam New laver rr'nL.� rAe.e e¢r_ qq aNl w rtlatwm,A.p�ueArerKra<r f.Plilpr m ivr rwpTa>9 eU IrarM 11lIEYe AVULL.MSI qv MM ilt YON IIIeL 4a\TYrwG L4OIrtY MK{mf LPRLrmI r� ' ' ... �y�4 TtlQ b w1w eW L w GR1lm v WI TMY1�•ear iwL,IR+t 6trbr L(M1K1.1FY It�M'D s FTIICN IIrred le�,pll.plrVewSeaL aetlAbwaK tl.rml i- uen'Kma.ra vert+av rwa w.ra*l.a.�r.•eram ro ere If.new ro u wwr .'• ;:a 7 _.�'.•;, rK MlrawwaL nrMwNyIC MO MrIgr,Rlt�aei ra laf]MlJaAyII! l�ti •+ �• •_�r' �. e�rYfan lar Wi q 1M m M fTAR P Ua1.m[Jars[•NICs fneM taG1f � ••,•IY'm 0.1llIVM verve wICIGT,N4 , A OlelM w,.alcrM weal invlukaa races/+r np®e/rgnr.CTTpI L Alp' se•4e'YCior M M M41 M a'awelU(raI rr.pr rJ•saLPeAKTCq 1�1 OwR rM.NGwurr'pfM AtaAlnlaa/brawwi[PMMWNrmyR I.�W��fe�•? Itrel M reef(tl ferry, 1R m if rN af]W to->a CA_C tl+l.YA1IIv:r of f8' K1nO AT IMIN rM+C!6L O MY CQIrALT,F/W rlL/YW d,0le!Ia[IOIrNa NaL�wwT COTae Meal Lal,IrKTnq MO.r.-..�,PM • �reCMyrr@M Nfr'ra•J fYJ'rrrfaflrorAcrc M.aa CafrlY W 111cr.w 4aL\�Y��T • A rl r,p4selltl„mfral NfLITMT rIVr.Npr Mllfl6;1�Rf1 � TL VRfY[NL wQTffmYMGRfl9 NTe,leePMC.Wf. P • wrIATlCIgrLT10w1rL . �erALTPR 1'MLL rlwe A laYtry r4Pw4efl M Ia TiPe P rIY IQA M Mnew.. � ~ farAlea tw a!R Gf.Mfla.w a'�'1fD w p,YT,•Xd t�nwlltle Pr p 1Y Ivlr Iarla,e'.Mleiorr a Teeae Nrla.,r Jte Irlltr rawrve r MP rte M r+�ey tr SPELT QOE7(Pi7D.FiGT ri�AwrrI e�nam.ai w�".e m�.a'as+�m nwArnv�.�ei+m m ro"er.. Y • w+sa earl[Derr^.'>e'era.a ,R��rowawMrnm.'r. NORTH APPROYFL SIGN 0Fi'OF ORAWINCS r/IG,HM 68{IbT�g /rerb..POnAT'pa Iew Arm COl © — — 8111 aV( MR�l',R1Qltllf NArNrle_ —� •erT1-tM lBnvpLrf4 �».•.•.•••.• -�..___ - — — — — l DATE: 1-09-99 DDB -JH 1 r I 1 i 1 ill 1111 1111-g[FFM r 1 p{ ENGINEER: DRAWN BY: S.D. REVISIONS r----^� .� r � t y y �n asr�nw r■nu \� ! I I ! - y i S p •>� • IN• no°'riwier ' \. I n re�rrc ac. \ r i rm+r■ce■. �J Cgrx I w'-re I - ol I J . ' o 1 a o r? \ j U a ow,ADB.0 cxw.0.Ld.7 u , • 51TE PLAN AND , >tTf?fR Afi APPROVAL SIGN OFF OF DRAWINGS MISC.DETAIL t�.I MW[ 801A11■q _ ' 0lYGGApT r411F�r Wn{I CA z I m rri � Y Z m n z a i �� m o� $$ Ao �� L< a N, F3 JAI rn c �R �€ H 0 6 z "o O - 0 EXW.ROLE W-WW•ea-V m '9 Fri - _ :E aro•rad+e,csr./,K am fri2 > z ro A 9 g W -� m _ z Ko z N • a 1"91 UTFM ROAD WARD R. HELUM •r• PACIFIC © SELL Dit"s"Pm MWPOLE ANT. w a r, n s a *, r a. Mobile S4NIGC8 5 j O O T,N 1 LL- N L V 6 4420 RDSEWOOD•DR.,BLDG. 2, 419 FW OR cwraan nrv. slaw sr-air PLEA WON, CAUFORIBA 94388 z L a � ateo 0 k PACS AC®BELL® Wireless Photo Studv PROPOSALTO MODIFY AN EXISTING DIGITAL PCS COMMUNICATIONS FACILITY CM-Oat-Ql. Pacific Bell Switching Cerner/Central Office 14451 Myford Road Tusfin, CA 92780 Prepared for: City of Tustin Community Development Department 300 Centennial Way Tustin, CA 92680 Prepared by: PI_anCom, Inc. Contractor Representatives for PACIFIC SELL WIRELESS 2521 Michelle Drive, Second Floor Tustin, CA 92780 (714) 734-7418 Contact: Carver Chiu, Planning Consultant November 3, 1998 • PAC-FICCiBELL. Wireless Project Site and Surroundings - 14451 Myford, Tustin ,r r x-w- �. � •�'�``-x+;•sr y ?���t (� iB`+° ;� ;� .r'�"��' !� w;3?' �k;s fi x�r. � �, !� r-`+ r r �Y V f�71•j � 4"$.,., ri ti..�,x= �as><+;��v rts.-�� � �k"�t">v 'rttw'�al"h }--a''('s ; t• �*•7`�,' .� 4 s ra f �s11 3H �-1•-��-r'/ /.` �• ri t r yY'}*17!' a.'t'L�' t �� -�+ iC 5,:y'� 1534�i-i�'w �y^�-J��'T' +t �J�'? 4,a �. R - i. NPIP - F Kr3�i'sas}�: ..r6 r e ;.%rte. ~Sr'Ftir _ -.�'dwS-4•Y.^`d•C"3"h � 1'T' � r� '" N � ti1�1 eW H y1�1Y^ .F' �yeP{•� t.� •" �f� S _ .ee• L c a View #1: looking NW at project site and existing Pac Bell Wireless monopole. h:� •r i k}f" "�.p-�'* 3s�,; v3• ��y jR "-.'. r..y`" x„-a^"'Y^�.. g 3'S -"t ,� tf..,,kF ' fi ur' 7a rte " '-"M 4' OR ' rf xx.i �"'vY S 6 'ids ' w H Y f ; s}uL sw n5 E !—MMZ, � . .s 1'GTS .mak �,�-E'3. w��'� ..e#�,�• -�•i" -x ` a5`s3 "'�i 3 k''`CL r.s �"'�i+`4f.: r �t �F'� •"�t—•S a""r.'z '" `• `F" r. '' a�.�Y g.X s!2#��, ���,� r .. �-'�r.�'� paff?�.. (\T �&� � "'''"S'i'�;;�L'r` '., ��•�F i ��xeA�rb vro ��`� 't�r' ��Y '�h��: �t ,f v. ,S:a3^e"yt"-'-_ks r .may-•.thy 4-'�U ��a � k wfT�H,a '4<��z���4� y,r4ti�rc.'-f 1„-� ���.yr���r�a�����yF ,,� ��'i�"t'����_�^�a�`� i'�;'�sS�;t� ter--3�'e'�'tt'�,�;f'�'�• ''` ^�fx�"�" ar �.-'s!�" .r tiir'H lrrrs5.3's�j�. hS�y air�.M i �,��`•� � ! P'� 4 �i-.�f6�t� +..;"'^r ,�'S`"�`�' t f f Cr7 View#2: looking west at project site and existing Pac Bell Wireless monopole. N g�rnat"t ,� i •,y y-��� r •' � � t. ° tit F•�y rl���drY. '�°'' a ?'��'_• �, ���-��7-i LtliM''." •;fir' � •.f..- 1 - � - 'ate r trj���. Q � �• qq, Win, �`{� r r,� .�, ✓ — _:w ti4*-' �j'�" ._ _1 y'�,T ����"' ;-�._ S �„ ` ";� , �-�6q 4�, P• �i1 =, aT`x���yT}�''l�j '3 +r 1 4 k '�F _c` �.6�'1M _ :�! �.:.� _''F_ R ,•j� 'F`�F E I'� '0 �j la_ �.j{•� a•t f`� - ,E ,, '� �1+1� .� ¢ y' ' i sa 1 Ft L s rd t � 4 V. err fg ON �1 r♦,,ri fir• s z. .k����1 � Jam,-,,� r�,S`3=K�� �`�� �iyeF,�s„� =F-,"' yA•. t _'•` � }I!'J) .I r• �'r+^'YY 41�{� y // i .r-^ y 4x'+�'Tf� ^r�e�� �� � Y� �#,�ty , v� ! f L�`� ��"as lid•, 'Eq^µ�j' ��wi4 fro Y• c.:�{�-` j^ � ��,,,�. i � d _ 11 { t,i:.: r t {a�i 4`"t� , f r I i• � ��'E=?�` r• — - I � - � s ~�� + 3 •• • • • 0 - - • •- - •• - e s • • � L � • O • 9 • s 6 1' x ��.'��`:. lgla�' { 4i�'.r. - V � � � �''VLt}�'• i • _ � �{� f � �r , ► r} J -. � ��' a'f'3~�t�'k .ar "� f o��' ,��� ,i t�lf{ 4�Fi ��'"�x':, �r ill(E.t•�//����� '�� �" ; 7f.� -•',;i.N �q t'r'y-��� - - ., I i. �• +X'. �. 4. sytas '/yy'..�','"pp r V j1'.]!`�.r-.:tea [ 4.�r7r4tt' ��sr 'S� o-f"""i k`4� � �;3 �'- +; '�^••. t wr.v ,}may `r '. ^T�t�. "noon-, _� y+F u��i�r• x f { -•tip�,.�Y - 1 I Y �a� Fla--ri^ •�-al��'�� ���.-� '. - - �Y o At in 10 ij Tak 'L._IF �t.: r•�i•... 'Ei? .;ice- .1" y- w. n q y y y•�^�.La- -,.r- '�"�.•�kak'.�i'� �?:},a„'v°''�, -.�zi.a_ `r...-w^"-.'S ''\'� r �..4' i�•�ti.'.�l` ' + t ' + }fry rt'1h�� ���.� - . ♦q "� �.. 9. .`k _..� 1' _', ` �, may, Y 4t ♦ � - � ••1.�` 'r ! _ `•ice \\� -Si a 2 RESOLUTION NO. 3663 3 4 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN APPROVING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 99-004 ' AND DESIGN REVIEW 99-003 AUTHORIZING AN INCREASE IN 6 HEIGHT OF AN EXISTING MAJOR WIRELESS FACILITY FROM FIFTY (50) FEET TO AN OVERALL HEIGHT OF SIXTY ONE (61) 7 FEET AT 14451 MYFORD ROAD. 8 9 The Planning Commission does hereby resolve as follows: 10 1. The Planning Commission finds and determines as follows: 11 A. That a proper application for Conditional Use Permit 99-004 and Design 12 Review 99-003 was filed by Pacific Bell Wireless requesting authorization to increase the height of an existing major wireless facility eleven (11) feet to 13 an overall height of sixty one (61) feet at 14451 Myford Road. 14 B. That the proposed facility is consistent with the requirements of Tustin City . 1s 4 . . Code Section 9276 et seq., relating to wireless communications facilitie s. 16 C. That a public hearing was duly called, noticed and held on said application 17 on April 12, 1999 meetings by the Planning Commission. 1s D. That modification, maintenance, and operation of a major wireless 19 communication facility, as conditioned, will not be detrimental to the health, safety, morals, comfort, or general welfare of the persons residing or working 20 in the neighborhood of such proposed use, nor be injurious or detrimental to the properly and improvements in the neighborhood of the subject properly, 21 or to the general welfare of the City of Tustin, as evidenced by the following T) findings: 23 1) That modification, maintenance, and operation of a major wireless 24 communication facility, as conditioned, will not be detrimental to the health, safety, morals, comfort, or general welfare of the persons 25 residing or working,in the neighborhood of such proposed use, nor be injurious or detrimental to the property and improvements in the z6 neighborhood of the subject property, or to the general welfare of the 27 City of Tustin, as evidenced by the following findings: 28 a) The proposed facility, as conditioned, will not be detrimental 29to, or have a negative effect on, surrounding properties in that -the proposed facility will replace-an existing major wireless facility fifty (50) feet in height with a- sixty one (61) feet monopole in an Industrial zoning district. The proposed height Resolution No. 3663 Page 2 1 i is compatible with the surrounding buildings and mature 2 eucalyptus trees. 3 b) Consistent with site selection criteria in Tustin City Code 4 Section . 9276(F)(2)(a)(3) which identifies placement in commercial and industrial zones as a preferred location for such facilities, the site is located in the industrial zone. Also, 6 consistent with the locational guidelines in TCC Section 9276(H), the facility will not be located within 100 feet of any 7 existing, legally established major wireless communication 8 facility nor within 300 feet of residentially zoned or used property. 9 ' c) The proposed facility, as conditioned, is compatible with uses 10 in the surrounding area in that the monopole is screened by it new office and industrial development minimizing the visual intrusion on the surrounding community. 12 13 d) The proposed new height exceeding twenty five feet is permitted in the Irvine Industrial Complex Planned Community 14 Industrial (PC-IND) zone with approval of a Conditional Use 13 Permit by the Planning Commission. • 16 e) The overall height of sixty one (61) feet would not penetrate the "imaginary surface" which is at 100' in height at project 17 location as defined in the Federal Aviation Regulation Part 77 18 and adopted by the Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC). 19 E. Pursuant to Section 9272 -of the Tustin Municipal Code, the 20 Commission finds that the location, size, architectural features and 21 general appearance of the proposed facility will not impair the orderly and harmonious development of the area, the- present or future 22 development therein, or the occupancy as a whole. In making such 23 findings, the Commission has considered at least the following items: 24 1. Height, bulk and area of buildings. 25 2. Setbacks and site planning. 26 3. Location, height and standards of exterior illumination. 27 4.' Physical relationship of proposed improvements to existing 28 structures in the neighborhood. 29 5. Appearance and design relationship of proposed improvements to existing structures and possible future structures in the neighborhood and public thoroughfares. esolution No. 3663 age 3 sI 2 6. Development Guidelines and criteria as adopted by the City 3 Council. 4 F. This project has been determined to be categorically exempt (Class 5 1) pursuant to Section 15301 of the California Environmental Quality Act. 6 G. That the project has been reviewed for consistency with the Air 7 Quality Sub-element of the City of Tustin General Plan and has been 8 determined to be consistent with the Air Quality Sub-element. 9 il. The Planning Commission hereby approves Conditional Use Permit No:99- 004 and Design Review 99-003 authorizing to increase the height of an 10 existing major wireless facility eleven (11.) feet to an overall height of sixty II one (61) feet at 14451 Myford Road, subject to the Conditions contained in Exhibit A, attached hereto. 1z 13 PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Planning Commission of the City of Tustin, at a regular meeting on the 12th day of April, 1999. 14 i 15 16 LESLIE A. PONTIOUS Chairperson ` I7 18 19 ELIZABETH A. BINSACK Planning Commission Secretary 20 21 STATE OF CALIFORNIA } COUNTY OF ORANGE ) 22 CITY OF TUSTIN } 23 I, ELIZABETH A. BINSACK, the undersigned, hereby certify that I am the Planning 24 Commission Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Tustin, California; that Resolution.No. 3663 was duly passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the 25 Tustin Planning Commission, held on the 12th day of April, 1999. 26 27 ELIZABETH A. BINSACK 28 Planning Commission Secretary • 29 EXHIBIT A CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL RESOLUTION NO. 3663 APRIL 12, 9999 GENERAL (1) 1.1 The proposed project shall substantially conform with the submitted plans for the project date stamped April 12, 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 of Community Development may also approve subsequent minor modifications to plans during plan check if such modifications are to be consistent with provisions of the Tustin City Code. (1) 1.2 Design Review approval shall become null and void unless building permits are issued within twelve (12) months of the date of this Exhibit. . (1) 1.3 The applicant shall sign and return an Agreement to Conditions Imposed form prior to the issuance of any permits. (1) 1.4 All conditions in this Exhibit shall be complied with prior to the issuance of any building permits for this project, subject to review and approval of plans by the Community Development Department. (1) 1.6 Design Review approval shall be reviewed by the Community Development Director on April 12, 2004. The Director may recommend to the City Council modification to the existing'conditions or impose new conditions as part of such review to protect the public health, safety, community aesthetics and general welfare. (1) 1.6 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 (6) RESPONSIBLE AGENCY (2) CEQA MITIGATION REQUIREMENTS (3) UNIFORM BUILDING CODEIS (6) LANDSCAPING GUIDELINES (4) DESIGN REVIEW (7) PCICC POLICY EXCEPTIONS Exhibit A— Resolution No. 3663 Conditions of Approval CUP 99-004, DR 99-003 Page 2 PLAN SUBMITTAL (1)` 2.1. At building permit plan check, the applicant shall submit three (3) complete sets of architectural, electrical and mechanical plans with the necessary structural calculations, specifications and details complying with the Uniform Building Code, other.related Codes, City Ordinances and State and Federal Laws and regulations. The structural calculations and specifications shall be prepared by .a California registered civil or structural engineer. . The engineer's license number and license expiration date shall be indicated on the report. (1) 2.2 All grading related to construction of the new.monopole shall comply with the City of Tustin Grading Manual. (6) : 2.3 At building plan check, the applicant shall submit three (3) sets of landscaping and irrigation plans. identifying the existing and proposed landscaping, planting. details, and modifications to the existing irrigation system: The plan shall'be prepared consistent with the City's landscaping and,irrigation.guidelines. , SITE PLANIELEVATIONS (4) 3.1 The number of antenna;sectors shall be limited to the number shown on the approved plans. . The height, location and configuration of the antenna facility shall be restricted to-the height, location; and configuration shown on the approved plans. 3.2 The applicant shall prepare a preliminary report within 90 days of completion of the project demonstrating conformance with national standards for safe human exposure to electromagnetic fields and radio frequency installation. Said report.shall be submitted to the Community Development Director. NOISE (1) 4.1 All construction operations including engine warm up shall be subject to the provisions of the City of Tustin Noise Ordinance, as amended, and may take place only during the hours of 7:00 a.m. until 6:00 p.m.,, Monday through Friday and 9:00 a.m. until 5:00 p.m. on Saturday unless the Building Official determines that said activity will be in substantial conformance with the Noise Ordinance and that public health and safety will not be impaired • subject to application being made at the time the permit for the work is awarded or during progress of the work. _ j Exhibit A— Resolution No. 3663 Conditions of Approval CUP 99-004, DR 99-003 Page 3 FEES (1) 5.1 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. Within forty-eight (48) hours of approval of the subject project, the applicant shall deliver to the Community Development Department, a cashier's check payable to the COUNTY CLERK in the amount of $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. ITEM #6 y ti O eport to the Planning. Commission DATE: APRIL 12, 1999 SUBJECT: STATUS REPORT ON DESIGN REVIEW 97-026 APPLICANT: CONGREGATION B'NAI ISRAEL 2111 BRYAN AVENUE TUSTIN, CA 92780 PROPERTY OWNER: CONGREGATION B'NAI ISRAEL 2111 BRYAN AVENUE TUSTIN, CA 92780 LOCATION: 21.11 BRYAN AVENUE ZONING: COMMUNITY FACILITY- EAST TUSTIN SPECIFIC PLAN (ETSP) ENVIRONMENTAL • STATUS: THIS PROJECT WAS ADDRESSED BY PREVIOUSLY CERTIFIED EIR 85-2, AS AMENDED, FOR THE EAST TUSTIN SPECIFIC 'PLAN. RECOMMENDATION Receive and file staff-report. BACKGROUND This item has been agendized to provide a status report.on the construction of Phase it of Congregation S'Nai Israel's religious and educational facility at 2111 Bryan Avenue (see Location :Map - Attachment A). On February 23, 1998, the- Planning Commission approved. Design Review 97-026 authorizing development of the second phase of an overall conceptual master plan.- Building permits were issued on January 4, 1999, and construction is underway. On February 23, 1999, members of the Monterey Homeowners' Association met with staff to convey the following concerns: • The Phase II portion of the building is not consistent with conceptual design for future phases considered during the Phase I approval.process; Planning Commission Report Status Report: Design Review 97-026 April 12, 1999 Page 2 • The existing landscaping is*not healthy and is not being maintained properly which may indicate that the new landscaping -may not flourish and provide sufficient screening; • Residents did not receive public notices for the public hearing on Phase 11 (Design Review 97-026); ® The contractor for the construction of Phase 11 was not observing the City's construction hours: and, • Outdoor events had been held which were disruptive to the adjoining neighborhood. On March 2, 1999, the Community Development Department sent a letter responding to these concerns (Attachment B). At the March 22, 1999 meeting of the Planning Commission, a member of the Monterey Homeowner=s Association testified during public comments that the Phase 11 construction was not consistent with the Phase I approval and that a number of residents had not received public notices for the public hearing for Design Review 97-026 on February 23, 1999. The Planning Commission directed staff to agendize a status report on the matter. The City Attorney noted that if construction is proceeding in accordance with the approved plans and building permits, previous approvals cannot be overturned or modified. • DISCUSSION Site.and Surrounding Properties The proposed project site is located at the northwest comer of Bryan Avenue and Parkcenter Lane within the East Tustin Specific Plan area. The 2.8 acre site is bordered primarily by residential uses on the north, south, east, and west. In addition, an Edison Company substation is located adjacent to the western property line and an Orange County Flood Control District channel traverses the southern portion of the site. Project History Below is a summary of project approvals (see Attachment C - Resolutions of Approval): Case# Project Description Date Approved Design Review 90-023 Authorized design and construction of May 13, 1991 Phase_] Phase 1 of a conceptual master plan for the temple/educational facility. Conditional Use Permit 91-002 Authorized operation of daycare for a August 26, 1991 maximum of 64 children. Conditional Use Permit 92-044 Amended DR 90-023 and CUP 91-002 to November 24, 1992 allow a-25'reduction in the rear setback. The original design included a 65 foot rear setback between the future Phase 11 a Planning Commission Report Status Report: Design Review 97-426 April 12, 1999 Page 3 facility and the rear property line. CUP 92-044 reduced this setback to 40°feet. Design Review 97-026 Authorized design and construction of February 23, 1998 Phase li Phase 11, Site/Floor Plans Phase I included construction of 10,969 square feet including a multi-purpose room, offices, and classrooms. Phase II added 11,408 square feet to the north of the existing Phase I facility including a 4,364 square foot sanctuary with 350 fixed seats, approximately 5,631 square feet of administrative offices, 1,292 square feet of classroom/meeting rooms, and 120 square feet for a gifthetail shop (see Phase II Site/Floor Plans -Attachment D). Phase II was within the scope of the original master plan which envisioned a total of 24,790 feet for future phases. A total of 13,382 square feet could be constructed in the future provided all development standards could be met. Given the approved development and configuration of the site, it is unlikely that sufficient parking could be provided for additional square footage. Due to a civil engineering error during Phase I construction, the building pad was constructed nine (9) feet farther to the west and twenty-five (25) feet farther to the north than was approved. This resulted in a reduction in the approved setback'for Phase I and in the conceptual setback for the future: phases. The `future phase rear setback was reduced from 65 feet to 40 feet. Although the Planning Commission approved CUP 92-044 to authorize a revision to the site plan,, the homeowners to the north were generally opposed to the twenty-five (25) foot decrease in the rear setback distance. As a result of the controversy associated with the request to reduce the rear setback, the Planning Commission imposed Condition 1.2 of Resolution No. 4005 which states, in part, "Phase 11 development will require separate Design Review approval by the Community Development Department and Planning Commission..." During the review and approval process for Phase 11, a 41-foot rear setback was proposed due to the controversy associated .with the previous setback reduction. Staff has confirmedthatthe new foundation has been set forty-one (41) feet from the rear property line which is consistent with the conceptual site plan and Design Review 97-026 and exceeds the minimum rear setback of fifteen (15)feet. Architecture Resolution No. 4005 (Conditional Use Permit 92-044) included a finding-that states, 'The design, height, and appearance of the future sanctuary and landscape • screening will be part of a separate'Design Review application in order to ensure compatibility with the surrounding area. Planning Commission Report Status Report: Design Review 97-026 April 12, 1999 Page 4 Although the Phase I plans included elevations for the future phases, they were conceptual in nature. The Phase I plans showed a conceptual design for the future east and west elevations. No conceptual design for the future north elevation, which faces the rear property fine, was provided or reviewed during the Phase I process. The Phase I plans only showed the interim wall for the temporary north elevation (see Attachment E - Phase 1 Elevations). The conceptual elevations were modified during the Phase 11 process with respect to the design features (e.g., roof line, entry portico). However, the overall height and massing were proposed to be generally consistent with Phase 1 (see Attachment F - Phase 11 Elevations). Attachment G shows, the profile of the future east and west elevations in relation to the approved Phase II elevations. Staff has confirmed that building framing is proceeding in-accordance with the approved Phase 11 elevations. Landscaping Phase.I included landscaping within the parking lot and around the entire perimeter of the property. As a result of the controversy associated with the rear setback reduction, a revised landscape plan was required by CUP 92-044 to increase the visual buffer between the facility and the residences to the north. The plan showed more than the minimum • amount.of required landscaping including groupings of 36-inch Bottle trees and Magnolia trees along the north property line. In response to recent complaints from representatives of the Monterey. Homeowners' Association regarding the unhealthy condition of the existing trees, staff.inspected the site and advised Congregation B'Nai Israel of their obligations to maintain the existing landscaping in a healthy condition. Given the marginal health of the existing landscaping, representatives of.the Monterey Homeowner's Association also were concerned that the Phase 11 landscaping would not floudsh'given the poor soil and space constraints of the planters and, therefore, would not provide sufficient screening. Phase II included a combination 'of trees, shrubs, and groundcover along, the west and north elevation of the new sanctuary and in the new parking lot area (Attachment H). Materials included 24-inch box Cajeput trees along the sanctuary and fifteen (15) gallon Brisbane Box trees within the proposed parking lot area (see Attachment G - Landscaping Plan). The Cajeput trees along the north elevation were proposed to provide partial, rather than full, screening of the sanctuary. The Phase 11 landscape plan is currently in plan check and permits have not been issued. During plan check, the Congregation's landscape architect proposed modifications to the landscape plan. The most recent modifications include replacing the Cajeput trees with 24-inch box Italian Cypress along the north. elevation of the new sanctuary and replacing the Brisbane Box trees in the parking lot area with a combination of fifteen (15) gallon and 24-inch box Tristania Conferta; Gold Medallion, and Red Iron Bark trees. The Italian Cypress would provide more screening along the sanctuary and members of the Monterey Planning Commission Report Status Report: Design Review 97-026 April 12, 1999 Page 5 Homeowner's Association have indicated that this tree choice is preferable to the Cajeput trees. The parking lot trees will provide the same amount of coverage or screening as the approved trees. Staff is working with the City's contract landscape architect and the Congregation's landscape architect to ensure that the landscape plan is consistent with prior approvals, the City's Irrigation and Landscape Guidelines, and that the, materials will provide adequate screening and are combined with species that require the same amount of watering to guarantee the longevity and health of the materials. Recently, the contractor installed parking lot landscaping without permits and was advised to stop work until permits are issued. If the materials that were planted are not consistent with the landscape plans that are approved, they will need to be removed and replaced. Public Noticing Condition 1.2 of Resolution No. 4005 (CUP 92-044) states, "Phase 11 development will require separate Design Review approval by the Community Development Department and Planning Commission. Although not required by State law or the East Tustin Specific Plan, homeowners within a 300 ' foot radius of the subject property shall be notified of all scheduled agenda discussion on future phases of the project." A total of 329 public hearing notices were mailed to property owners within 300 feet of the property on February 12, 1998. In response, one member of the public inquired about the proposed plans and appeared satisfied upon reviewing the plans. Another member of the public provided testimony at the public hearing (Attachment I - Planning Commission Minutes). Although members of the Monterey Homeowners' Association state that they did not receive the notice, staff signed an affidavit indicating that they reviewed the mailing list and radius map, sent the notice to the paper, mailed the. notices to the properties on the mailing list, posted the property, and posted the notice at City Hall and the Police Department. A number of notices that were not deliverable were returned to the Community Development Department and are on file (see Attachment J). Construction Hours Staff received complaints that the Congregation's contractor was performing work after permitted construction hours. Staff has advised the contractor and representatives of the Congregation of B'Nai Israel of the City's construction hours. No further complaints have been received. Planning Commission Report Status Report: Design Review 97-026 April 12, 1999 Page 6 Temporary Uses Staff has met with representatives of the Congregation of B'Nai Israel to discuss the requirement for a temporary use permit for outdoor events in the parking lot area. Future events will be conditioned to mitigate potential impacts on neighboring residences. To supplement the staff report, Attachment K includes a letter from a member of the Monterey Homeowner's Association and Attachment L includes a copy of a letter from Congregation B'Nai Israel to the Monterey Homeowner's Association. Karen Peterson Elizab6ih A. Binsack, '`- Acting Senior Planner Director of Community Development Attachments: Attachment A- Location Map Attachment B- Letter dated March 2, 1999 Attachment C- Resolutions of Approval Attachment D - Site/Floor Plans Attachment E- Phase 1 Elevations Attachment F- Phase 11 Elevations Attachment G- Comparison of Phase I & 11 Elevations Attachment H- Landscape Plan Attachment I - Minutes (February 23, 1998) Attachment J - Public Notice AffdavittList of Returned Mail Attachment K- Letter received April 6, 1999 Attachment L- Letter dated March 31, 1999 perepoftnaistatus.doc -; LO CATI O ISI MAP/--!r. C' 1 + X51 Q 13352 3351 p o ❑ Vasl p \?J 13361 133 N 3.5 ,1 ti3. 13371 -- a372 13371 13 1338 i338t En l�362 73381, n33B� 338V - BURNT MILL RD. �l-33> X3491 It c+❑ ca 0, tN \" 0 0 0 0 , _ n ;h113,34{1�1 1 jai' ILL N N N N 1-01 1+135 h>>I�R3•*12 3• O ]3421 :6' +2Nci5347 3. La Project Site 134,311, } '11-3433 i SOU71-!t`RN 13451 CAUFORNIA * x �34y� "H �' N �Jry 'S EDISON �Vry N N 0. e I _ N N I `r 11 N N EL WOD)WA IRVINE J� BRYAN � 3pfl�Radius '1 + r N N LACE AF WY 5217 - N- N t`ry 3531+ �y �+• o + . , az - i r ftEpy �a 35�+ It75 l� �,.�•% \N h�<< 5 hi+ i - 1551 NO-SCALE J Design Review 97-026 2111 Br7an Avenue Attachment A Community Development Department City of Tustin March 2, 1999 300 Centennial Way Tustin, CA 92780 (714) 573=3100 Doug Wride 2052 Burnt Mill Road Tustin, California 92782 SUBJECT: . B'NA1 ISRAEL Dear Doug: Thank you and Mike Bova for meeting with me and Karen Peterson on February 23, 1999, to discuss your concerns regarding the Phase 2 expansion of the Congregation B'Nai Israel facility located at 2111 Bryan Avenue. During the meeting, you and Mike Bova expressed your dissatisfaction with the public hearing process for the Phase 2 expansion, provided tentative recommendations for the Phase 2 landscaping, and noted that the contractor was not observing the City's' construction hours, the facility's existing landscaping was not being maintained properly, and that several outdoor events had been held which were • disruptive to the adjoining neighborhood. 1 also received your memo dated February 25, 1999, regarding a potential event at the Congregation B'Nai Israel on February 28, 1999, and your concerns about the public noticing procedures for the public hearing on the Phase 2 expansion. After our meeting, I directed a Building Inspector and a Code Enforcement Officer to contact the construction supervisor to let him know that a citation will be issued for any further violation of construction hours. City staff also contacted the Congregation Administrator to let him know that a temporary use permit was required for the outdoor event on February 28, 1999. On February 26, 1999, a temporary use permit was issued for the event. The operating conditions of the permit prohibited the use of an outdoor public address system, required entertainment to end by 10:00 p.m., and required all event parking to be limited to Park Center Avenue, Bryan Avenue, and Utt" Middle School. However, reportedly.the coordinator moved the event indoors. They are eligible for four outdoor events during the calendar year and are required to obtain a temporary use permit for each one. With respect to our public hearingand noticing procedures, please see the attached 300 foot radius map, property owner listing, notice and affidavit for public noticing of the Congregation B'Nai Israel Phase 2 project. The affidavit Attachment B Mr. Doug Wride March 2, 1999 Page 2 indicates. that Karen Peterson and Barbara Reyes were involved with reviewing the mailing list and radius map, -sending the notice'to the paper' mailing the noticesto the properties on the mailing list,-posting.the property,°and posting the notice 'at City Hall and the Police Department. Because the public hearing process is not only a legal obligation 'but important to 'keep affected property owners informed of projects that may affect their properties, the project planner conducts an independent review of the noticing list to./ensure it reflects the latest assessment. roll,' known as the "Roll of Values", published by the County of Orange Office of the Assessor. A number of notices were returned as indicated in the attached list. The notices mailed to you, Mike Bova, and Tracey Worley were not returned. I am arranging a meeting with the Administrator of Congregation: B'Nai Israel to discuss several issues including the condition of the existing landscaping, violation of construction hours, and disturbances related to,their outdoor events. I Iook forward to receiving your suggestions for the, Phase 2 landscaping. . If you have any questions, please call me.at(7'14) 573-303.1. Sincerely, Elizabeth A. Binsack Director of Community Development. cc: Mike Bova Karen Peterson, Acting Senior Planner. Attachments:Radius Map (300') Property Owner Listing Public Notice/Affidavit t kstnainoticing t • 5 1 r RESOLUTION NO. 2901 2 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE 3 CITY OF TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA APPROVING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 91--02 AND DESIGN REVIEW 4 90-23 OF PHASE I TO AUTHORIZE CONSTRUCTION OF A TEMPLE AND EDUCATIONAL ' FACILITIES AT 2112 5 BRYAN AVENUE_ 6 The Planning commission of the City of Tustin does hereby resolve as follows: 7 I. The Planning Commission finds and determines as 8 follows: 9 A. That proper applications, Conditional Use Permit 91-02 and Design Review 90-23, were 10 filed on behalf of Congregation B'nai Israel, requesting- approval to construct a temple and 11 educational facilities at 2111 Bryan Avenue. 12 B. That a public hearing was duly called, noticed 13 and held on said applications on May 13, 1991. C. The use applied . for is . a conditionally 14 permitted use in the East Tustin Specific Plan as determined by. the Community Development 15-1 Department. 16 D. That the ' establishment, maintenance, and operation of the use applied for will not, 17 under the circumstances of this case, be detrimental to the health, safety, morals, 18 comfort, or general, welfare of the persons residing or working in the neighborhood' of 19 such proposed use nor be a detriment to the property and improvements in the neighborhood 20 of the subject property, nor to the general welfare of the City of Tustin as evidenced by 21 the following findings: 22 1. The land use applied for is consistent 23 with the City's General Plan and Tustin 24 City Code. 2. Traffic on Bryan Avenue will not be 20 inhibited by automobiles accessing the site by a left hand turn, as no median 2G cut for left turn movements shall be made available on Bryan Avenue. Adequate 2i access shall be available from Bryan 28 Avenue for 'right turn in and right turn out I movements and unrestricted access Attachment C J 1 • Resolution No. 2901 2 Page .2 3 4 shall be provided to the site on Parkcenter .Lane in accordance with the 5 Tustin Public Works Department requirements. 6 3. The proposed use will be adequately 7 buffered from adjacent land uses in that 'a minimum amount of 15-gallon size trees, 8 24 box trees and . 5-gallon shrubs are required for the project in accordance to 9 the City's landscape requirements. 10 4. A minimum of 108 - on-site parking spaces shall be provided to allow for adequate 11 on-site parking during the peak parking demand. +-No activities shall be scheduled 12 simultaneously that would require more than the minimum number of parking spaces , 13 required for Phase I or Phase II. of the project in accordance with. the City's 14 parking standards.' 15 5o Proposed outdoor playgrounds are oriented towards the south portion of the project 16 and will be buffered. from surrounding uses in Phase II construction. 17 6. The use of materials and design is 18 compatible with the design of surrounding structures, =The architectural style of 19 the temple and educational facility is a contemporary adoption of the * Monterey 20 style as is the style of surrounding residences. The red, clay tile. roof has 21 a similar pitch to , adjacent residential structures. The use of stucco and wood 22 is compatible to the use of materials in the surrounding neighborhoods. 23 E. This project 'is covered by a previous EIR (85- 24 2) for the East Tustin Specific Plan. 25 F. Pursuant to -Section 9272 of the. Tustin Municipal Code, the Commission finds that the 2G location', size, architectural features and .general appearance of the proposed development 27 will 'not - impair the ' orderly and harmonious development of the area, the present or future 28 development therein, the occupancy as a whole_ li i °r C 1 • Resolution No. 2901 2 Page 3 3 4 In making such findings, the Commission has considered at least the following items: s 1. Height, bulk and' area of buildings.' 7 2. Setbacks and site planning. 3 . Exterior materials and colors. 8 9 4 . Type and pitch of roofs. 5. Size and spacing of windows, doors and 10 other openings. 11 6_ Towers, chimneys, roof structures, 12 flagpoles, radio and television antennae. 7_ Landscaping, parking area design and 13t traffic circulation. 14 8 . Location, height and standards of exterior illumination. 15 10 9. Location and appearance of equipment located outside of an enclosed Structure. 17 10. Location and method of refuse storage. 18 11. Physical relationship of proposed structures to, existing structures in the 19 neighborhood. 20 12. Appearance and design relationship of proposed structures to , existing 21 structures and possible future structures in the neighborhood and public 22 thoroughfares.. 23 13a Proposed signing. 24 14 . Development Guidelines and criteria as 25 adopted by the .City Council. 26 II. The Planning Commission approves Conditional Use Permit 91-02 and Design Review 90-23 of Phase I 27 authorizing construction of a temple and educational facility subject: to conditions attached 28 hereto as Exhibit_ A and incorporated herein by reference. 1 Resolution No. 2901 2 Page- 4 3 4 PASSED AND .ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Tustin Planning Commission, held on the 13th day of May, 1991. 5 6 7 DONALD LE JEUNE 8 Chairman 9 r 10 11 KATHLEEN CLANCY Secretary 12 13' 14 STATE OF CALIFORNIA } • COUNTY OF ORANGE- } ' 15 CITY OF TUSTIN } 16 17 'I, KATHLEEN CLANCY, the undersigned,- hereby Certify that 18 Y am the Recording Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City. of Tustin,", California; that Resolution No. 19 2901 was duly passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the Tustin Planning Commission, held on the 13th day of 20 May, 1991. , 21 22 23 / KATHLEEN CLANCY 24 Recording Secretary 25 26 27 28 EXHIBIT A • CONDITIONS• OF APPROVAL CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 91-02 DESIGN REVIEW 90--23 GENERAL (1) 1. 1 The proposed project shall substantially conform with the submitted site plans for the project date stamped May 13, 1991 on file with the Community Development .Department, as herein modified, or as modified by the Director of Community Development Department in accordance with this exhibit. (1) 1. 2 Unless otherwise specified; all conditions contained in this exhibit shall be complied,with prior to the issuance of any building permits for the project, subject to review . and approval by the Community Development Department. (1) 1.3 For Phase I development, Design. Review and Conditional Use Permit approval shall become null and void unless all necessary building permits for Phase I are issued within eighteen (lS) months of the date on this exhibit and substantial construction is underway. Time extensions may be granted by the Community Development Department up • to six (6) months if a written request is received by the Community Development Department within thirty (30) days prior to expiration. - Longer extensions- shall require Planning Commission approval. Conditional Use Permit approval for Phase II development shall become null and void unless all necessary building- permits for Phase II are issued within seven (7) years of the date -on this exhibit and substantial construction is underway. Time extensions may be granted by the Community Development Department up to six (6) months if -a written request is received by the Community Development Department within thirty (30) days prior to expiration. Longer extensions shall require Planning Commission approval. (4) 1.4 Phase II development will require- separate design review by the Community Development Department and the Planning Commission. SOURCE CODES (1) STANDARD CONDITION (4) RESPONSIBLE AGENCY REQUIREMENT (2) UNIFORM BUILDING CODE/S (5) LANDSCAPING GUIDELINES • (3) DESIGN REVIEW (6) PC/CC POLICY *** EXCEPTION (7) TUSTIN CITY CODE Exhibit A -- Conditions of Approval CUP 91-02 & DR 90-23 Page 2 (1) 1.5 The applicants and property owners shall sign and return an. Agreement to Conditions Imposed form prior to the issuance of any building permits and, or business license. USE RESTRICTIONS (7) 2.1 A Bingo operation requires a separate permit from' the Business License Division and compliance with all City of Tustin requirements. Limitations_ on the number of persons attending this event will be based in part on availability of parking (one parking space per three seats) . Hours of operation shall: be concluded by 10:00 p.m. (4) 2.2 'Hours of operation of the preschool shall be between 8:30 a.m. and 3:30 p.m. The preschool shall not be operated simultaneously with social, hall usage for congregation functions. (4) 2.3 No more than sixty-four (64) children shall be in • attendance in the preschoolfacilities at one time, based upon -the StateDepartment of- Social Services standards for minimum indoor and outdoor- space. (4) 2.4 Phase I classroom ' space shall not - be occupied simultaneously with social hall use. (4) 2A No activities shall be scheduled simultaneous that would require more than the minimum numbe' r •of parking spaces required for Phase I or Phase II of the project. (4) 2. 6 If Phase II construction has not been undertaken within the seven (7) years projected by the applicant in the 'Project Overview, , a permanent elevation shall be constructed -on the north side, subject to the City's Design Review process and Planning Commission approval. (4) 2 .7 If Phase II construction has not been undertaken within the seven (7) years projected by the applicant , in the Project Overview, the 'applicant shall install interior landscaping trees along the permanent north elevation, as required by the current City landscaping development standards. (4) 2 . 8 Underdeveloped portions of Phase -II shall be kept . maintained and relatively free of high growing weeds. . Exhibit A - Conditions of Approval CUP 91-02 & DR 90-23 Page 3 PLAN SUBMITTAL, (1) 3 . 1 At building plan check for Phase I, submit three sets of (3) construction level plans as follows: A. Construction and grading plans, structural calculations for structures. All plans and calculations shall have wet signature of a licensed engineer, and shall meet the requirements of the Uniform Building Code and Uniform Fire Code. B. A grading plan with specifications consistent with the City of Tustin Grading Manual and ordinance. and prepared by a California Civil Engineer will be required. Said plan shall be consistent with the site plan and identify a dust control plan. Ca Provide preliminary technical detail and plans for all utility installations. Additionally, '. a note shall be - place on plans stating. that no field changes shall be made without said :changes first requiring review and approved by the Community Development Department. D. A -precise soil engineering report' provided by a soils engineer within the previous twelve (12) months from the date of. plan check submittal. NOISE (1) 4. 1 All construction operations including engine warm up (2) shall be subject to the provisions of the City of Tustin Noise ordinance and shall take place only during the hours of 7:00 a.m. until 6: 00 p.m. , Monday through Friday or other times that the Building, Official determines will be in substantial conformance with the Noise Ordinance and the public health and safety will not be impaired subject to application being made at the time the permit for the work is awarded or during progress of the work. (1) 4 . 2 All requirements of the City's Noise Ordinance (Chapter- 6 of the Municipal .Code) shall be met at all times which in part requires noise levels not to exceed 55 dBa at any time. Exhibit A - Conditions ,of Approval CUP 91-02 & DR 90-23 Page 4 BUILDING/SITE (4) 5.1 All necessary permits for construction adjacent to the ' flood control channel must be obtained from the orange County Environmental. Agency prior to building permit issuance. (3) .5. 2 Provide exact exterior door details, window types and treatments (i.e. , framing color, glass tint) . (1) 5.3 All exterior colors to be used shall be subject to review (4) and approval of the Director of Community Development Department. All exterior treatments must be coordinated with regard to color, materials and detailing and noted on submitted construction plans and elevations shall f indicate .all colors and materials used. (3) 5.4 Indicate lighting scheme for the project. Notes locations of all exterior lights and types of fixtures, lights to • be installed on the building shall be of a decorative design. No lights shall. be permitted which may create any glare or have a . negative impact on adjoining properties. The -location and types of lighting shall be subject to _ the approval -of the Director of Community _Development. (3) 5.5 A detailed sign program for the proposal shall be submitted for plan check which shall include the location of monument sign and directory, signs which identify services and activities. The program and any proposed sign shall comply -in all respects - to the East Tustin Specific Plan and Tustin Sign Code as applicable. (1) 5. 6 Note on final plans that a six-foot-high chain link fence shall be installed around the site prior to building construction stages. Gated entrances shall be permitted along the perimeter of the site for construction Vehicles. (1) 5.7 All mechanical and electrical fixtures and equipment shall be adequately and decoratively screened. A cross section of the mechanical and electrical fixtures and equipment on the roof shall be provided at plan check. The screen shall be considered as an element. of the overall design of the project and -shall. blend with the architectural design of the buildings. All telephone and electrical boxes shall be indicated on the building plans and shall be completely screened. Electrical Exhibit A - Conditions of Approval CUP 91-02 & DR 90-23 Page 5 transformers shall be located toward the interior of the project maintaining a sufficient distances from frontage of the project. (1) 5. 8 Exterior elevations of the buildings shall indicate any fixtures of equipment to be located on the roof of the building, equipment heights and type of screening. All parapets shall be at least six inches above rooftop equipment for purposes of screening. (1) 5.9 Adequate size trash enclosures with a -solid metal, self closing, self latching gates shall be provided. Said enclosures shall be screened by a decorative wall of a minimum height of six feet and if required, a dense type of landscaping. The actual location of said enclosures and types of screening shall be subject to approval by the Director of Community Development. (4) 5. 10..Transformers should not be visible from Bryan. Selective berming and placement to reduce any visual impacts shall be utilized. • .(1) 5.11 The minimum parking stall size is 91 .x '201 (can be 9 ' x 17.5 ' if a 2.5 foot overhang is provided) . Any overhang must still- provide clear dimension for tree planting. All parking is subject 'to the requirements of the City's Parking and Landscaping Development Standards. (1) 5. 12 The building shall be accessible and usable by the (6) handicapped in compliance with Title 24. A total of four -handicapped stalls are required in phase 1. (1) 5.13 . The entire building shall comply in all respects with all (6) applicable building codes, City ordinances and the state and federal laws and regulations_ PUBLIC WORKS (4) 6. 1 No left turn access from Bryan Avenue will be allowed as no median cuts will be permitted_ (4) 6. 2 A separate 24" x 36" street improvement plan will be .required showing all required construction with the -public right-of-way. (4.) 6.3 Any damaged or missing public improvements adjacent- to this property shall be repaired and/or replaced as Exhibit A - Conditions of Approval CUP 91-02 & DR 90-23 Page 6 determined by the Engineering Division and shall include, but not be limited to curb and gutter, street paving and drive apron_ FIRE (4) 7.1 Prior to the issuance of any building permits for combustible construction, evidence that a water supply for fire protection is available shall be submitted to and approved by -the Fire Chief. Fire hydrants shall be in place and operational to meet required fire-flow prior to commencing construction with combustible materials. (4) 7.2 Prior to the issuance of any building permits, all underground piping for automatic fire extinguishing systems. shall be approved and installed. Plans for an automatic fire extinguishing system shall be approved by the Fire Chief prior to installation. Such systems shall be operational prior to f-he issuance of a certificate of use and occupancy. (4) 7.3 Prior 'to' the issuance - of any building - permits, construction details . for any controlled entry access shall be approved by the Fire Chief. These "details shall include width, clear height and means of emergency vehicle over-ride. . (4) .7.4 - Prior to the issuance of any certificates of use and occupancy, the private street shall be red curbed and posted "No Parking-Fire Lane" as per 1985 Uniform Fire Code Section 10.207 in a manner meeting the approval of the County Fire Chief. (4) 7. 5 on-site fire hydrants will be required to provide fire-- flow. Provide information on north flood channel service road and ability to get approval for use as access. Submit information to verify that this will not be removed. LANDSCAPING GROUNDS AND HARDSCPAPE ELEMENTS (7) 8. 1 Submit at plan check complete detailed landscaping and irrigation plans for all landscaping areas consistent • with adopted City of Tustin Landscaping and Irrigation Submittal Requirements. Provide summary table applying indexing identification to .plant material in ' their Exhibit A - Conditions of Approval CUP 91-02 & DR 90-23 Page 7 actual location. The plan and table must list botanical and common names, sizes, spacing, actual location and quantity of the plant materials proposed. Show planting and berming details; soil preparation, staking, etc. The irrigation plan . shall show Location and control of backflow prevention devices, pipe size, sprinkler type, spacing and coverage. Details for all equipment must be provided. Show all property lines on the landscaping and irrigation' plan, public right-of-ways area, sidewalk widths, . parkway areas, and wall locations. The Department of Community Development may request minor substitutions of plant materials during plan check. Note on landscaping plan that coverage of landscaping , irrigation materials is subject to field inspection at project completion by the Department of . Community Development. (7) 8. 2 The submitted landscaping plans at plan check must reflect the following requirements: A. Provide a minimum of one 15 gallon size tree for i every 30 feet of property line on the property perimeter and five 5 gallon shrubs. B. Provide one 15 gallon tree for each 5 parking spaces within an open parking area. C.- Provide landscaping adjacent to structures on site including one 15-gallon - tree for every 30-lineal feet of exterior wall (need not be spaced at 30- feet on center) . D. One (1) 24" box tree, per 30-lineal feet of street frontage and six (6) five-gallon shrubs per' 25- lineal feet of street frontage or a combination of three (3) five-gallon and five (5) 1-gallon shrubs shall be provided. E. All newly planted trees shall be staked according to City standards. F. Shrubs shall be a minimum of 5 gallon size and shall be spaced a minimum of 8 feet on center when intended as screening planting. G. Ground cover shall be planted between 8 to 12 inches on center. Exhibit A - Conditions of Approval CUP 91-02 & DR 90-23 - Page S. H_ When 1 gallon plant sizes are used the spacing may vary according to materials used. 1. Along fences and/or walls and equipment areas, provide landscaping screening with shrubs and/or vines and trees on plan check drawings. J. 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 be limited to trimming, mowing, weeding, removal of litter, fertilizing, regular watering, or replacement of diseased or dead plants. K. Buffer driveways and parking areas with a 30 foot high minimum landscaping berm. L. The use of decorative paving techniques such as stamped and colored concrete is encouraged for pedestrian walkways. M. A thickly planted landscape shall be installed along the edge of the project. Use natural ;landscaping and other architectural detailing and use of materials to border parking areas and soften their visual appearances. FEES (1) 9.1 Prior to issuance of any building permits for Phase 1, (3) payment shall be made of all required fees including- (6) (9) A. Major thoroughfare and bridge fees to.Tustin Public Works Department. B. Cash deposit of bond of $12,500 for share of traffic signal installation at Parkcenter Lane and Bryan Avenue to Tustin Public Works Department. Cash deposit or bond will be required for a five (5) year period after project approval.. with a refund clause if funds are nbt utilized or needed, based on traffic warrant information_ • C. Sanitary sewer connection fee to Orange County Sanitation District. Exhibit A - Conditions of Approval CUP 91-02 & DR 90-23 Page 9 . D. All applicable building, grading and private improvement plan check and permit fees to the Community Development.Department. E. New development fees to the Community Development Department. F. School facilities fee to the Tustin Unified School District subject to any agreement reached and executed between the District and the Irvine Company. G. Required East Tustin Facility- Fees as may be adjusted to reflect cost of living increases prior to issuance of building permits for Phase I development: 1) Civic Center Expansion Fee 2) Irvine Boulevard Widening Fee 3) Fire Protection Facility Fee H. Within forty-eight (48) hours of approval of the subject project, the applicant shall deliver to the Community Development Department, a cashier's check payable to the COUNTY CLERK in the amount of $25. 00 (twenty-five dollars) pursuant to'AB -3185, Chapter 1706; Statutes of 1990, enable the City to file the Notice of Determination required under Public Resources code Section 21151 and 14 Cal. Code of Regulations 15094. If within such forty-eight (48) hour period that the applicant has not delivered to the Community. Development Department the above- noted check, the approval for the project granted herein shall be considered automatically null and void. In addition, should the Department of Fish and game reject the Certificate of Fee Exemption filed with the Notice of Determination and require payment of fees, the applicant shall deliver to the Community Development Department, within forty-eight (48) hours of notification, a cashier's check payable to the COUNTY CLERK in the amount of $850 (eight hundred fifty dollars) pursuant to AB 3158, Chapter 1706, Statutes of 1990. If this fee is imposed, the subject project shall not be operative, vested or final unless and until the fee is paid. . Exhibit A - Conditions of Approval CUP 91-02 & DR 90=23 Page 10 9.2 Prior to issuance of any building permits for Phase II, payment. shall be made of all fees required as listed in Section 9.1 above, and all fees applicable " at time of permit issuance_ a 1 RESOLUTION NO. 4005 2 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE .CITY OF TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA, _ APPROVING 3 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 92--044 TO AUTHORIZE THE MODIFICATION. TO CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 91-002 4 AND DESIGN REVIEW 90-023 TO CHANGE THE - SITE PLAN AND RELOCATE A TEMPLE AND EDUCATIONAL- FACILITY AT 2111 BRYAN AVENUE. •G The Planning Commission of the City of Tustin does hereby resolve as follows: I. The Planning Commission finds and determines as 8 follows: 9 A. That a proper application for Conditional Use Permit 92-044 for modification to Conditional 10 Use Permit 91-002 and Design Review 90-023 was filed on behalf of Congregation- B'Nai Israel, 11 requesting a change in the site plan to relocate the temple and educational facility 121 at 2111 Bryan Avenue. 13 B. That a public hearing was duly called, noticed and held on said application on November 101, 14 1992 and continued to November 23, 1992. 15 C. That the use is a conditionally permitted use in the East Tustin Specific Plan low density 16 residential designation. 17 D. That the establishment, maintenance and IS � operation of the use will not, under the circumstances of this case, be detrimental 'to the health, safety, morals comfort or general 19 welfare of the persons residing or working in the neighborhood of such proposed use nor be a 20 determent to the property and improvements in the .neighborhood ofathe subject property, nor 21 ,I to the general welfare of the City of Tustin f . 12as evidenced by the following findings: 11 . 1. The proposed use will be adequately 2.311 buffered from adjacent land uses in that more than the minimum amount of 24I 15-gallon size trees,, 24" box trees and 5-gallon shrubs have been 10 provided than are required for the . project in accordance with the 26 City's landscape requirements. 27 25;1 1 2 Resolution No. 4005 Page '2 3 2. The additional 36 inch box trees 4 along the north side - of the multipurpose building and 15 foot 5 separation of the bottle trees along the north property line,' will help S buffer the use and soften the visual impacts of the buildings. I J . The design, height and appearance of 8 the future, sanctuary and landscape screening will be part of a separate 9 Design Review application in order to ensure compatibility with the 10 surrounding area. 11 -4. The proposed 120 on-site parking spaces for Phase I and- 162 parking 12 spaces at buildout will be adequate parking during peak parking demands. 13 S. The new location for handicapped 14 parking adjacent to Bryan Avenue and the vehicular drop-off . area will • 15 improve on-site , circulation, minimize traffic ' conflicts and 16 improve access off of Bryan Avenue. 17 6. The new location for the trash enclosure and modified parking plan 18 will reduce noise impacts on adjacent residential land uses. 19 20 II. The Planning Commission of the . City of Tustin approves Conditional Use Permit 92-044 authorizing 21 construction of a temple and educational facility subject to conditions attached hereto as Exhibit A 22 and incorporated herein by reference. 23 PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Planning Commission of the City of Tustin at a regular meeting held on the 23rd day of 24 November, 1992: 25 26 RI A 27 Chairpe son - • 28 KATHLEEN CLAN CY Recording Secretary 1 2 Resolution No. 40.05 Page 3 3 • 4 5 STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF ORANGE } • $ CITY OF 'TUSTIN } I,. KATHLEEN CLANCY the undersigned, hereby certify that 8 I am the Recording Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Tustin, California; that Resolution No. 9 4005 was duly passed -and adopted ata regular meeting of the Tustin Planning Commission, held on the 23rd day of 10 November, 1992. 11 . 12 13 YATHLEEN CLANCI all 14 Recording Secretary 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 ! 25 26 27 28 • � EXHIBIT A , CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 92-044 GENERAL (1) 1. 1 The proposed project shall substantially conform . with the submitted site plans for the project date stamped November 23, 1992 on file with the Community Development Department, as herein modified, or as modified by the Director of• the Community Development Department in accordance with this exhibit. (1) 1.2 -Unless otherwise specified herein, all conditions contained in Planning Commission Resolution 2901 and 2943 shall continue to, apply to the project with the following exceptions: A. Condition 1.4 of Resolution 2943 shall be modified to read as follows: "Phase II development will require separate Design Review approval by the Community Development Department and Planning Commission. Although not required by State law or the East Tustin Specific Plan, homeowners within a 300 foot radius of the subject property shall be notified of all scheduled agenda discussion on future phases of the project" . B. Condition 2. 6 of Resolution 2943 shall be modified to read as follows: "If Phase II construction has not been undertaken within seven (7) years from the approval date of Resolution No. 2901, a permanent elevation shall be constructed on the north side. SOURCE CODES (1) STANDARD CONDITION (4) RESPONSIBLE AGENCY (2) UNIFORM BUILDING CODE/S REQUIREMENT (3) DESIGN REVIEW (5) LANDSCAPING GUIDELINES #* EXCEPTION (6)' PC/CC POLICY (7) TUSTIN CITY CODE Exhibit A Conditions of Approval Conditional Use Permit 92--044- Page 2 Construction shall not proceed without Design Review approval by the Community Development Department and Planning Commission. Although not required by State law or the East Tustin Specific Plan, homeowners within a 300 foot radius of the subject property shall be notified of all scheduled agenda discussions on any future permanent elevation for the north elevation of the proposed building" . C. Condition 2.7 of Resolution 2943 shall be modified to read as follows: "If Phase II construction has not been undertaken within seven (7) years from the approval date of' Resolution No. 29011 • the- applicant shall " install additional interior landscaping trees along _the north elevation at the minimum rate of one 15 gallon tree for every 30 ' lineal feet of exterior wall (which need not be spaced at 30 foot on center) . Said trees shall be adequately irrigated and installed according to planting specifications contained in the City's Landscaping and Irrigation Guidelines". (1) 1.3 The applicant and- property owner shall sign and return an Agreement to Conditions Imposed form prior to the commencement of construction. (1) 1.4 Prior to commencement of construction, the applicant shall provide the City with an indemnity agreement to hold and defend the City of Tustin harmless from all claims and liabilities arising out of City's approval of the entitlement process for this project. (1) 1. 5 Prior to resuming construction on the site, all applicable conditions contained in Resolution No. 4005 shall be complied with subject to review and approval by the case planner in the Community . Development Department., Exhibit A Conditions of Approval Conditional Use Permit 92-044 Page 3 PLAN SUBMITTAL 2.1 The applicant shall submit three sets of construction level plans for City plan check review and approval as follows: A. Revised title sheet and- revision notation for construction level drawings. B. Revised construction site plan consistent with conditions of Resolution 4005. C. Revised grading pians to reflect all site changes approved. D.., 'A minimum .of 120 on-site parking spaces for Phase I and 162 parking spaces at buildout • shall . be provided to allow for adequate parking during the peak parking demand. No activities 'shall be scheduled 'simultaneously that would require more than the minimum number of parking spaces required for Phase I or Phases = -of the project in accordance with the City's parking standards. E. Revised. landscape and irrigation plans for all landscaped areas consistent with adopted City of Tustin Landscape Guidelines and which include the following: 1. Six (6) 36 inch box brisbane box trees along the north side of the multipurpose building. 2. Four (4) 48 inch box magnolia trees shall be planted 15 feet on-center at the northwest corner of the site, thereby eliminating one parking space at the northwest corner. 3. The north property line shall contain a mixture of 36 inch box bottle trees, planted in groupings of 3-4 at 15 feet on-center. - The eucalyptus trees proposed along the r Exhibit A Conditions of Approval • Conditional Use Permit 92-044 Page 4 north property line will be eliminated and this area planted with bottle tree and brisbane box trees. The plans shall also be modified to replace the brisbane box trees proposed at the curve in the drive with four (4) 36 inch magnolia trees planted 15 feet on-center'. .4. A note on the plans requiring a landscape architect to be present on site at the time of planting the two magnolia trees on the north side of the future sanctuary to ensure the location will not interfere with construction of the future sanctuary. 5. Trees shall be located between parking lot lighting fixtures on the north side of. the driveway/parking area and the north perimeter wall. 6. Provide landscape screening of all ground mounted mechanical equipment such as A/C units, transformers, backflow preventors consistent with the City's Landscape Guidelines. LIGH'T'ING * * 3. 1 Provide revised lighting construction details 'for the proposed Polyquad Type IV lights which shall include information to ensure that light fixtures do not exceed 12 feet in height along the northerly property line, have been. designed to include shielding and cut-off devices (provide a manufacturer's specification) and information to verify that the revisions comply with the City's Security Ordinance (shall include photometric performance information) . In the event that additional lighting is required along the northerly driveway to achieve the required footcandle cover, said lights shall not exceed six feet in height and be designed as decorative bollard fixtures. • Exhibit A ' Conditions of Approval Conditional Use Permit 92-044 Page 5 FEES (1) .4 . 1 In conjunction. with the submittal of plans required in condition 2.1 above, the applicant. shall pay all applicable building, grading, private improvement, and -landscape plan check -and permit. fees as required by the Community Development Department. I RESOLUTION NO. 3S81 2 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY 3 OF TUSTIN, APPROVING DESIGN REVIEW 97-026 FOR CONSTRUCTION OF PHASE II OF A CONCEPTUAL MASTER PLAN 4 FOR A RELIGIOUS TEMPLE AND EDUCATIONAL FACILITY ON PROPERTY LOCATED AT 2111 BRYAN AVENUE. .5 The Planning Cornr fission of the City of Tustin does hereby resolve as follows: 5 I. The Planning Commission finds and determines as follows: 7 A. That a proper application; Design Review 97-026, was filed by 8 Congegation of B'Nai Israel requesting approval for construction of Phase 11 of a conceptual master plan for a religious temple and educational facility 9 located at 2111 Bryan Avenue; 10 :B. That a public hearing was duly called, noticed and held on said application on February 23., 1998,by the Planning Commission; 11 C. That an Environmental Impact . Report EIR 85-2,. as modified by 12 supplements and addenda, for the East Tustin Specific Plan has been certified in conformance with •the requirements of the California' 13 Environmental Quality Act for the subject project; a -D. Pursuant to Section 9272 of the Tustin Municipal Code, the Commission finds that the location, size, architectural features and general appearance of y _ the proposed development will not impair the orderly 'and harmonious ' development of the area, the present or future development therein, or the 15 occupancy- as a whale. In malting -such findings, the Commission has considered at least the following items: 17 I. Height,bulk and area of buildings. 18 2 Setbacks and site planning. 19 3. Exterior materials and colors. 20 4. Type and pitch of roofs. 21 5. Size and spacing of windows, doors and other openings. 22 6. Towers, chimneys, roof structures, flagpoles, radio and television 23 antennae. 24 7. Landscaping,parking area design and traffic circulation. 25 S. Location,height and standards of exterior illumination. 25 9. Location and appearance of equipment located outside of an enclosed structure. • 27 10. Location and method of refuse storage. 28 I Resolution No. 3581 2 Page 2 3 11. Physical relationship of proposed structures to existing structures in the neighborhood. 4 12. Appearance and design relationship of proposed' structures to 5 existing structures and possible future structures in the neighborhood and public-thoroughfares. 6 13. Proposed.signage. 7 14. Development Guidelines and criteria as adopted by the City Council. 8 N. The Planning Commission hereby approves Design Review 97-026 authorizing 9 construction of Phase II of a religious temple and educational facility on property located at 2111 Bryan Avenue, subject to conditions contained in Exhibit A attached 10 'hereto. 11 PASSED AND-ADOPTED-at a regular meeting of the Tustin Planning Commission, held on the 23rd day of February, 1998. 12 - 13 _ HOWARD A.'NIZMAN 34 Chairman . 15 ELIZABETH A.BINSACK Planning Commission Secretary 16 STATE OF CALIFORNIA) 17 COUNTY OF ORANGE ) CITY OF TUSTIN ) 18 19 I, ELIZABETH A. BINSACK, the undersigned, hereby certify that I am the Recording 2 o Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Tustin, California; that Resolution No. 3581 was duly passed and adapted at a regular meeting of the Tustin Planning Commission, 21 held on the 23rd day of February, 1998. 22 23 LIZABETH A. BIlVSACK 24 Planning Commission Secretary, 25 26 • 27 28 EXHIBIT A • RESOLUTION NO.3581 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL DESIGN REVIEW 97-026 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT GENERAL (1) 1.1 The proposed project shall substantially conform with the submitted plans for the project date stamped February 23, 1998 on file with the Community Development Department,as herein modified, or 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(3 0)days prior to expiration. (I) 1.4 Approval of Design Review 97-026 is contingent upon the applicant and property owner 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 IiabiIities arising out of a challenge of the City's approval of this project. (1) 1.6 Applicable conditions of approval of Resolution Nos.2901 (DR 90-023 ,CUP 91- 002),2943 (CUP 91-002)and 4005(CUP 92-044)are incorporated into approval of Resolution 3581. PLAN SUBMITTAL ' (1) 2.1 A minimum forty-one(41)foot setback shall be required between the Phase H facilities and the northern property line. No decrease in this distance shall be permitted. (I) 2.2 Indicate on the title sheet the applicable codes,City Ordinances and the State and federal laws and regulations to include: 1994 Uniform Building Code with California Amendments • 1994 Uniform Mechanical Code with California Amendments Exhibit A-PC Resolution 3581 Design Review 97-026 Page 2 1994 Uniform Plumbing Code with California Amendments 1993 National Electrical Code with California Amendments T-24 California Disabled Access Regulations T-24 California Energy Efficiency Standards City of Tustin Grading Ordinance City of Tustin Landscape and Irrigation Guidelines City of Tustin Private Improvement Standards City of Tustin Security Ordinance (1) 23 Provide project data that includes floor areas for each building type,occupancy group classification,type of construction and whether fire sprinklered or not. (1) 2.4 Justify allowable square footage of building based on type of construction and occupancy type. Indicate on plans location of area separation or occupancy separation walls where required. (1) 2.5 Indicate the distances from the buildings to the property lines_ (1) 2.6 When submitting for a building permit,submit four sets of plans,two sets of structural and energy calculations,specifications and reports. Electrical, mechanical and plumbing plans shall be included. (1) 2.7 Provide outdoor lighting in*parking areas, landscape areas on the buildings and at entrance doors as required by City of Tustin Security Ordinance.- Parking lot lighting standards shall not exceed twelve(12)feet. (1) 2.8 Provide complete details for accessible paths of travel throughout the site, including pedestrian gates,sidewalks,and accessible parking. (1) 2.9 Trash enclosures shall comply with Great Western Reclamation and City of Tustin standards. (1) 2.10 The applicant shall obtain building permits for proposed signs prior to installation; signs shall conform to the Tustin Sign Code. USE RESTRICTIONS (1) 3.1 Landscaping shall be provided in the vacant portion of the property and shall be maintained in a clean and weed free condition. Materials or items may not be stored in this area. (1) 3.2 The vacant portion of the property allocated to future phases shall be developed in a manner consistent with the conceptual master plan and applicable development standards or permanent landscaping consistent with the City's Landscaping and Irrigation Guidelines shall be installed within five(5) years of the date of approvaI of Resolution 3581. Exhibit A-PC Resolution 3581 Design Review 97-026 Page 3 (1) 3.3 No activities shall be scheduled simultaneously in the social hall,sanctuary,and office/classroom facilities.'Exceptions to this requirement include the 900 square foot office/administration area,the 120 square foot gift shop,and the 1,292 square foot classroom. (1) 3.4 A total of 135 parking spaces are required for the Phase I and Phase II facilities. This requirement is based on no simultaneous uses occurring in the social hall, sanctuary,and office/classroom facilities with the exception of those uses listed in Condition 3.3. ' NOISE (l) 4.1 Prior to the issuance of any building permits,a final acoustical analysis report describing the acoustical design features of the structures required to satisfy the exterior and interior noise-standards shall be submitted to the Community Development Department for review and approval,along with the satisfactory evidence which indicates that the sound attenuation measures specified in the approved acoustical report has been incorporated into the design of the project. The acoustical analysis shall be prepared by an expert or authority in the field of acoustics. (1) 4.2 Prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy,the Building Official may require that field testing be performed to demonstrate compliance with noise attenuation standards. (1) 4.3 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. (5) 4.4 - Construction hours shall be clearly posted on the project site to the satisfaction of the Building Official. ORANGE COUNTY F>•RE AUTHORITY (1) 5.1 Prior to the approval of building permits,whichever occurs first,the applicant shall submit to the Fire Chief a list of the quantities of all hazardous,.flammable and combustible materials,Iiquids or gases. These liquids and materials are to be classified according to the"Orange County Fire Authority Chemical Classification Handout". The submittal shall provide a summary sheet Iisting each hazard class, the total quantity of chemicals stored per class and the total quantity of chemicals used in that class. All forms of materials are to be converted to units of measure in pounds,gallons and cubic feet • Exhibit A-PC Resolution 3581 Design Review 97-026 Page 4 (1) 5.2 Prior to approval of building permits,the applicant shall submit plans for the review and approval of the Fire Chief. The applicant shall include information on the plans required by the Fire Chief. Contact the Orange County Fire Authority Plans Review Section at(714) 744-0403 for the Fire Safety Site/Architectural Notes to be placed on the plans. I) 5.3 Prior to installation,plans for the fire alarm system shall be submitted to and approved by the Fire Chief. This system shall be operational prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Use and Occupancy. FEES (1) 6.1 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. New development fees in the amount of$.10 per square foot of new floor area to the Community Development Department_ D. Payment of the major thoroughfare and bridge fees for the new additional square footage of the building will be required at the time a building permit is issued. The current fee is 52.96 per square foot.. E.' School facilities fee to the Tustin Unified School District subject to any agreement reached and executed between the District and the applicant. F. Sanitary sewer connection fees to the Orange County Sanitation District. (I) 6.2 Within fort)-eight(48)hours of approvalof 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. • ON I" 611.1 1"l, O�t:on qv 9"MN-JaWYAN*UTvm VlVa 123'CFdd slillyloossy 1 —3 TIP A i UU NYAUE Ji 10c �011, QVON SSDO:)V L-IVHdSV LSIX;3 ORRIS vo MGM 3AV KfAbS 1119 4-A I`Ttt�, 3SVHd T Y.- 3VnI IV NMI V031AOVOW 55a:)DV -L'IVHdGV I5IX9 DZI 1:3) 0 1-:777 e rJ z CNL=l 4 f sl� .1v �71=k ti IF I T.;, CIV rw [j if w sw AL[*9 7411 Llbi].10bld I',f {:- : I.-,1Y. o-a•.an e f I t., ,_ rj I. �i:.,f,k`i'r79 k - :rQn,�.o �• ... e :ti•:Ff•f.�;:•F•:,.::'r.•r•:jr;::'r:.�. 1 .--- - ..— L. . _ ----=-- tea- p_ •! f `�_, 3::u V3,•ia:l F Q , _ -.J..- 7_J t•, .:. .::. .Mo r k. 1 cq _ . . o — _... r l,&nAn_Fw _ j ; saiYiaossv 4� - x371YP1 Y A3W33f _„y O .. I �. . - - ----- — — - -------------- -------------------------- nq DOM V3 r 3+1Y HYA 8 unit ,O-A- A 17r�1,:i�4_1l�is i ril�f.�.f k`.'i•� 1 - .'c „�'- ...�.:;.T,' ! ; , s ;.,.' O, ff r � c n .. 5153N3�J 13Odd 1 I t I ' 13YHS1 IYN.13 Y° i 5:,j n _.,. _ I Y. I•. �! 1 I I �— f _ __ ' o it �« :.ws • - n ,A I' E o �._ 0 0 00. o © 0 0 00 0 0 0 © © o® 0 0 00 0 LLAT TIL"XOOF - - STUCCO.OFF•1NNITS[ev1F1 ' S' �S►lid• illy.� .1 i . II�III'' �.i II I t I ••i. •��•:. MAX. f:tR"/� •' �?KIf.1!�,'r l!1I 1 i:•!�'0'A'fJ Q A'17.•b ` I I I �I ��� Y 1 I1 II.: ' �� •Y 4 \ II• .r •I :r_r.:... .tw:.t.• S .•S ..+•kyr ..•'.:'.•w s• ii• 3.atctXT Md1T _ c_ ° '• } . .fid• i .:j Z�'• 1 0.... ���� �. .w_. �.: XflRraL�TriG,rOOi •S.••: Oa;OT+OXa 7iTN XAT{IXAL fNrtTN � ¢ - rr��. Rnf�10 TMIY��111[0.d1 � � � c • FUTURE PHASE l RANCTUARY 1 ENTRY L PHASE 1 1 ,` VA ' WEST ELF—VATION ltltiriam ICAtt:lir.r•r-;f:2s t - ' 1 1 IIII,Ii u i •r" I I •r�d'a... - :.sl•l: 11.111:1111'LI ••�'• _ .. "• - paXX 1wONT9 ALVomm TNS PHASE 1 FUTURE PHASE I AOOiTMiXAL CIaaTXO"I IND Affft IJTRAT1011 EA5T ELEVATION dat tXpors XIMN.,H lALYIN Lma.A Aa{OC 'I�II� •u..aF w.r........ CONGREGATION B'NAI ISRAEL . CITY OF T12% ,1 COA[MUNITV i1EYLLON', 141 L`�f ARTh[ENT PROJECT NAM@ �•aY�p� r , nu==z_;It-- AAOJfCI NO, Cly_I Z�G��!{.�+ - RESOLUTION NO. _Z� gnl OATT•. ' - - BY¢i-COM' i:IY !'�<T L-PLR TMENT .• :ASE �UCIAL MMI dS "S r oil ' /�! "' +x.,!�ti.rr�F+�!S3 all r ku . •111„ �• •• 0.�••O•�' •i,'g'i' .SCREEN WALL ENCLOSTNG PLAYGROUND IN FOREGROUND ;-ilBOUTH ELEVATIONkM FA61N0 BRYAN 'AVE NORTH ELEVATION TEMPORARY FACADE LILL. �• I 1.WEST ELEVATION vr•aa .1 ;'. �9'�"•1 '.r,,.,r,•rJr .t• �4�1i TH�a +1{,�°M-� ' -q,��e n�� •S;L..�u+��..�` �._r}:...w . w•._-•-- {yYiLa ilC�Gy'"Il.�`��_M�.w 1. �A'. 1`�`_ •`i:.""�•,.,iw.: ,� t ' `�� , '•���T .-- �---u —�A._a>s� ,�Inli!11i lii�!il�l���!IPrl�4j�lll��lalillillilr�i+t�lllil� S ;1 �;..,.,..� r1.}wti I` L�� CONGREGATION I hnwad �It. 1 I r. •,Y l' _ --- .• •• �._r- 9'NAf ISRAEL x., — —---— =--— ,��,.— _ :::' PROJECT GENESIS PHASE I 1. ^ V { 2111 BpYAN AVEWON r CA 92400 2. EAST ELEVATION v�•ra J I In ' w• -..,, Il I'll ri,Il rlri l� Irl I' .'� e.�.. r,'.;-k�•-LTi-. _._ _ . 4N r}( ni FTI Al �I_ 1_l_ +_ +>, V• �•I . E t �': 't IJ. JEFFREY A MATZEK 6 ASSOCIATES _ .. � � ..,.,� � ,.,,...�.,., ... ..�,•,y'ham �1 a 3..SOUTH ELEVATION I ' -- _ u. .,t -•tel � .�f1• � •'�����v�v r• wf - ��+ ! r . .�ry.; % ,•,. 4.. w.: .i '. � `!� �.'i t�:+.i� "•�:nT'i7:� - k{� � �y t.:.._..�'- --- —• ' "'—;T - —+- be w ':. k II � , yam,.,��Oti i_.r ter- WeMit keM.el r�ti•aa���.tl ,� ,,K .{ I Vl!� �.. -_ -•_- l• , ••�•1 ',�/'• Sl`�:• ftt,rtf fk.q.r - 1 �.:, t .1 r• _.�' ��' t t'ti� � III . 'S I���C�` 1 A-5.1 L 4, NORTH ELEVATION va.aa • QNASI:�,� CTAT Tllf ROOT -2 fTVrrai OiI'"I"pwit •• �^ I II I I I �I I 1 III. • � III © a 19 NA1.NiSOMT .�5 }�. Li •I I�1 - i.. !� f 1 !•�ry —T'v fs. ..,:'�I�I :a•a a n .fi n d n # [I• t. 1 ACCR T IA[AT `T TUli6 p"57- FOOT MII M 4 sq1t4mq cew- . (PF6AR o00R7 1RTN NATYRAL IINISM , A F Pian- - H ftm V ua.wtamm FUTURE PHASE r SANCTUARY ] INTRY C PHASE 13 e-t• WEST ELEVATION p1 - ftfrATwli feAm-Irr.r•r _.. - ..- 1 ., � ,• ,rpt' t ptlRSE-z • •, OAIIR lRON2f aLOMORIN TRSIt - , � ,• ••' LrrLXLM PHASE Fei7rPWN-r• - • PFIASL r EAST ELEVATION FUTuas PHAsE - CLAfiROOYf f I AD OITIONAA ttAINROOOS AMO AONIIOITRA_rION • �� N[ONA IL I1LMi11 A.La. - CONGREGATION B'NAE Is�n�at - ® .�..�•..�. ..�,� - 1 - . Ina•LyM FluSTING MASONRY WAIL is 01 HIGH)— r i[Isnrla Fnurra An Ii misllwr:14fts TO REMAiN("FICAL$ I I LX1S1NNa LIGHTTP STANDAnDS(FICAK) I 5;7r A PAnKING LOT TntE,11WICAL) -id jUAnYjAB;wuHIS1IA&1ION BUILDING NEW SANG ILI IN", rUtURE PHASE PISILNG MUL11PUAPOSCICLASSA 2d I 1 I EASTINQ FE iCEO PLAYGROUND EXISI INr ENIFIVIWALLS ND GATHER HG AREA AN kANOSCAPE TO RIU&J" IN THIS AREA I rn PLACEI CRA3NUNK PENCE P-N110 WITH MINES AT 11 R ON CENTER JWn SHRUB SCREENING ALONG WORMAL VERTICAL ACCENT TREES (rYPICAL) "ANN FL 2 — [\ » — _' •� 1 G,L x.E.M1 A.L. amp" rLml macm?" _j H.E I?"W11 1 EXISTING MONUMENT SIGN SMALL ACCENT InEES + qwc,%GNU.�) I ACCENT ENTRY TREE(TrPICAJI I :J�j[l if onriNAVENUE YHM tucA �M-THEE If iiii:il!" EEL gIAr+GsrrAr wNl _1.HI p k�9 -E Planning Commission Minutes February 23, 1996 Page 3 3. Tentative Tract Map 15574 and Desi n Review 97-019 APPLICANT- RIELLY HOMES : 23 CORPORATE PLAZA,SUITE 245 NEWPORT BEACH,.CA 92660 OWNER: BALLESTEROS PROPERTY, INC. . I LINCOLN CENTER,SUITE 970 OAKBROOK TERRACE, ILLINOIS 60181 LOCATION: LOT 18 OF TRACT 13835;2634 BALLESTEROS LANE ZONING: MEDIUM HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL.(18 UNITS PER ACRE MAXIMUM DENSITY)EAST TUSTIN SPECIFIC PLAN (ETSP) ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: THIS PROJECT IS COVERED BY A PREVIOUSLY CERTIFIED EIR(85-2) FOR THE EAST TUSTIN SPECIFIC PLAN. NO ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTATION IS REQUIRED. PROJECT: 1. Request to resubdivide a'0.5 gross acre site for the purpose ' of developing a community pool and recreational facility instead of fourteen(14) residential units; and, 2. Approval of Design Review 97=019 for the proposed site plan and architectural design of the project Recommendation-That the Planning Commission: 1. Adopt Resolution No. 3578 approving the Environmental Determination for the project; 2. Adopt Resolution No. 3579,approving Design Review 97-019; and, 3. Adopt Resolution No.3580 recommending that the City Council approve Tentative Tract Map 15574. Karen Peterson,Associate.Planner presented'the subject report The Public Hearing opened at 7:13 p.m. The Public Hearing closed at 7:14 p.m. Commissioner Davert moved Commissioner Pontious seconded _ to adopt Resolution No. 3578 approving the Environmental Determination for the project.. Motion carried 5-0. Commissioner Davert moved. Commissioner Pontious seconded to adopt Resolution No.3579 approving Design Review 97-019. Motion carried 5-0. Commissioner Davert moved.' Commissioner Pontious seconded,, to adopt Resolution No. 35BO recommending that the City Council approve Tentative Tract Map 15574. Motion carried 5-0. 4. Design Review 97-026 APPLICANT. CONGREGATION OF B'NAI ISRAEL 2111 BRYAN AVENUE TUSTIN, CA 92780 ATP MARK CROSS OWNER: CONGREGATION OF B'NAl ISRAEL 2111 BRYAN AVENUE TUSTIN,CA 92760 LOCATION: 211`1 BRYAN AVENUE(000,211_04_13.14,16)^ _ _ _ �__ i� ' Attachment 1 Planning Commission Minutes February 23, 1998 Page 4 ENVIRONMENTAL - STATUS: THIS PROJECT IS COVERED BY A PREVIOUSLY CERTIFIED EIR(85-2) FOR THE EAST TUSTIN SPECIFIC PLAN. NO ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTATION IS REQUIRED. PROJECT: REQUEST TO CONSTRUCT PHASE 1[ OF A MASTER PLAN FOR A RELIGIOUS TEMPLE AND EDUCATIONAL FACILITY. Recommendation-That the Planning Commission adopt Resolution No. 3581 approving Design Review 97-026. Karen Peterson,Associate Planner presented the subject report. Chairman Mitzman inquired about the five year buildout requirement for the future phase. The Director stated-that the requirement was for permanent buildout per the phasing plan or permanently landscaped per the City's standards. The Public Hearing opened at 7:19 p.m. Michael Bova, 2072 Burnt Mill Road stated his concern with the possibility of future errors on the setback Lois stated that we cannot impose a-rquirement that a private property owner include within a contract with a contractor a rquriement for errors and ommissions insurance. Staff can assure the adjacent homeowner that all the plans will have to come trhough and be inspected and the the City can do inspections to make sure construction is actually occuring where it is supposed to occur. Do'have an exisitng wall, so unlikely to see error that occured the first time The Director'staed that stafff will ensure.that during rough grading and precise grading that the building is set 41 feet back and there is a condition in the resolution of approval- She pprovalShe will personnally ensure appropriate inspections early on to ensure phase 11 built in the appropriate location. The Public Hearing closed at 7:24 p.m. Commissioner Davert moved, Commissioner Pontious seconded, to adopt Resolution No.3581 approving Design Review 97-026. Motion carried 5-0. REGULAR BUSINESS: 5. Status Report Recommendation: Receive and File Commissioner Kozak moved Commissioner Pontious seconded to receive and file.'Motion carried 5-0. STAFF CONCERNS: 6. Report on Actions taken at the Februa 17 1998 Ci Council Meeting. Elizabeth A. Binsack,Community Development Director reported on the subject agenda. Commissioner Davert_moved—Commissioner Kozak seconded, to receive and file the subject agenda. Motion carried 5-0. CITY OF TUSTIN UN'.cv % OFFICIAL 'NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING OFFICIAL NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING CITY OF TUSTIN Notice is hereby given that on February 23, 1998,the Planning Commission of the City of Tustin, California,will conduct a public hearing at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers,300 Centennial Way, Tustin, California to consider the following: DESIGN REVIEW 97-026 (B'NAI ISRAEL) An application submitted by Congregation of B'Nai Israel to develop Phase II of a three phase master plan for the Congregation's temple and educational facility. Approximately 11,408 square feet is proposed to be added to the existing multi-purpose room/office facility. Phase II facilities will consist of a sanctuary,administrative offices, and classrooms. A minimum rear setback distance of forty(40) feet between the northern facade of the proposed building and homes to the north is proposed, consistent with Conditional Use Permit 92-044 and Planning Commission Resolution No.4005 approved November 23, 1992. This project site is Iocated at 2111 Bryan Avenue(APN 9500-211-04, 13, 14, and 16). • Surrounding uses include residential uses to the north, an Edison Company sub-station-to the west,an Orange County Flood Control facility to the east, and Bryan Avenue to the south. The Planning Commission may make modifications to the project as a result of the public hearing. It has been determined that Final Environmental Impact Report 85-2, Certified on March 17, 1986 in conjunction with the East Tustin Specific Plan, as amended with supplements and addenda, adequately addresses environmental consideration associated with the proposed project.'No additional environmental documentation will be prepared. I If you challenge the subject item in court,you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this notice,or in written correspondence delivered to the City of Tustin at,or prior to,the public hearings. If you require special accommodations, please contact the Clerk of the Planning Commission at(714) 573-3105. Information relative to this item is on file in the Community Development Department and is available for public inspection at City Hall. Anyone interested in the information above may call the Community Development Department at(714)573-3118.. Pamela Stoker City Clerk Publish- February 13, 1918 �S�b��jr,-'pL 'L V 'T r= 3.LSOd If you require s ;�"a�*'o , please contact Tustin Cit Hall AWaitenn��Tustin 92780', (714) 573-3000: ► �. D 1!011 r� _ Y _ Y� Attachment J F'Y`I-�I s :�sy�i � ; �: ; �. 1�.�'w ,�,�sIA3'd DESIGN REVIEW 97-226 RETURNED NOTICES NAME & ADDRESS REASON FOR RETURNED MAIL i Alfredo O: Pena Forwarding Order Expired 12519 Culver Dr. Irvine, CA 92720 Pacific Keystone " 3919 Westerly PI#200 Newport Beach, CA 92660 Janet M. Cristofaro " 13603 Almond St. Tustin, CA 92680 Mark A. Alterman " 2205 Lace Leaf Way Tustin, CA 92680-8366 Domenic Giudice " 13531 Almond Street Tustin, CA 92680-8334 John M. Pargee " 21 Alamitos Foothill Ranch, CA 92610-1809 Pacific Mgmt. Keystone " 3919 Westerly Place Newport Beach, CA 92660-2308 Keystone Pac Mgmt. Inc. " 3919 Westerly PI#200 Newport Beach, CA 92660 Steven J. Gutowski " 13371 Montecito St. Tustin, CA 92680-8801 Robert Sellers " 13.531 Navajo Tustin, CA 92782 Hang Thanh Bui " 2262 Redwod Dr. Tustin, CA 92680-8372 Stephen M. On " 2212 Catalapa Dr. Tustin, CA 92680-8356 Jon R. Yamada " 2197 Avocado Dr. Tustin, CA 92780 Shirley Scott Sternberg " 2326 Redwood Dr. Tustin, CA 92680-8371 . • Richard H Charlton " 2242 Aspen St. Tustin, CA 92680-8341 ' i Elizabeth V. Kelly " P 0 Box 3141 ADTustin, CA 92681-3141 Lisa Schwartzer " 13585 Almond St. Tustin, CA 92680-8335 Deirdre Anne Callanan " 13573 Almond St. Tustin, CA 92680-8335 Alan Jay Friedman- " 2312 Redwood Dr. Tustin, CA 92680-8371 Thomas E. Watson " 2208 Avocado Dr. Tustin, CA 92680-8348 Mario Anthony Angelucci " 13621 Almond St. . Tustin, CA 92680 Mark S. Roebuck " 2216 Star Pine Way Tustin, CA 92680-8373 Donald C. Partch " 2321 Boxwood Pl. Tustin, CA 92680-8353 Yan Chuen Cheung " 2236 Aspen St Tustin, CA 92680-8341 Israel B'Nai " 655 S B St. Tustin, CA 92680-4317 B Nai Israel " 655 S B St. Tustin, CA 92680-4317 Song Ju Moon 2256 Aspen St. Tustin, CA 92680-8341 Khosrow A. Raou£pour " 2060 Business Center Dr.,#260 Irvine, CA 92715-1121 John Haddad " 858 W Glenwood Cir., Fullerton, CA 92632-1033 Camella Jean Bonney " 13593 Almond St. Tustin, CA 92680-8335 Farid Velijanian " 2198 Aspen St. Tustin, CA 92680-8339 2 Monika Jane Krivokopich " 13612 Evergreen Way Tustin, CA 92680-8360 Valerie L Hickman " 2196 Aspen St. Tustin, CA 92680-8339 Hung-Nin Soo 13635 Almond St. Tustin, CA 92680-8336 Paul B. Waskows1d " 13571 Eucalyptus St. Tustin;CA 92680-8359 Hamid Reza Rahai Returned for Postage P O Box 15202 Long Beach, CA 90815 Maricopa Community Assn. Insufficient Address 4041 MacArthur Blvd, - Newport Beach, CA 92660-2512 sacddlkarcnlundelivered list of public notices.doc 3 , r _ Historical verspectimes of homeowners within Monterey at Tustin Ran and the iml2act area,of the B'nal Israel Tern le. - APR 0 6 1999 The•original owners on Burnt Mill Road in Monterey at Tustin Ranch knew Ch%VV1TYDEk1Opg�t j church building would be built behind us. This was disclosed on the Tustin Ranch Master Plan. At the time of purchase, we made an informed decision. In early 1991;theconstruction of the-B'nai Israel"Temple was starting with grading and lot preparation. We neighbors were concerned that it was beginning without us being notiW or aware of the plans. As it turned out we were supposed to be noticed-by the.City of Tustin and were not. We organized and came to the City to review plans and understand what the,impact to our properties would be. During this review, we were told that the project had originally been submitted to be further away from Bryan and closer to our houses but that the City had required it to be moved south towards Bryan. As the construction continued, we noticed that the forms for the-foundation of Phase'1 appeared to be closer than we had thought they would,be,.We measured and found that they were in fact 25 feet closer to our houses than the approved plans. This was claimed to be.an error. It was mind boggling to us that in this day of laser guided surveying equipment, not to mention the good old measuring'tape that we used, that a mistake of this magnitude could be made. • Even more concerning was that a City.inspector would sign off and not pick up on the mistake. . The neighbors went to a Planning Commission meeting and complained of: 1) the mistake,- 2) the closer proximity to our homes, how this-just happened to be in the same_ 'direction that the original pians had been before they were required to be- adjusted, 3) the height and-type.of parking lot,lighting, ' 4) the small.size and small quantity of trees to be planted, and 5) the imposing scale of the Temple architecture and uninterrupted building massing. The Commission requested that the Neighborhood and the Temple go-away for two weeks-and see if we could work-out a compromise. We went off site and continued discussions for the two weeks and reached the following understanding and.compromises: 1) The contractor couldn't.pay to fix the mistake because he was a congregation member and.didn't have,insurance. 2) •The Neighborhood accepted the'Temple estimated $80,000 to $90,000 invested in the construction at that point and agreed to accept a compromise Of.mitigating efforts involving increased planting. So the quantity and sizes of Attachment K . the trees were increased and the types of trees-were changed.to be more drought resistant and faster growing. 3) The parking lot'lighting was lowered and changed to shielded illumination that lighted the ground, not the sky and our properties. 4) Further, it was agreed that there would be a continued communication and cooperation between the Temple and the Neigh borhood.and that the Neighborhood would be informed of any proposed changes to the project. 5) Through this process, the Neighborhood retained a set of plans for the Temple as this outlined our understanding of the'then current construction as well as future,expansion plans. ' It is important to note herethat a significant error was made by the Temple builder and the Commission allowed a compromise and didn't require the error to be corrected. During the following years, the Neighborhood had,to request that the,Temple replace trees that had died or been'destroyed in an attempt to maintain the buffer between the residential and essentially'commercial uses. (Se&attached March .11,, 1,996 letter.),It.took some time and effort, but the trees were replaced. The s treeand the landscaping in general however were not well maintained. The trees were never trimmed or fertilized. Most of the shrubs and planting under the trees has died. Drainage is a problem in this area and we have,seen°standing water in planters. Also, the-irrigation is poorly managed. The result has been that the visual screen ofArees-that was supposed to have evolved has.not. The,trees have not done very well. Since the trees were replaced in 1996 others have died or are damaged and need to be replaced. The large field area to the east of the original structure, which was just converted into a parking lot, was requested to be planted in grass by the Neighborhood. During the compromise discussions. described above in paragraph 5, the Temple countered.that this would be expensive to install and maintain. The compromise was to,plant wild flowers and create an attractive low maintenance field of flowers. Nice concept however, the actual result was,one,big weed patch with few wild flowers. Further, this weed patch was simply mowed down approximately once per year as a result of repeated calls to the City from the Neighborhood. About the first of 1999, construction began on the second phase of the Temple. This was not alarming, as we had.already negotiated,what this expansion would look like (see,footnote 1). We were concerned with the structure-moving closer to our houses and wanted to make sure that it didn'thave any more negative impact than we had agreed to years before. When the grading started, we were quick to go pull out some old notes and measure;the distance from our back wall of the building slab (44 feet). We were pleased that it was consistent with our notes from what we had agreed to years before. It was at-this time also; that Mike Bova'(2072 Bumt�Mill Road) confirmed to the Neighborhood that he had gone to the Planning Commission meeting about a year before this (early 1998) where the pians were approved. He had.read about the matter in the local newspaper. At that Meeting he reviewed with the Commission the 25 foot mistake incident from 1991 and was assured by Staff and the Commission that this would be monitored very closely and there would be no such mistake this time around. He didn't realize that.the plans for Phase 2 were upon the wall at the time and he wouldn't have expected it to matter as we had already agreed in 1991 what the Temple plans were and we were OK with them. ..In early February 1999, after confirming the proper distance from our wall, Mike Bova and Doug Wride went to the City to review the landscaping plans on file for the project. Again we were not concerned with the building plans because they had already been agreed to. Our current landscaping concern was more based upon the historically poor level of:maintenance of the plantings by the Temple_ We were not aware that this would be the case before the Temple was originally built. Since we now knew that there was little or no maintenance effort, we wanted to see what was in the original plans. We could not find our copy of the 1991 detail plans at that time. After reviewing what the City had on file for planting and making a copy of the planting plan, on February 14, 1999, Doug Wride wrote a letter to the Temple President (same date, copy attached) and suggested that some of the original trees be replaced; all of the existing trees be fertilized and trimmed; and that the size of the new north planter area may be too narrow to support large trees that are called for ori the Plans. See Attachment#6, North Elevation. This Pian.notes 30' tall trees with canopies equaling a 15' radius. How could this concept succeed in a 5 '/' wide planter up against a building? Its failure is guaranteed. At this time, the framing of the structure had just begun. There was no response. On February 25, 1999, Doug Wride wrote another letter (same date, copy attached) and hand delivered it to a Temple staff member in the Temple office. In the 11 days between the letters, the framing was going up and making it obvious that the northern wall was going to be much taller than was originally agreed to. In this 11 days, we had also tracked down the original blueprints. There was, and still has been, no communication by the Temple to either of these February letters. However, about a week later, in early March, the trees on the Temple property were trimmed. The week of February 22`d, Mike Bova and Doug Wride met with City Staff, Elizabeth Binsack and Karen Peterson to discuss the Temple issues. At this meeting we described the history of the situation and expressed that we were never told of the many changes that appeared to'be made to the plans. We were told that we had been noticed by the City that the meeting was to take place and that we should have come to the meeting to express our concerns: Since we didn't, other than Mike Bova's expressed distance concerns, we are stuck. We explained that the City did not notice us and that we didn't understand how the construction plans could change so dramatically, all at the expense of our Neighborhood. We went on to further expand on the fact that we had never been noticed. How can this happen twice to the same group Mording development on the same promW DaesnI this seem odd or Eggidous?The only reason Mike i Bova came to the February 1996 Plarrng C x mission Meeting was that he read aboLA it in the paper_ Also, at this time, we were still not aware of all of the other changes in the plans that-we am now aware of. Staff promised to make sure that the impact of the ire was mitigated as best as possible by the landscaping required_ They also asked us for any comments we might have regarding the landscaping pians_ Two days later, Doug Wride faxed,Elizabeth Binsack that he had checked aft nektbors and they also had not received a notice of the Plar ring Corrwniission g where the plans were to have been reviewed and approved in Febn cry 199a See Attachment V. On March 3", after a detail regrew of the landscape.plans with a neighbor who is a landscape architect, Doug VVrde Witted overall suggestions regarding issues with the arrest Landscaping pfar s. (See March 3, 1999 letter to Karen Peterson.) It was also obvious by this time that the construction plans had been changed to save money. What toad been planned to be a sloping floor of the new sanctuary (which woUd facTda�a the sloping roof),was now flat. See Attachment #3. The Temple saved eortsbimdon cost; at the expense of our Neighborhood. The result was that instead of t�Arag a 12-foot high north wall with a roof sloping back 25 feet to a 254o6t height see Adachment#1), we now have a 25-foot high wail 44 feet from our back fe6ce. Groins Ns,with the original 25 foot".mistake" and instead of having a 25 foa ceaK =4 feet (44+25+25) from our fence we now have it at 44 feet This is half the oband planned and approved distance. Since March Vd, the aorrshx:b n has continued at what the Neighborhood senses to be an ever*xnssinc pie. The week of March Ie, the second and third stories of the dassroai ce WI&V ne)d to the Sanctuary went up. Prior to this week, this had appeared to we novice observers in the Neighborhood to be a one-story st uchze from the framing. R was during this week of March 15�h that we went back to.our origirtal plans and noted that.there were actually supposed to be 2 new buldings in PFase 2 in addition to the Sanctuary. See Attachment#4. In these 2 bu dngs_ t e Northern most wall was originally planned to be two story but it*as. sucocsed to have a flat roof and be lower than the `25 foot Max Height' notec on -,:,e puns for the Sanctuary (see'Attachments #1 for height notation and#21&roof lime). Not only was this completely changed, but a third story roof structure has been added to.now make this the tallest structure on the property_ (See Attea-iment#6, East Elevation.) Further, this classroom structure was suppcsed tc be set back 35.5 feet from the north wall of -the Sanctuary. See Attachmert#5- how, doing the same math as above, we have a structure of at least 30 in 35%et-. which is 44 feet behind our fence. This was supposed to be iess than 20 feata and 106.5 feet from our back fence (81.5 +25). We have no idea why fir►s was changed, but again it was certainly done at our Neighborhoods exaense. Speaking of radical change, consider the new west entrance to the Sanctuary in Phase 2. This was to be a-continuation of the Phase,1 building and roof lines with normal 7 to 8 foot doors. See Attachment#1. The changed entrance is 30 feet tall, an interruption in all of the building and roof lines, completely out of scale with the rest of the building and totally void of any buffer for the Neighborhood. We don't have a:drawing of this because it has not been built in accordance with the 1991 Plans or the 1998 Plans-. If you refer to the 1998 Plans (Attachment#6, West Elevation) and then visit the site in person, you will:see that the roof treatment of the entrance is now as high as the highest elements of the structure. According to the 1998'Plan, this appears to be 5+feet r1ower. The geometric increase in the total mass is astounding: It_now appears like the enormous entrance to a retail mall. When was this change approved and by whom? On March 22r�d, representatives of our Neighborhood..came to the Planning. Commission Meeting and addressed the Commission briefly explaining the situation and requesting that this be put on the Agenda for the next Commission Meeting on April,12�h. Also, on March22"4, Doug Wride confirmed with Staff that the Temple's Landscaping Plans had not vet been approved. The City's comments on the Pians had gone back to the Temple architect but they had not been resubmitted to the City. At that time, Doug'-Wride informed Staff that-almost the entire new western parking lot area of the Temple property had already.been planted. He also stated,that he did not think that the size of the trees planted were large enough to mitigate the glare and unattractive mass of a one acre parking lot right behind our Neighborhood. Further, there were two open holes that not been . planted yet, and these holes reflected no soil preparation or consideration of the drainage needs of trees planted in this heavy day soil. The trees were being planted in the minimum depth hole to cover the soil coming with the tree. Considering the total lack of any maintenance or care demonstrated on the existing trees,planted in 1991, the best day these new trees_experience will be the day that they-were-planted. It will be downhill from there. In that, conversation, Doug Wride was told that if the new plantings were not consistent with what is eventually, approved, it would have to be replaced. On April 5�h, Doug Wride was informed by Staff that the parking lot planting was in accordance with the approved plans. He was told that the "conceptual plans° were approved in February 1998 and that it was the detail plans that had not been approved as yet. Therefore, if the landscaping was in accordance with the February 1998 "conceptual plans' it would be approved. This seems to contradict what we were told on March 22`d. This'"conceptual plan issue is ver confusing. Doug Wride and Mike Bova asked Staff in the week of February 22rd meeting with Staff, why Phase 2 wasn't required to be built as per the 1991 approved pians. They were told that these were only "conceptual" as they related to Phase 2 and they were subject to change. However, the 1999 landscaping in the'parking lot was approved at the 5 I rn � it sueld panojdde esoy4;o suopod ;o saldoo o4oyd pie juawnoop slg4 of S#– L# sluawyoe4jy 'aMll )fool 04 mann saseyd amin=j• Pus L asegd 404nn10 suo!}e}uasaidai'a}eirme mann uoissassod no ui pey am s6u!meip ay}ley} pooLpogy6laN ayj;o 6uspuelsiapun eqj sem - L a}ou}ood satil a1ay4 pue°sawoy img uo se4 ein}on4s sly!loedw! 9A4ef �GU 9144 jo uolssaidwi pue4 jss a 496 of sawoy play} o4u! nota}!nu! '�elrprj�ed u! peo�l IIlW jwnq ZO LZ pue ZLOZ u99m49q 'siogyfiiau ay};o Auy -.48wnoA ao;aes pue lapped sp L4.m 9jls-uo1pn7}suoo sl44}!sin aseeld o} nog[ sajoldwi poo4iogy6!ON pajpedq 9141 sawoy • . ino pulyaq }aa;. pesodold 6uieq sem,fwpe nq edeospuel o} uaw6:po1w 91}4!1 tiara L4!M IIeM 46114 loo}ge 6ulweepajun AllempapWie us uaym uxxuoo s!y} sem ejegM ,}aa; OOZ o} 05 L eq.;snw sly! 'lemew Io4m pool}ay} pue )ilemr pls y}!m jaweq pe weld jay}oue '(ueAJg) uelpaw pajueld LWm Wags auel -ino;a lippieg edeospuel loot OZ a ssome eie;sesm 4}sasop ay}SJOH xauuy aoeld }a)peW w4snl ay4 le.suo!}lppe pesodad mgjo loedwr pue 6upeems . edeospuel aye fano uJaouoo osle sem aiayl -sem 41!m pa.4ueld s1ffeA io 83!}4eI polo a;o le!}uelod ay4.bulssnoslp jo I1elep 9LA 04 fi4llgei Petr- !!o ue we eaje Le*ai/Ielojawwoo a ut uollaasiajul.euel ino; a peeNeq 6upeasas adeaspM eqj 41!m�fui1ruos lueoglu6m Senn eja4} '6ug%IN uasstwwao-6ulUUeld 6661, 'ZZ yoieW ay}jV 6uolsslwwoo ay} aao;aq aweo PefaA aldwal a p uaLvA sly4 saga aiat.lm ,19puom of aney anti 6uidbems edeospuel pue oWag uo seq 439uadWASP }oedwl ay} amu!}nas uolsspwoo fiuluueld ay} pas Gm 5u48M uolsslum1*3 NZt yameW ay} }e uegM -asuadxa ino 4e euop Ile sem s.a 'sawoy ano#o an a4} uo 4oedw!•ani}e6eu lueoljufils pet aney se6ueyo eSeU;uedde4 0; anuguoo ueo sl14j moq puelsiapun jou op eM.,op o4 pewOe pe4 Amp se.poo4Xogyfil8N ino 6ulwjo;u! 4no4}!m pefoid ay} o} s6l5mp sno3mnu spew aney AaL4 pue uopiad000 io uoi4eolunwwoo ou sena aiayl -UW jlatl} lou pi p aldwejL 9141 'Ile Is s}saielui ino jo;}no Nool lou p!p me}S pue uolssywuJ.03 atO pue p904M Sou eism aM 'qof ma44 op pplp!a!o 9141 ';o a6e}uenpe ua�le4 uaaq aney arN ulew aouo moN -}ped ino auop aney am 'sieaA g }sed a1,}fano -siogy6lau pooh se aldwai ayj qpm uof4e ed000 u! mom pinonn am 4ey} pue urefie sp 4 ' P1nom Allo ay} ley} awl}1e4} Is juawaai6e us Senn ate} '-anamoH,'sa6ewep r:o ajefilllw o4'pal-4 pue poge yl1el pooh a u! ewg}e4}}e paslwoxdwoo aM `pas— . GJ9m sm 'I.66 L ul 'pasnge pue palelolA...pal poo4xx 46lau ano saop AwH us ICAopdde ue.pue 'plegdn s1 Imo aslwoidwoo a espoldwm a 'leap e_Ieep e sI uaym. 'uolsslwwoo 6uluueld'ayj else aM `# qo u4sl3o suazgl3 aewd pepedw! 941 p 96ueyo of}oafgns jou sl 3! pue-gf L kmruge i w pA6j jmi , t r 1TA 64(w FT w .5 n i i, , r .�i�l��� •. yf 31 1' ��I• � `t°L!',�?,i1 I!! � t'!f{r �, -' ' � ar•. "k''rte^ - - . II rf rl1 I /I e `�, � 1(_ r 1 ► } f *m•#• .A�., i.' 4.. r I r�'r�r�•�Yy -' ` r, l i ' �T trtt 1�4 �i�� - 't I f /i�� !+ 00 -tif✓R` w IIS !s �. ! �'��'" � � �:i+ ?,�[�� i M: aftff-FA {�r l ,rl n1�11�d fw '�I M � '� �i ,A `1�t�1,'�"1� +ri 1�. sY==r 'M 'i�r (� r/:• �� � f �i 1 l�:j �. ( r,� :.I �}" �!�*��/r.,�� t� clowc.W=K r^ MUM FOUTURS 1 SANCTUARY W1113T + w ILIVAYI h r MIJ 'NORTH wn ELEVATION , S r ° t/ Ar � �1 ~1 •;.r I 3] 1y11 Illi I� a����' 4� i MIN 11VA � •7 ill ry�r � 1 1 a 1 f p mmm I iilul ` �111 'si�i������ ri `�ai�;r"��`i�`��i� ��� ui���r��i��l�r�r��4ttr' � 4!� ``ii++ - . 11111111111 +i HJ 11111111i11�1111111111 II` J111�1111111 �� 1l111111i1111111111 M! 11 - m Wwlw fpm mm" ;A"' ,meq'tsr+w �� � � ''f�,''�'�1 �` � � `�• � • �� `� 1���1E���i,� ���[•II[[[�1�� ;�.��5��[li���[I�� s,,�;,�;..r. 1 1 1 a+i 11� "f S, / 4 �,°�;4! 1}41; ..»�».�,� I' r�a w i. '• .{� .f , .,/;'' C11 YS' fj•,� � t '•R=/�v M.r�tiY�ha„4,"111111'4+'+y,�r - ... w.w T,,.n.�,n ,. `r,.11 i 1 ° ..1�/ �� fir•% � iQfiri� '�`+L�• t� i�, ,fa tl,F�rSr..J!a�1�� �f��Ws� ,�•_'''T ti.f'x•f'r 1�7.�;, ���' r„ '` •! II . I 'f NNW I r`, .mar a 1'+�.�.wwr! H1 ■/ 7r T I rr i r•�11w41 , , ♦1���� AI :'i .il r 1 , r1 r� r' th I }} �' ro. 'n hyo /�j1 tr'.,'�4 . r, r l i 1` a., r.�{ ��� " ����• L�, :A YY..�� '�•,''I;"� +l.p lr.� . ,s!"1���1A" � fN li r-',1 -;1Z`T'. ai 1,,: ;`•vli __—�-,.r• ,'�Ia/• ',�1,.•�" i1H!'� 1.�1^`,�r�`,�!. 1�*4 rte..,A I,F�r� K, 1'-`, rr ..1°v.', J�A. rt+rr4 • F ! w 1 h 1 Batt Y�tiN I 3► FIAI�ICAi"i*0 HA CAPPED ACCESS lqq 1l 13 1• mac► _ � _ i _w ` � J Z'dTOgY - / / / F I CLAL ISR©CMS n» ' �; cLA oohs u.2s - PARKWa AL] ATIDN i.° i OFFICE AND ADINSK C-1 7o' NIDD. 01M. - 1 , . 1 * i �. + J ►1y 131 P .CLA 8 7• x.... �- Z STORY ACTIVITY ' CENTER °R .P-0� eAY T7 :: --" ... .•. _ ... ... .. � ,. "'`•� n YOUTH LOiJFltLl, 1 MAX.OCCUPAHn MULTIPURPOSE 1 I t LiBRARY _ -- • - i11 � � Iii , I . ;,:•� . • ,�' = 1 �'• e'y. NIAx:oCCUPANT$1 133 AND CLASSROOMS v � :ao:; CLAseptoo". 1.0 ►. -- - - O PHASE •I 1 '. to x to l AYURO ,• TRASi# awl VICLOSUM NL TUB s � EL MODINA-1 ORANGE CO. FLOC) rte ,. �CONI. � ' alryFwa I v V A. � • r -Btgn.Ln. a FUJUI munixua � LZ4- p1 '-MY 7AI�G AZ SI •,fit_ uj vr 39 r • Mtn• f • T �� •�` ` J �� ; w `f"r� •' ;, MOM �F ♦• rV' t r 1•- L �. ..�._n_ � ` I•�, '.t�y'� 11�"�Iri i /.4`dli�y..'�lIS���ILI�r:lF_ . I.WEST ELEVATION rr ra i 5 , ' •• + _001111M.�11►�lY.'l ®• � Cq�CWEOAl10N r I �• 11"A4 11RI e • , `^� �7 ��i,� r.I - _'_ f _.._... ..n..� PPOJECT 0[lIEl4 I EMT k ` r + g1A6F 1 I ` k 2•EAST ELEVATION 46 ' =I: - ._. ____ -�_. 4_I. _ ��`,�'`� ', ._ -•-'• .. fassocxms 3.SOUTH ELEVATION urea — i MAO. •:l ^ T. `— rum—. s= _ -' �. "OATH ELEVATION NN. ~' A40L POW: 1 r S • FAX COVER SHEET FROM: Doug Wride Total pages in this fax:, 1 FAX: 714-734-9407 PHONE: 714-734-9208 To: Elizabeth Binsack City of Tustin FAX: 714-573-3113 PHONE: 714-573-3031 Re: Mailed notice Dear Ms. Binsack, I was supposed to.find the notice regarding the Temple's festivities for this weekend and fax it to you. Well, the'notice I received-and had in my file was regarding a dance'they had in January. I was aware of the festivities for this weekend due to an article announcing this in the Tustin Weekly a few weeks ago. This article invited one and all to join them. 'On another note, 'I need to let you know that I do not believe that the notice you showed Mike Bova.and me was sent. I would however now like a copy of it. I am sorry to say this, but the first time back in 1992 or 1'993 the necessary notice wasn't sent either. I spoke to a number of my neighbors and none of them received such a notice. Further, I followed up with Tracy Worley, whom you said received-a notice, and she said she did not. She said that you spoke to her directly about the hearing. That does mean that she was aware of it, but it doesn't mean that the rest of us were properly notified. This is consistent with past history. Two of the neighbors that I spoke to are like me and keep files of notices from the City or the Temple that impact them. Neither of these people recalled receiving the notice and they did not have a copy of it in.their files, and neither did 1. I would appreciate understanding how you verify that,the notice was sent. I will get landscape suggestions to you on Monday afternoon. Regards, Doug Wride ii Douglas C. Weide March 11, 19% Mr. Michael I. Schneider Senior Vice President Parsons Brinckerhoff Quade & Douglas, Inc. 505 South Main Street Suite 900 Orange, CA 92668 Dear Michael, I left you a voice.message:last week regarding landscape planting issues at your. Temple on Bryan in Tustin. If you are not the appropriate person to address this issue to, please forward this letter and inform me of the responsible person. Our Association management company spoke to someone at the Temple 2:months ago with no response,.so I picked up the ball in an attempt to get things done. I am contacting you as we successfully worked 'together in the past A number of homeowners in our Monterey Association have notified the Board over the past few months that the North wall of the Temple is quite barren and S not shielded by trees and shrubs as was originally planned. This results in a rather harsh view from the rear'of their homes. I pulled a copy of the final `Planting.Plan', drawing #L-2, and walked the Temple property to better understand what was wrong_ My overall conclusion is that there area number of plantings that are missing. Whether this is the result of A trees and shrubs dying or never being planted, I don't know nor do.1 think it is relevant. Every so often it is necessary to-refresh and replant_ The Monterey Association is currently going.through this very thing along Browning: For your convenience, I have attached a photo copy of the portion of L-2 that I am referring to and have summarized comments below referenced by letters on the enclosed drawing copy. A-There appear to be 2 Bottle Trees.missing at the noted points. Unfortunately, these trees are directly in the shortest line with the Temple. When you look at the.property it is obvious that the gaps between trees is significantly wider at these points. B -There are 2,missing Red Ironbark trees along the south side of the parking area and another along the north side. 2052 Burnt Mill Road, Tustin, California 92680 f There are supposed to be 7 trees,up against the Temple north wall. As you can r see from the deawring, it would leave this wall nicely covered and softened. Currently, there are only 4 trees, none of which are.very large. Certainly, 417ths of the wall is not covered" C -The 2 largest trees along this wall are missing. These were supposed to be 48 inch box size Brisbane Box trees. D -There were supposed to be 5 Red lrohbark trees here. There are only 4 trees and as noted above, they do not appear to be doing very well. One appears to'be.near death and the others are not prospering. For comparison, look at the Red Ironbark trees along the south side of this parking area. They are easily twice as large. Also, I am not sure, but the trees planted along the Temple north wall seem to be different than those on the south side of the parking area. Maybe they are not Red lronbark Regardless, they don't do a very adequate job of covering and softening the Temple north wall. E - Shrubs under the trees discussed in C and'D above were supposed to be numerous, 23 in all. Currently, there are only 6 shrubs in.place and only 1 looks . like it will survive. There may be a drainage or watering problem here that causes these plants to get too much water. Michael, I feel that our two organizations have had a good relationship since we smoothed out the initial bumps. Your Temple has been a good neighbor and I smile when you have big events because it demonstrates the level of positive involvement in your Temple. I have tried to do much of the work for you with this letter and not just complain. I hope that we can resolve these issues easily and timely. As a side mote, you may have noticed that there has been an increased level of graffiti tagging in the area and covering the north wall with trees might make this a less desirable target. Currently, it is a very large blank canvas. If there is anything that I can do to help or answer any questions that you may have, please contact me at 714-734-9208. 1 will await your reply, but will call you if I do not hear from you within a week- Very eekVery truly yours, 1 Douglas . Wride • Director Monterey at Tustin Ranch Homeowners Association Ir N I _I_- L RE Wl is � ��! ' _�'- r �.,,,.�•' � •'' � •.} �. •5 � i MULTIPVRP E ROOM `' , . �= ` ' ' z_ I a[ AND CLA ROOMSo PLAYGROUND . W = EAST. : A SPIIAt—T ACCESS ROAD CL Y IL f'XrSI. CQNCf RIE DRAINACE CHANNEL ! -� moi" EXIST ASPHAL r A0,E.,SS ROAD) E • , February 14, 1999 President Congregation B'nai Israel , 2111 Bryan Avenue Tustin, CA 92782 Dear Neighbor, I am taking the initiative to contact you directly and ensure that we continue our efforts to maintain positive communication between your Congregation and.our neighborhood. Your Congregation hasbe diligent in keeping your,impacted. neighbors aware of late night gatherings and other events. This has been appreciated. 1 would like to make sure that you are aware of a few things and then ask for yodr further cooperation related to landscaping. I would like to make sure that you are-aware that your construction crew has frequently worked into the evening. A few of our neighbors who are directly, impacted behind your construction have requested of the crew that they stop at 6PM in accordance with the Tustin City Ordinance. The crew continues, and I have been informed that the Tustin Police have been called-a few times. The crew has worked as late as SPM. This is not acceptable with small children going to bed early. As you are probably aware, there were certain adjustments made to the landscaping plans of your facility when the original.structure was built 25 feet closer to our back wall than was approved by the City of Tustin. This landscaping is very important to the Monterey at Tustin Ranch Homeowners' Association as some of our homes are looking directly at your structure. Proper landscaping can do a great deal to soften the impact of a 30 foot high wall. When I recently reviewed your.plans on file with the city (reduced copy attached), i found that they are consistent with those generated originally and revisited in 1996. They call for a planted area along the back wall'of the structure. This planted area measures approximately 9 feet wide according to your plans. Also, there are'9 or 10 Melaleuca trees iri 24 inch boxes to be planted along the structure's North wall in the planter. This is fine. My concern is that the curb that remains half way along the rear wall right now is only 5112 feet from the North wall of the structure. This is far too narrow to plant large trees. They will not survive well in this narrow space. It may be that your contractor intends to move this curb out the extra 3112 feet. That would.be great, but l wanted to bring this to your attention before things were so far along that it was difficult to change, if this expansion was not being planned. R Additionally, there are a number of trees that were originally planted along our Y 9 Y back wall that need to be replaced as they have been removed, destroyed or are very unhealthy. In any of these cases, there is no longer a tree at these locations doing the job of blocking your structure from view that was originally intended.. For your convenience, I have enclosed your plan with the problem trees noted. While your landscapers are on site finishing the landscaping for your current construction, this would seem to be a great time to replace the problem trees. It would also be a good time to fertilize and trim al of these trees. As a quick inspection will show, the existing trees are yellow from lack of Iron and other nutrients and in general are not doing too well. A good fertilizing and professional pruning should help.their condition a great deal. Your assistance and cooperation with these matters will be greatly appreciated. If you have any questions or would like to discuss this directly, please feel free to contact me directly. Very truly yours, Douglas C. Wride President Monterey at Tustin Ranch Homeowners Association 2052.Burnt Mill Road Of ice : 714-734-9203 Home : 714-731-6995 . r� r � vktA q ' III di, J. r �. UIMrr7 lllr)r II"J'.MCI. '' •Y- I 5I 'Mf. rrna. -,.rr - ,� rur4raw. 1 . _ r,•-�I � , _� �. �`✓ '�rq rIs ur+inn roar... 1 +roauw.l.o..0 1+j . fir'� � .! '.��vY Yir{� 1 ��r.r-,"?• . I. r ~J � ~ ...... .J �� r! ,S'1-v'•71t�:�ILS ,Z�ILLr.�^++� d.nr o�M+Ir fes.tiwnv ilwl..n 3 1 ;j.. of 1.n w toga r+ �=f�}'�� _ �� f'1�'��Z�•����. ..__ w+l�w 1..*raMa.r 1�.�+ISW � I aO-N nom. ,..1 W_1-1-a a i11.X• -• _wL �'�. � �� � � 'nr�ww pie+�tii��w Ila r ^ 1 I~ r i� ,•I rwM .nl. 1 , /IM rrp,rr f ._ .. -.�.�.. •• - .� Iw�Y►II,MMO.iry 4✓r�,� �• I �� �+r1�MMYfM�K AIIr'FMI h w.ro..�,.r./wua.�. w...rer.y wal.. i,a..n. Cr'la�tsil February 25, 1999 President Congregation B'nai Israel 2111.Bryan Avenue Tustin, CA 927.82 .Dear Neighbor, Unfortunately; you have not responded to my February 14, 1999'letter. At that time the framing had not developed to the.point where it was obvious where the roof would peak and how tall the north facing wall would be. t am now very concerned as your building goes up as it is not what we agreed to back in 1993. The entire compromise that-we achieved when Michael Palmer was in charge of .your Building Committee was that the northern wall of your sanctuary. would be a 12'wall with'a sloping roof away from our homes. I have the blueprints. This would have the peak height reached approx.70' from our back wall. Now with the changes you have made; and we were not informed of, this peak of 25' is 44 feet from our backwall. Combine this with.the 25' mistake made on purpose on the first phase of your building and the peak is now half as far from our property as it was supposed to be. Your cost saving measures to not dig down and have a sloping floor and roof have not been at our expense from a property value standpoint. This is completely unacceptable. What I wrote to you about 2 weeks ago were important neighborly issues. The - building changes issue is far more severe as it has a much greater impact. Very truly yours, Douglas C. Wride President Monterey at Tustin Ranch Homeowners Association 2052 Burnt Mil Road Office : 714-734-9208 Home : 714-731-6995 [2D� • FAX OVER SHEET FROAk Doug Wride Total pages.in this fax: 3 FAX 714734-9-407 PHONE 794-734-9208 To: Karen Peon City of Tusfn FAX 714573-3113 PHONE 794-573-3123 Re: Co�n on Lam PSS Dear Ms. Peters m have attacied 2re o�vw A comments on the,B'nai Israel landscape plans that WS discsssed eadier b:day. If you have any questions, please contact me. Hopefdly ycur ardiftects'workinag on fts prooct,will contact Mr. 'Waldo eight away to disoss our its. Regards, I]oua Wnac March 3, 1999 Ms. Karen Peterson Associate Planner Community Development Department 'City of Tustin ' 300 Centennial Way Tustin, CA 92780 Dear Ms. Peterson, Per your request,'I am summarizing the general areas of concern that we at Monterey of Tustin Ranch have regarding the landscape plans for the B'nai Israel expansion at 2111 Bryan Avenue.The concerns regarding the perceived deficiencies.of these current landscape plans are exacerbated by the previously discussed lack of.maintenance related to the landscaping planted in 1992 and/or 1,993. A quick visit to the property with the original plans as a reference will show that the original shrub and ground cover planting along the north property line is generally dead and gone. A number of the trees are missing or unhealthy due to lack of care. Considering the now modified and larger building and the closeness of this huge building up against our homes, we need the existing tree planting of the,north property border repaired and improved along with an enforceable plan. of maintenance. The general areas of concem with the current landscaping plans, in no particular order, are as follows: 1. Effective sustainable tree softening of the building mass on the west, north and east elevations. These trees should be properly selected; properly planted; and properly maintained so as to flourish and achieve their objective. There is no provision for trees of any kind,on the west elevation. The trees on. the north elevation are not the right choices. These trees are an incompatible mix of drought tolerant (African Sumac) and heavy drinkers (purple'plum). 2. These trees are not sustainable in the narrow planters. These planters are between 3.0' and 5.5' wide. 3. The tree sizes specified are 15 gallon and are generally slow growing. 4. In most areas, the generally drought tolerant trees are planted with heavy water requiring shrubs and ground cover. This causes a major hydrozone compatibility problem that will significantly limit the prospects for success and survival of the landscaping. 5. These trees need the proper planting specifications in the Tustin Ranch heavy clay soils. The. current specification is a death certificate for most of the trees which is evidenced by the current condition of the trees planted six ® years ago. They need drainage sumps augured along with new good soil used to fill the hole. 6. The irrigation plan needs to consider the different needs of the trees and the other plants. Has there been any consideration of how the current landscape plan complies with AB325? 7. The lighting in the new parking areas and along.the newly constructed structures needs to comply with the restrictions originally laid out by ft Planning Commission as to height and location so as to minimize the impact on our neighborhood. I have reviewed these plans in detail with my neighbor, Dale Waldo, who is a landscape architect'by profession. Mr. Waldo is our expert in this area and as we discussed today; I propose that the landscape architect that is working,on-the City's'behalf reviewing this project contact Mr. Waldo directly to discuss our concerns in greater detail. Mr. Waldo has copies of some of the plans that I picked up from the City today. Mr. Waldo's office'phone number is 7,14-730-3947. He would like to discuss these plans and would be willing to meet with your architect, if that is necessary. I appreciate your cooperation on this matter. If you have any questions; please contact me. Very truly yours, . . Dougal C. Wride , President Monterey at Tustin,Ranch Homeowners Association h • l` l 1 tl r.r r�—vv—� .+c oa .•moo r11 0,L_U 1 1 L. CH 1 rsmr4 ( L'+ 25JO JJD10 Y. F9"L . 1 Law Offices Of Scott G. Nathan 825 N. Parkcenter Drive, Suite 110 Santa Ana, California 927050i Telephone (714)'834-1500 March 31, 1999 Mr. Douglas C. Wride _ President Monterey at Tustin Ranch Homeowners Association 2052 Burnt Mill Rd., Tustin, CA 92780, Dear Mr. Wride: 1 am.In receipt of your February 14, 1999 and February 25, 1999 letters. l had hoped to respond to these letters sooner, but I wish to assure you that.] have used this time to delve into and act on many of the issues brought up in your two letters. First,i want to start by letting you know that as a neighbor of the Monterey at Tustin Ranch Homeowners Association, Congregation B'nal Israel, has and will.continue to act.as a good neighbor. It has always boon our practice to allow members of your community to use our parking lot whenever requested. The hours of work have been posted, and the construction workers are continually told the proper hours of construction. It is my understanding that there have not been complaints for quite some time, and it is my understanding that the biggest violation of the hours of work occurred at a time when weather conditions caused the curing time for our concrete foundation to require workers be present after the posted work hours. I apologize€or any inconvenience that may have been caused. Since receiving your,letter,we have re-doubled our efforts to be sensitive to this issue and we will continue to,be vigilant regarding the hours of work. As concerns our landscaping,we have hired a landscape company to prune our trees and give us advice on planting and maintenance around our property. In and around our construction site, we intend to plant new trees. To the northwest of our ' property,there is a tree which has been cut low and we have been advised that it will, grow back faster if we leave the tree in place and it should fill in this area quicker than if we were to plant a new tree: All-other trees are within the construction area and are being dealt with during construction. The design of our new sanctuary took into consideration numerous neighborly concerns. First. and foremost, our original design was to have a glass wall with a Attachment L c�rrc—db—`39 TUE 03:49 PM SCOTT G. NATHAN 714 835 3350 P. 03 block screen wail facing your homeowners association. However,It was decided that the light intrusion and sound intrusion would not be "neighborly." instead, design revisions were made to omit the glass. Additionally,stucco color changes were made • and an offset on the roof line was planned by the architect. Ail of our pians were brought to the Planning Commission and at the meeting, which was attended by . people from your Association who spoke at this meeting, the plans for our building were approved. Last, I must take exception to your characterization of our intentionally building our synagogue in the wrong area. This simply was not the case and has never been raised as an allegation before. We plan to continue to act as good neighbors; and I welcome your contacting me at any time to discuss issues between our congregation and your homeowners association. i ask that you please let me know by phone when you send a letter to me as I am not at the temple on a regular basis. Should you have any questions or comments, please feel free to contact me at any time. i Very truly yours, Scott G. Nathan President Congregation S'nal Israel SON:= j cc: Elisabeth Binsack i Community Development Director City of Tustin Running Commission 's 300 Centennial Way s Tustin, CA 92780 i ITEM #7 SATE: APRIL 12, 1998 I n t e'r- C O m 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: 1. Development Review Status Report-- Citywide 2. East Tustin Residential Development Monitoring Report Staff would be happy to respond to any questions the Commission may have at the meeting. (Caren Peterson Acting Senior Planner Attachments: East Tustin Residential Report Development Review Status Report EAB:ks Ap erep a rt slstatre pt COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT CURRENT PLANNING PROJECT STATUS - NOT INCLUDING EAST TUSTIN PROJECTS PROJECT STATUS LEGEND DATE OF REPORT: April 6, 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 APPLICANT PROJECT ADDRESS DESCRIPTION STATUS DATE DUE STAFF CUP99-006 Stella Voldman 1077 MAIN ST Music School 01 03/15/99 04/05/99 Brad Evanson CUP99-007 American Senior Living 1101 SYCAMORE AV 60-Unit Senior Housing Project 01 03/26/99 04/15/99 Justina Wilkhom DR 99-004 Jahangeer Shahidzadeh 465 6TH ST Remodel/Room Addition 01 03/10/99 03/31/99 Brad Evanson DR 99-006 American Senior Living 1101 SYCAMORE AV 60-Unit Senior Housing Project 01 03/29/99 04/15/99 Justina Wilkhom DR 99-008 Mark Rivera 17821 17TH ST Roof-Mounted Wireless Facility 01 03/26/99 04/15/99 Minoo Ashabi GPA99-002 American Senior Living 1101 SYCAMORE AV MDR to HDR 01 03/26/,99 04/15/99 Justina Wilkhom VAR99-001 American Senior Living 1101 SYCAMORE AV 60-Unit Senior Housing 01 03/26/99• 04/15/99 Justina Wilkhom ZC 99-003 American Senior Living 1101 SYCAMORE AV R-4 to R-3 01 03/26/99 04/15/99 Justina Wilkhom CUP99-002 Consolidated Restaurants 13922 RED HILL AV New Drive-thru Restaurant 02 03/31/99 04/21/99 Brad Evanson DR 99-001 Consolidated Restaurants 13922 RED HILL AV New Drive-thru Restaurant 02 03/31/99 04/21/99 Brad Evanson 5 SCE99-001 Consolidated Restaurants 13922 RED HILL AV Retain Existing Pole Sign Base 02 03/31/99 04/21/99 Brad Evanson CUP98-018 Orange County Rescue Miss MCAS PA3 Emergency/Transitional Housing 03 09/03/98 Lori Ludi CUP98-030 Enterprise Rent-A-Car 3097 EDINGER ST Sign Plan Amendment 03 12/15/98 Brad Evanson CUP90-036 Ability Plus 250 EL CAMINO REAL Ability Plus Expansion 03 03/04/99 Brad Evanson CUP99-005 Joe MacPherson 36 AUTO CENTER DR Banquet facility at auto museum. 03 03/30/99 Minoo Ashabi DR 98-018 Orange County Rescue Miss MCAS PA3 Emergency/Transitional Housing 03 09/03/98 Lori Ludi DR 98-022 William B.-Standford O.D. 190 EL CAMINO REAL Remodel 03 09/25/98 Karen Peterson DR 98-024 ASL Consulting Engineers 235 E MAIN ST Reservoir and parking 03 10/01/98 Lori Ludi DR 98-032 Arther Masaoka 140 A ST Demo/New Residence 03 01/07/99 Karen Peterson 'DR 98-034 DeBeikas/Jeff Bergsma 765 EL CAMINO REAL Exterior Rehab 03 02/17/99 Lori Ludi DR 98-036 Hal Woods 12569 NEWPORT AV New Building 03 01/19/99 Lori Ludi ZC 98-006 Hal Woods 12569 NEWPORT AV New Building 03 01/19/99 Lori Ludi ZC 99-002 Joe MacPherson 36 AUTO CENTER DR Amendment to PC to allow banquet facilities. 03 03/30/99 Minoo Ashabi Page 1 • � ' STATUS RESPONSE CASE APPLICANT PROJECT ADDRESS DESCRIPTION STATUS DATE DUE STAFF CUP98-007 Alegre Associates 12972 NEWPORT AV Appeal Lube/Oil Facility 04.2 04/12/99 Lori Ludi CUP98-022 Jack Stanaland .13011 NEWPORT AV Add parking on vacant-ROW 04.2 04/12/99 Justin Willkom' CUP98-037 David Smith/Bally Fitness 630 EL CAMINO REAL Health Club 04.2 04/12/99 Lori Ludi CUP99-004 Pacific Bell Wireless 14451 MYFORD RD Modification of existing cell site. 04.2 04/12/99 Minoo Ashabi DR 98-007 'Alegre Associates 12972 NEWPORT AV Appeal - Lube/Oil Facility 04.2 04/12/99 Lori Ludi DR 98-026 Jack Stanaland 13011 NEWPORT AV Add parking on vacant ROW 04.2 04/12/99 Justina Willkom DR 99-007 City of Tustin Commuter Rail Platform' 04.2 05/10/99 Scott Reekstin CUP95-001 First Korean Baptist Chur 14272 CHAMBERS RD Church, Amend conditions fob sidewalk 05 02/23/98 Minoo Ashabi CUP97-005 Bennett Architects 535 E MAIN ST Appeal Carwash/Service Station/Retail 05 12/01/97 Karen Peterson CUP97-018 Mondu Suzay, Corp 13.931 CARROLL WY ABC Type 41/Outdoor Seating 05 11/17/97 Brad Evanson CUP98-024 Ultraneon Sign Co. 17260 E 17TH ST Master Sign Plan 05 11/23/98 Brad Evanson CUP98-028 Dr. Craig/Dr. Lavach 2955 EDINGER ST Veterinary Hospital at Jamboree Plaza 05 01/05/99 Brad Evanson CUP98-029 Larry Smith 14131 RED HILL AV Red Hill Restaurant/Lounge/ABC/LE O5 03/08/99 Lori Ludi CUP99-003 Craig Wasserman 675 EL CAMINO ILEAL Entertainment Permit 05 03/22/99 Scott Reekstin DR 96-007 Chevron'USA 13052 NEWPORT AV Soil Remediation 05 04/01/96 Brad Evanson DR 96-009 Jack Carland 17421 JACARANDA AV Residential Remodel- 05 . 02/29/96 Brad Evanson . DR 97-009 Bennett Architects 535 E MAIN ST Appeal Carwash/Service Station/Retail 05 12/01/97 Karen Peterson DR 98-013 McCausland, Charles & Ali 135 S A ST Second Dwelling Unit 05 02/09/99 Minoo Ashabi DR 98-023 Custom Signs, Inc. 1091 OLD IRVINE BL Neon Sign, Paint/Reface pole sign 05 09/14/98 Brad Evanson DR 98-025 Media One Power Supply Cabinets in ROW 05 02/17/99 Justina Willkom DR 98-030 Arnold Sarfas 145 IST ST Exterior Modification 05 01/14/99 Minoo Ashabi DR 99-002 John & Dori Radice 180 A ST Porch Addition 05 03/01/99 Minoo Ashabi GPA99 001 Elmer Tiedje 15500 TUSTIN VILLAGE GPA "UNC" to "HDR" 05 03/01/99 Brad Evanson TPM94-154 Valley Consultants, Inc. 174 E MAIN ST two lot subdivision 05 08/05/96 Brad Evanson TPM97-117 Bennett Architects 535 E MAIN ST Carwash/Service Station/Retail 05 12/01/97 Karen Peterson VAR98-004 Sullivan Property Managem 16661 MC FADDEN AV increase Fence Height in Front 05 11/09/98 Minoo Ashabi CUP96-020 Service Station Services 13891 RED HILL AV Time Extension - Station Remodel 06 07/06/98 Minoo Ashabi _CUP97-028 Batla Food Group 14601 RED HILL AV Appeal 4,000 s.f. Burger King/Demo vacant Wel 06 12/07/98 Brad Evanson 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 Justina Willkom CUP96-026 Alex Gaon 500 C ST Medical office use in R-3 zone. 06 03/24/99 Minoo Ashabi CUP98-031 Akira Takashio 658 EL CAMINO REAL Restaurant ABC 06 02/25/99 Justina Willkom DR 95-044. Michael A. Murphy & Assoc 2832 DOW AV Parking Lot Expansion 06 11/20/98 Justina Willkom DR 96-031 Service Station Services 13891 RED HILL AV Time Extension - Station Remodel 06 07/06/98 Minoo Ashabi 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 97-036 Batla Food Group 14601 RED HILL AV Appeal 4,000 s.f. Burger King/Demo vacant Wel 06 12/07/98 Brad Evanson Page 2 STATUS RESPONSE CASE 0 APPLICANT PROJECT ADDRESS DESCRIPTION STATUS DATE DUE STAFF DR 98-006 The Meridian Group 3017 EDINGER ST Service Station/Cony. Market/Drive-thru 06 02/10/99 Karen Peterson DR 98-021 Warmington Homes 765 EL CAMINO REAL 36 Single Family Detached 06 12/07/98 Lori Ludi DR 98-028 KRULL, BARBARA J. 1091 BRYAN AV, 60 Student Preschool 06 01/11/99 Justina Willkom DR 98-033 Office Depot 13721 NEWPORT AV Office Depot/Remodel 06 02/08/99 Lori Ludi DR 98-037 Jerry Soxman/Leslie Mitch 13792 MALENA DR Room Addition/Remodel 06 02/09/99 Justin wilkom SCE98-003 PBMS 2521 MICHELLE DR Increase sign area 06 10/28/98 Lori Ludi TT 15707 Warmington Homes 765 EL CAMINO REAL 38 Single Family Detached 06, 12/21/98 Lori Ludi CUP96-011 Kitty & Scott Siino 115 E 2ND ST 1,485 8-t- Olfice/Commercial 07 10/24/97 Brad Evanson CUP96-019 James Kincannon 14752 HOLT AV 10 Person Rest Home 07 04/16/98 Lori Ludi CUP97•-006 Richard Rengel 333 EL CAMINO REAL Office Addition 07 02/09/99 Karen Peterson CUP98-001 South Coast Farms 515 EL CAMINO REAL Farm & Produce Stand 07 03/09/98 Minoo Ashiba CUP98-010 NEXTEL COMMUNICATIONS, IN 550 W 6TH ST Appeal - 57 foot mono pole/palm 07 02/22/99 Brad Evanson CUP98-021 IEA 630 E IST ST New monument signs 07 09/28/98 Minoo Ashabi DR 95-037 Ralph Turner 235 S MYRTLE ST Remodel/Addition 07 02/05/96 Karen Peterson DR 96-020 Kitty & Scott Siino- 115 E 2ND ST 1,485 s.f. Office/Commercial 07 10/24/97 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 O 328 W 3RD ST Roof Remodel 07 01/17/97 Karen Peterson 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 B ST Room Addition 07 10/01/97 Karen Peterson DR 97-015 J.M. Consulting Group 900 W 1ST ST Cell Site in Existing Sign 07 12/08/97 Karen Peterson DR 97-016 California Pacific Equiti EDINGER ST 125,000 s.f Center Buildout 07 06/29/98 Brad Evanson 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 98-008 NEXTEL COMMUNICATIONS, IN 550 W 6TH ST Appeal 57 foot mono pole/palm 07 02/22/99 Brad Evanson DR 98-014 FF Development, LLC 1602 NISSON RD Orange Gardens - Parking Lot/Remove 10 Units 07 10/22/98 Brad Evanson DR 98-017 BORUSKY, THOMAS J 160 N B ST Residential Remodel 07 08/19/98 Lori Ludi VAR98-005 E/C Engineering 1452 EDINGER ST Equipment Building encroaching into Streetsid 07 02/17/99 Minoo Ashabi *** END OF REPORT Page 3 • • COMMUNITY D PMENT DEPARTMENT CURRENT PLANNING PROJECT STATUS - EAST TUSTIN PROJECTS PROJECT STATUS LEGEND DATE OF REPORT: April 6, 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. 12/13/98 Karen Peterson 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 CUP98-032 'Stuart Anderson's Amendment-Marketplace Sign Program 05 01/11/99 Brad Evanson DR 97-019 Rielly Homes, Inc. 19 12870 Add New Recreation Facility 05 02/23/98 Karen Peterson • 3 DR 97-026 Jeffery A. Matzek & Assoc 15 Office/Classroom Addition Phase 2 05 02/23/98 Karen Peterson DR 98-031 Frank Bennett Development of 2 pads in Tustin Annex OS 03/22/99 Lori Ludi TT 15574 Rielly Homes, Inc. 19 12870 Add New Recreation Facility/Amend Map 05 03/02/98 Karen Peterson CUP91-008 Lewis Homes of California 8 13627 3rd Amend. Cluster Development (LOTS 7/8) 07 11/25/96 Brad Evanson CUP96-004 Lewis Homes of California 8 13627 Cluster Development 07 05/28/96 Brad Evanson CUP96-032 Catellus Residential Grou 11 13627 122 efd-Cluster Development 07 02/24/97 Brad Evanson CUP97.-001 Baywood Development Group 53 ofd cluster development. 07 09/22/97 Brad Evanson _ _CUP98-012 City of Tustin Lighting for Roller Hockey and Basketball Cou 07 06/01/98 Minoo Ashabi, DR 96-037^ Lewis Homes of California 8 13627 New SFD Product .(Lots 7/8) 07 11/25/96 Brad Evanson DR 96-045 Catellus Residential Grou 11 13627 122 sfd/3 products 07 - 02/24/97 Brad Evanson DR 96-050 Mr. Mel Mercado 27 13627 162 SFD 07 01/19/98 Minoo Ashabi DR 96-054 The Irvine Company 24 13627 113 Custom Home Sites, Equestrian Center 07 02/12/98 Karen Peterson DR 96-057 John Laing Homes 4 12870 75 SFD 07 04/16/98 Lori Ludi DR 97-001 Baywood Development Group 53 sfd cluster development 07 09/22/97 Lori Ludi DR 97-014 LPA, Inc. Auto dealer/museum 07 04/09/98 Minoo Ashabi DR 97-030 Kaufman & Broad Coastal, 19 13627 130 SFD 07 04/16/98 Lori Ludi DR 97-035 Warmington Homes 26 13627 44, sfd 07 07/09/98 Karen Peterson Page 1 PROJECT LOCATION STATUS RESPONSE ' CASE N APPLICANT LOT TRACT DESCRIPTION STATUS DATE DUE STAFF DR 98-010 The Good Guys 2,700 s.f. addition 07 10/19/98 Minoo Ashabi DR 98-012 BrookField Homes 9 13627 114 sfd 07 12/07/98 Karen Peterson DR 98-015 Standard Pacific 24 13627 46 sfd on Tract 15563 07 10/15/98 Karen Peterson DR 98-027 James H. Parkinson Exterior remodel/Remove canopy 4 office build 07 10/01/98 Lori Ludi HR 95-001 Lewis Homes of California B 13627 2nd Amend. Hillside Review (LOTS 7/8) 07 11/25/96 Brad Evanson HR 96-001 Catellus Residential Grou 11 13627 122 sfd 07 03/17/97 Brad Evanson HR 96-002 The Irvine Company 24 13627 113 Custom Home Sites, Equestrian Center 07 02/12/98 Karen Peterson HR 98-001 Warmington Homes 26 13627 HILLSIDE REVIEW 07 06/01/98- Karen Peterson HR 98-002 BrookField Homes 9 13627 114 efd 07 12/07/98 Karen Peterson MA 99-001 Irvine Community Developm Minor adjustment for gate height. 07 92/04/99 Brad Evanson TT 14396 Irvine Community Developm 24 13627 113 Custom Home Sites, Equestrian Center 07 02/12/98 Karen Peterson TT 14410 Lewis Homes of California 8 13627 2ND AMENDMENT 171 SFD (LOTS 7/8) 07 12/16/96 Brad Evanson TT 14797 CATELLUS RESIDENTIAL GROU 11 13627 122 Ofd 07 03/17/97 Brad Evanson TT 15380 Mr. Mel Mercado 27 13627 162 SFD, Amend Conditions 07 01/19/98 Minoo Ashabi TT 15420 John Laing Homes 4 12870 75 SFD 07 01/30/98 Lori Ludi TT 15427 Baywood Development Group Amend Conditions, 53 sfd cluster development 07 08/17/98 Lori Ludi TT 15568 Kaufman & Broad Coastal, 19 13627 130 SED 07 04/16/98 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 VAR97-002 LPA, Inc. Reduce rear,setback/increase height 07 04/09/98 Minoo Ashabi •+* END OF REPORT **� Page 2 ITEM #8 Oepo-rt to the Planning Commission DATE: APRIL 12, 1999 , , . SUBJECT: CITY COUNCIL ACTION AGENDA, APRIL•5, 1999 PRESENTATION: ELIZABETH A. BINSACK, DIRECTOR COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT • ATTACHMENT: CITY COUNCIL ACTION AGENDA-APRIL 5, 1999 1 ACTION AGENDA CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING APRIL 5,.1999 7:04 P.M. CALL TO ORDER GIVEN INVOCATION— Mayor Saltarelli PRESENTED PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE - Cub Scout Pack 217, Den 1 COLORS THOMAS ABSENT ROLL CALL PRESENTED PROCLAMATION - James Taylor,'Student.Correspondence to White House'- PRESENTED ouse-PRESENTED PRESENTATION Santa Cop Contributor Plaques: Temple- Inland Mortgage Co:, David Schweickert and Michael Doner PUBLIC INPUT AL POTENZA: COMPLAINED ABOUT NUMBER-OF STOLEN VEHICLES IN TUSTIN MEADOWS; BELIEVED THAT REACTIVE POLICE DEPARTMENT, NUMEROUS GARAGE SALES; AND TRASH SCAVENGERS CONTRIBUTED - TO THE CRIME, AND REQUESTED PUBLIC AWARENESS CAMPAIGN AND POSTING OF SIGNS PROHIBITING TRASH SCAVENGING STEVE GOULD: REPRESENTING SYCAMORE - GLEN HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION, REPORTED ON LAWSUIT FILED BY HOME OWNERS AGAINST.THE DEVELOPER TO CORRECT MAJOR CODE COMPLIANCE BUILDING DEFECTS; BELIEVED THAT CITY INSPECTORS FAILED . TO CONDUCT PROPER INSPECTIONS DURING CONSTRUCTION OF HOMES; AND REQUESTED THAT. ' THE CITY REIMBURSE ' THE HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION FOR THE $8,700 COST OF RECONSTRUCTION PERMIT FEES. STAFF WILL INVESTIGATE BACKGROUND OF PROJECT AND SUBMIT REPORT Action Agenda—City Council April 5, 1999 — Page 1 RAY MILLS: COMMENDED CITY COUNCIL FOR PARTICIPATION IN ORANGE COUNTY TAXI ADMINISTRATION PROGRAM; SUBMITTED BROCHURE REGARDING SAFE AND ECONOMICAL USE OF TAXICABS; AND REQUESTED HIS COMPANY, YELLOW CAB, BE GRANTED EXCLUSIVE TAXI CAB OPERATION IN TUSTIN PUBLIC HEARING ( ITEMS 1 THROUGH 2 ) UPHELD PLANNING 1. APPEAL OF CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 98-029 COMMISSION'S (APPLICANT: LARRY SMITH, RED HILL RESTAURANT, APPROVAL INC.) The applicant is requesting authorization to establish on- site sale and consumption of beer, wine and distilled spirits (ABC license Type "47) in conjunction with a new restaurant located at 14131 Red Hill. Avenue. Alcoholic beverage - sales establishments are, permitted in association with a restaurant use subject to approval of a conditional use permit (CUP). On March 8, 1999, the Planning Commission approved CUP 98-029. On March 15, 1999, the City Council appealed the Planning Commission's decision on the CUP. • Recommendation by the Community Development Department: 1. Open and close the Public Hearing. 2. Pleasure of the City Council. ADOPTED , 2. ADOPTION OF RESOLUTION ADOPTING A PROCEDURE RESOLUTION FOR THE FORMATION AND ELECTION OF A PROJECT NO. 9927 AREA COMMITTEE City Council approval.: is requested to adopt a Procedure for Formation and Election of a Project Area Committee, a required action in connection with the proposed 1999 Amendment to the Redevelopment Plan for the South Central Redevelopment Project Area, which would re- establish the Redevelopment Agency's eminent domain authority. Recommendation by the Redevelopment staff: 1. Open and close the Public Hearing. Action Agenda— City Council April 5, 1999— Page 2 2. Adopt the following Resolution No. 99-27: RESOLUTION NO. 99-27 - A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN� CALIFORNIA, ADOPTING A PROCEDURE FOR FORMATION AND. ELECTION OF THE PROJECT AREA COMMITTEE IN CONNECTION WITH THE 1999 AMENDMENT TO THE REDEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR THE SOUTH CENTRAL REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT CONSENT CALENDAR ( ITEMS 3 THROUGH 13 } APPROVED 3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES — MARCH 15, 1999 REGULAR MEETING Recommendation: Approve the City Council Minutes of March. 15, 1999. APPROVED 4. APPROVAL OF DEMANDS AND RATIFICATION OF PAYROLL Recommendation: Approve Demands' in the amount of $5,647,637.85 and ratify Payroll in the amount of $371,698.61. RATIFIED 5. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION AGENDA — MARCH 2211999 • All actions of the .Planning Commission become final unless appealed by the City Council or member of the public. Recommendation: Ratify the Planning Commission Action Agenda of March 22, 1999. APPROVED 6. EXTENSION OF SAFE RIDES PROGRAM CONTRACT Recommendation: Grant an extension of the Facilities Use Agreement to June 28, 1999, for the Safe Rides Program as recommended by the Police Department. RECEIVED 7. CODE COMPLIANCE EVALUATION OF THE RED HILL AND FILED NEIGHBORHOOD SHOPPING CENTERS Recommendation: Receive and file subject report as recommended by . the Community Development Department. ADOPTED 8. RESOLUTION NO. 99-20 - A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY RESOLUTION COUNCIL'OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA, NO. 99-20 APPROVING PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE WELL SITE FACILITIES • UPGRADES (CITY PROJECT NO. 600077), AND Action Agenda —City Council April 5,11999 — Page 3 AUTHORIZING ADVERTISEMENT FOR BIDS Recommendation: Adopt Resolution No. 99-20 approving• plans and specifications and authorizing advertisement for bids for subject project- as recommended by the Public Works Department/Water Services Division. APPROVED 9. AMENDMENT NO. 2 TO EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT Recommendation: Approve Amendment No. 2 to Employment Agreement, City Manager, to provide for salary compensation.. ADOPTED 10. RESOLUTION NO. 99-24 - A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY RESOLUTION COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA, NO. 99-24 AUTHORIZING .THE DESTRUCTION OF CERTAIN RECORDS Recommendation: Adopt Resolution . No. 99-24 authorizing destruction of recruitment files that are over two .years old and .no longer legally required to be maintained as recommended -by Personnel Services. APPROVED 11. DENIAL OF CLAIM NO. 99-7, CLAIMANT:, . MARY ANN , LYNCH Recommendation: Deny subject claim and direct the City Clerk to send notice to the claimant and the claimant's attorney, as recommended by the City Attorney. APPROVED ' 12. RECLASSIFICATION OF OFFICE COORDINATOR POSITION Recommendation: Authorize the reclassification of the Office Coordinator in the Police Department.to Executive Secretary to more correctly 'align it to the current job responsibilities ' as , recommended by the Police Department. APPROVED '13. CITY OF TUSTIN RESPONSE TO COUNTY OF ORANGE'S SUPPLEMENTAL ANALYSIS FOR ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 563 PERTAINING TO THE MCAS EL TORO MASTER DEVELOPMENT PLAN Recommendation: Authorize staff to forward the draft response to the County's Notice of Availability of the Supplemental Information prepared in support of Environmental Impact Report (EIR) No. 563 for the Marine 'Corps Air Station (MCAS) EI Toro "38 Million Annual Passenger (MAP)" Master Plan Development as recommended by the Redevelopment Agency staff. 4 Action Agenda—City Council April 5, 1999— Page 4 1- REGULAR BUSINESS ( ITEMS 14 THROUGH 16 ) RECEIVED 14. YEAR 2000 PLAN STATUS REPORT • AND FILED The year 2000 (Y2K) issue involves systems and electronics that use calendar dates within their software. Key management City staff has been meeting regularly and working together since; last year to address potential Y2K problems. Recommendation: Receive and file subject report as recommended by the Finance and Community Development Departments. APPROVED 15. GRAD NIGHT FUNDING REQUEST $2,500 TO EACH SCHOOL. Tustin and Foothill High Schools are each requesting a (2-0 TS JP AB) $2,500 donation_ from the City to support Grad Night activities. ' Recommendation: Pleasure of the City Council RECEIVED 16. ORANGE COUNTY FIRE AUTHORITY (OCFA) EQUITY AND FILED STUDY . The Orange County Fire Equity Study was prepared in order to address the issue of whether members of OCFA are paying a fair share of the cost of providing regional fire services. The study, a copy of which is included in the report, includes various options for costing services' and recommends a method which results in the cost to the City of Tustin identified in the Fiscal Impact section., OCFA members have been asked to provide comments regarding the study by this month. The comments will be reviewed by a committee of the OCFA's Board of Directors. The 'committee's recommendations are scheduled to be considered by the OCFA Board of Directors in June. Recommendation by the City Manager.: 1. Respond to each of the Equity Study's recommendations (summarized in the staff report and on pages 7 and 8of the Equity Study). 2. Direct staff to-forward the City Council's comments Action Agenda—City Council April 5, 1999— Page 5 regarding the Equity Study to the OCFA' Board of Director's committee, which will- submit final recommendations to the full Board in June. 3. Direct staff to submit a report to the City Council following action by the OCFA Board of Directors on the .Equity Study. The Tustin staff report, which could be 'finalized` by Fall 1999, would provide the City Council with options for fire services. This would entail an analysis of service levels/costs for options to whatever final action is taken by the OCFA Board of Directors on the Equity Study. NONE PUBLIC INPUT OTHER BUSINESS / COMMITTEE REPORTS DOYLE: INTRODUCED EDDIE BURCH, NEW CHAMBER . OF COMMERCE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, AND COMMENDED THE CHAMBER OF COMMERCE'S NEWSLETTER REPORTED THAT MAYOR PRO TEM WORLEY WOULD HAVE MINOR THROAT SURGERY ON APRIL 6TH AND WISHED HER POSITIVE THOUGHTS WORLEY: REPORTED. SHE HAD RECEIVED COMPLAINTS REGARDING STREET SWEEPERS UNABLE TO PROPERLY CLEAN DUE TO PARKED CARS AND QUESTIONED THE PROCESS FOR ISSUING CITATIONS. STAFF RESPONDED THAT A NEIGHBORHOOD PETITION WOULD BE REQUIRED REPORTED THAT TUSTIN OLD. TOWN -ASSOCIATION NEEDED FINANCIAL SUPPORT AND ENCOURAGED THE COUNCIL AND STAFF TO CONTINUE WORKING WITH AND ` SUPPORTING THIS WORTHWHILE ORGANIZATION POTTS: NOTED HE WAS IMPRESSED WITH COMPLETED FENCING -ALONG MCFADDEN AVENUE -AND, WITH FUTURE LANDSCAPING, THE AREA WOULD BE GREATLY IMPROVED REPORTED THAT TCA WOULD BE REQUESTING THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPT A RESOLUTION OPPOSING SENATOR HAYDEN'S BILL REGARDING DEVELOPMENT IN STATE PARKS Action Agenda —City'Council April 5, 1999—Page 6 1 - r SALTARELLI. REMINDED EVERYONE THAT SELECTION OF THE MAYOR WOULD TAKE PLACE ON APRIL 19, AND THE PUBLIC WAS INVITED TO ATTEND 'THE MAYOR'S RECEPTION IMMEDIATELY FOLLOWING THE MEETING • COMMENDED COUNCILMEMBER POTTS FOR HELPING TO SAVE THE LIFE OF AN INDIVIDUAL TRAPPED IN A BURNING AUTOMOBILE NONE , CLOSED SESSION - None 8:48'P.M. -ADJOURNMENT - The next regular meeting of the City Council is scheduled for Monday, April 19, 1999, at 7:00 p.m: in the Council Chamber at 300 Centennial Way. The Mayor's Reception will be held in the- Community Center immediately following t.he meeting. e Action Agenda =City Council April 5 1999—Page 7 ACTION AGENDA REGULAR MEETING OF THE TUSTIN COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY APRIL 5, 1999 8:48 P.M. CALL TO ORDER THOMAS ABSENT ROLL CALL REGULAR BUSINESS (.ITEMS 1 THROUGH 2 ) APPROVED 1. APPROVALOF MINUTES — MARCH, 1.5, 1999 REGULAR MEETING Recommendation: Approve the Redevelopment Agency Minutes of iMarch 15, 1999. APPROVED 2. APPROVAL OF DEMANDS Recommendation: Approve Demands in the amount of $245,978.49. NONE OTHER BUSINESS NONE CLOSED SESSION - None ,. 8:48 P.M. ADJOURNMENT - The. next regular meeting of the Redevelopment Agency is scheduled for Monday, April 19, 1999, at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chamber at 300 Centennial Way. Action Agenda—Redevelopment Agency April 5, 1999—Page 1