Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout03-22-99 PC PACKET AGENDA TUSTIN PLANNING COMMISSION ._ t REGULAR MEETING ` MARCH 22, '1999 CALL TO ORDER: 7:00 p.m., City Council Chambers PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: Chairperson Pontious INVOCATION: Commissioner Davert ' ROLL CALL: Chairperson Pontious, Browne, Davert, Kozak PUBLIC CONCERNS: (Limited to 3minutes per person for items not on the agenda.) At this -time members - of the public may address -the Commission regarding any items not on the agenda and within the subject matter jurisdiction of the Commission (NO action can be taken off-agenda items unless authorized by law). IF YOU WISH TO ADDRESS THE COMMISSION ON ANY MATTER, PLEASE FILL OUT- ONE. OF THE CARDS LOCATED ON THE SPEAKER'S TABLE SO THAT YOUR REMARKS ON THE TAPE RECORDING OF THE MEETING CAN BE ATTRIBUTED TO YOU. WHEN YOU, START TO " ADDRESS THE COMMISSION, PLEASE STATE YOUR FULL NAME AND ADDRESS FOR-THE RECORD. r IF YOU REQUIRE-SPECIAL ACCOMMODATIONS, PLEASE CONTACT THE PLANNING COMMISSION SECRETARY AT (714) 573-3106. CONSENT CALENDAR: (ALL MATTERS LISTED UNDER CONSENT CALENDAR ARE CONSIDERED ROUTINE.AND WILL BE ENACTED BY ONE MOTION. THERE WILL BE NO SEPARATE DISCUSSION 'OF THESE ITEMS PRIOR TO THE TIME OF THE VOTING ON THE MOTION UNLESS MEMBERS OF THE COMMISSION, STAFF OR PUBLIC REQUEST SPECIFIC ITEMS TO BE DISCUSSED ANDIOR REMOVED FROM ' THE CONSENT CALENDAR FOR SEPARATE ACTION.). CONSENT CALENDAR: 1a Minutes of the March 8, 1999 Planning Commission Meeting. t Planning Commission Agenda March 22, 1999 Page 2 . 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 indoorloutdoor 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: Presentation:Lori Ludi, Associate Planner 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 12901-12943 Newport Avenue in the multiple family residential (R-3) zoning district. APPLICANT: .LACK STANALAND PLAZA LAFAYETTE, LLC OWNER: PLAZA LAFAYETTE, LLC Recommendation Adopt resolution 3662 approving Conditional Use Permit 98-022 and Design Review 98-026. Presentation: Justina Willkom, Associate Planner r Planning Commission Agenda March 22, 1999. Page 3 4.- Conditional Use Permit 99-003 a request to authorize the presentation of live entertainment in conjunction with an existing ,cocktail lounge. The project is located at 672 El 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 PerrT199-003. Presentation:Scott Reekstin, Associate Planner REGULAR BUSINESS: s 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. -APPLICANT: FRANK P. BENNETT BENEVEST DEVELOPMENT GROUP PROPERTY 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. Presentation: Lori Ludi, Associate Planner STAFF CONCERNS: 6. Report on Actions taken at the March 15 1999 Cily Council Meeting Presentation: Elizabeth A. Binsack, Director of Community Development Planning Commission Agenda March 22, 1999 Page 4 COMMISSION CONCERNS: ADJOURNMENT: 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. ITEM; #1 MINUTES TUSTIN PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING MARCH 8, 1999 CALL. TO ORDER: 7:00 p.m.,- City Council Chambers PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: Commissioner Browne INVOCATION: Commissioner Kozak ROLL CALL: Chairperson Pontious, Browne, Davert, Kozak Commissioners Present:- , Chairperson Pontious Kozak Browne Davert ; r` Absent: None Staff: Karen Peterson,,Acting Senior Planner Lois Bobak, Deputy City Attomey , Justina Willkom, Associate Planner Lori Ludi;'Associate Planner Joe Meyers, Senior Management Analyst ; Kathy Martin, Recording Secretary PUBLIC CONCERNS: (Limited to 3 minutes per person for items not on the agenda.) JerryHart,,. VP, Tu'stin Meadows ;Homeowners Association (HOA); asked for the Commission's-support and financial.assistance to raise the height of their,wall.to mitigate noise and air pollution. Chairperson Pontious noted that financial assistance is out of:the Planning Commission's purview-and is a Council issue. Commissioner Browne noted that he received az phone,call from Mrs. Jensenof-the Tustin Meadows HOA and he conveyed her concerns to Karen Peterson. Commissioner Davert stated that Councilman Potts addressed the HOA',s concerns and suggested the residents appear before the City Council;at their next meeting. John Higgins, Peppertree HOA, stated his concerns about railroad noise and noted that there may'be.funding through-OCTA, County or the State and he would be happy to-work with staff on the issue. Planning Commission Minutes March 8, 1999 Page 2 Commissioner Browne noted that the whistle of the train is the concern where he resides and asked Mr. Higgins if that was the case for Peppertree. John Higgins noted that it is the train itself, maintenance of the tracks and acceleration and deceleration of coming into new train station. Commissioner Davert encouraged both homeowners groups to forward their concerns to the"City Council. , CONSENT CALENDAR: 1. Minutes of the February.22, 9999 Planning Commission Meeting_ Commissioner Davert moved, Commissioner Kozak seconded, to approve the February 22, 1999 minutes. Motion carried 4-0. 2. Conditional Use Permit 98-029 a request for authorization of on-site sale of alcoholic beverages (ABC License Type 47) in conjunction with a new restaurant. The project is located at 14131 Red Hill Avenue within the Retail Commercial (C-1, 10,000) zoning district. APPLICANT/ PROPERTY OWNER: LARRY SMITH RED HILL RESTAURANT, INC. Recommendation That the Planning Commission adopt Resolution No. 3655 approving Conditional Use Permit 98-029, as conditioned. If conditions are modified, staff may alter the recommended action. Commissioner Davert pulled this item for discussion and noted that the applicant may have questions on the conditions and staff provided a revised resolution to the Commission. Lori Ludi noted the revisions included the inclusion of coin operated games in Condition 1.11 and revised Condition 2.10 to be more flexible in evaluating the existing guidelines at a future date and further noted that the language was recommended by the City Attorney's office. Michael Cho, attorney for applicant, thanked the Commission and noted Condition 2.14 was never discussed in the two prior Planning Commission meetings and stated that Alcohol Beverage Control has deleted the designation' of eighty (80) percent of the premises requirement. Planning Commission Minutes March 8, 1999 Page 3 Lori Ludi noted that staff used this type of language for restaurants with this type of licensing to ensure that operations are strictly a restaurant and nothing more. Chairperson Pontious stated the.condition is reasonable. Michael Cho stated that the issue was not addressed in prior meetings and ABC is not going to include this condition and asked that it be deleted. Lori Ludi stated that the language is an expansion of an existing condition. Commissioner Browne noted that utensils, table service and condiment dispensers are easily provided. Michael Cho, attorney for applicant, withdrew the request to delete Condition 2.1.4 and stated his understanding of Condition 2.4 was the doors will close but patrons inside the restaurant may remain to complete their meal or dining.experience. He further noted that Bill Wong of Alcohol Beverage Control stated that they would interpret the City's condition regarding closing hours to mean that all sales, service and consumption shall cease at the hours outlined. ABC has proposed conditions that all sales, service and consumption shall cease at midnight Sunday through Thursday and 1:00 a.m. Friday and Saturday. Commissioner Browne asked staff if language could be created to ensure that the ABC understands the Commission's interpretation of the condition. Lois Bobak stated that would create an enforcement problem for the Police Department and believes the applicant's attorney has a good point in .that closed-should mean, all patrons are out of the premises but she does not know how the City regularly enforces this provision in regards to other restaurants. Chairperson Pontious referenced the closing hours of other restaurants in the vicinity. Commissioner Kozak reminded everyone of the sensitive uses in the area and asked if staff had seen conditions from the ABC and inquired if the ABC would be guided by the City's use permit.. Lori Ludi responded that the ABC board has seen the City's draft resolution and staff has seen the ABC's draft conditions. She further noted that ABC will not final their conditions until after the Planning Commission's approval. Commissioner Kozak clarified to the applicant that the ABC has not yet ruled on the hours. Michael Cho indicated that although the Commission will allow the applicant to stay open for an additional hour to allow customers to finish their meals, the ABC'states that at the closing hour, there should be no further service. - Planning Commission Minutes March 8, 1999 Page 4 - Chairperson Pontious noted the Lone Star Steakhouse is also in a sensitive area and was given the closing hours of 10:00 p.m. Sunday through Thursday and 11:00 p.m. Friday and Saturday and proposed that the hours be changed to 1:00 a.m. on Friday and Saturday. Commissioner Davert stated that he was satisfied with the original hours and noted that the Commission has negotiated extensively with the applicant. Michael Cho, attorney for applicant, asked that language be included in the resolution. stating that the City's definition of being closed is not ceasing of sales, service and consumption but rather no new customers and can continue to operate until customers are finished. . Commissioner Davert inquired if the hours could remain the same as proposed but give the applicant a maximum of 30 minutes. Lois Bobak, Deputy City Attorney, responded that from an enforcement standpoint, it is easier to have a time period when the restaurant is closed and all patrons are expected to be out. Commissioner Browne inquired if the Commission could have the CUP indicate one time and tell the ABC it is another time. Lois Bobak, Deputy City Attorney, indicated that the ABC would accept and enforce any condition that the City imposed. Commissioner Davert indicated that the Commission has gone to great lengths to accommodate the applicant without compromising the neighborhood and the applicant can come back with a request for a modification if there is a problem in the future. Michael Cho, attorney for applicant, asked that the record show the Commission's definition of closing because the ABC condition is going to be applied differently. Lois Bobak, Deputy City Attorney, stated she believed that the Commission is adopting ABC's definition of closed, meaning doors are closed with no patrons on the premises. Larry Smith, applicant, stated that, at the prior Commission meeting, he understood that patrons would be allowed to finish their meal which is not indicated in the resolution. Commissioner Pontious indicated that she believed ABC's emphasis was on actual consumption of alcohol. Karen Peterson indicated that Bill- Wong of ABC stated that while the ABC does apply these conditions, there is some flexibility in their enforcement and they recognize some time is needed to close and finish serving patrons. Planning Commission Minutes March 8, 1999 Page 5 Larry Smith, applicant, stated that if ABC conditions state that closing is 11:00 p.m. and there.are drinks on the table, he will be cited. Commissioner Davert indicated that the hours should remain the same with the intent that there Will be no new patrons after closing time., Lois B.obak indicated- that it is important to put, an .bbtside limit •on 'the .hours and suggested that the Commission'add a condition that requires the doors be closed '/Z hour or 45 minutes before the closing time.or .add a Y2,hour onto the closing.time after.the doors are closed. Commissioner. Davert recommended that .the Commission'put a deadline of 30 minutes after the closing hours. Commissioner Kozaksuggested language for Condition 2.4 indicating no patrons on the premises 30-minutes after the-closing time.. . Resolution No. 3655 was changed as follows: Condition 2.4 addition of sentence to read "No new patrons shall,be admitted. after the closing hours and patrons shall vacate the premises within,thirty(30) minutes after closing time." Commissioner Davert moved Commissioner KozW seconded, to adopt Resolution No. 3655 approvin'g Conditional Use Permit 98-029, as revised. Motion carried 4-0. PUBLIC HEARINGS: 3. Above Ground Cabinets besig6 Guidelines and Ordinance The purpose .of these guidelines is to regulate the piacement -and design of -above, ground cabinets in conjunction .with any City_permittedI use of the public dightof--way: These guidelines are intended to reduce the.'potential for-negative environmental impacts of above ground cabinets on the communityand to protect the health, safety,andlor welfare of the citizens of T,ustin.- Recommendation That the Planning Commission adopt Resolution'No. 3652 recommending that the City Council approve.the Above Ground Cabinet Design Guidelines -and Ordiriance No. 1213. The Public Hearing opened at 7:31 p.m. Justina Willkom presented the subject report and described five changes made'to the resolution. Commissioner Kozak stated that the guidelines area great idea and voiced'his'concems regarding property owner notification;,,new boxes in residential communities; graffiti cleanup; allowable heights of cabinets; and, use of a master plan. Planning Commission Minutes . March 8, 1999 Page 6 Karen Peterson responded that staff's intent was to create guidelines to guide staff through any future master plans that might come forward. There are no master plans in house for review at this time. Chairperson Pontious asked if the master plans would come through the Commission at any time or just through the administrator. Karen Peterson replied that master plans would be processed through the Community Development Director through the design review process. She continued to address Commissioner Kozak's comments as follows: the guidelines are intended to apply to new cabinets only; staff can look at establishing different heights for different areas to be more sensitive to residential properties; staff can add a condition regarding graffiti removal and enforcement costs; and notices to adjacent homeowners could be a courtesy notice. Commissioner Kozak stated that if these facilities are allowed in the public right-of-way, at minimum, the property owner should have the opportunity for input., Reed Royalty, Pacific Bell consultant, asked the following questions: • Would the guidelines apply to the phone company? • Would the guidelines apply to the cabinet if less than the 3'x3'x5' standard? • Would the size restriction apply to the volume of the cabinet or the individual dimensions? • Would the twenty (20) percent variation apply to each dimension of the cabinet? Are there any fees involved? • Would the guidelines apply only to cabinets in the public right-of--way or also to cabinets on private property? He further noted that painting the cabinets would void the warranty and noted that the lightspan cabinets used by the phone company are slightly larger than the maximum but save lots of little boxes and trenching through streets.: Chairperson Pontious stated that perhaps testimony should be received and staff can respond and clarify issues. Commissioner Kozak inquired if the guidelines were an urgency matter. Karen Peterson replied that the guidelines are not an urgency matter. Mark Stucky, Cox Communications, noted that the guidelines seem to apply to cabinets larger than 3x3x5 while the resolution seems to set a maximum. size of 3x3x5 but does not address how installations are treated below that size and requested a continuance and workshop. Kim Barone, Southern California Edison, reiterated Cox's and Pacific Bell's comments and asked if the guidelines apply to utilities that are regulated by Public Utilities Commission (PUC) and supports the idea of a workshop. Planning Commission Minutes March 8,'1999 Page 7 Chairperson Pontious .stated that having some technical input at the workshop would be helpful and asked if there are any legal issues on the exclusion or inclusion of utilities under the PUC. Lois Bobak, Deputy City Attorney, stated she is not aware of any legal issues on the exclusion or inclusion of utilities under the PUC but stated that she would be happy to look at any information the utilities can provide the City Attorney's office related to their belief of being exempt from design criteria for facilities located within a public right-of-way. Commissioner Davert stated, his concern that the PUC may regulate cabinet size, appearance, dimensions, etc. Commissioner Kozak stated that perhaps the providers could bring forth information related to their experience with other communities. John Higgins, Peppertree Homeowners Association, stated his concerns about Cox Communications installing boxes without. permits in his front yard; suggested that the terms be decreased to one year for review; design review process should include the association; adjacent property owner's input; and, liability issues. Commissioner Davert stated that he did not wish to have a public hearing for every cabinet to be installed. Chairperson Pontious stated that she would like to see the design guidelines apply to all sizes and volume as opposed to 3x3x5. Commissioner Davert stated that the guidelines presented tonight are a good starting point and more dialogue and technical information would be helpful. Chairperson Pontious asked staff to. meet with the people speaking at the meeting tonight. Commissioner Davert noted that the City Attorney recommended that the Commission have input too and suggested staff be given time to work with the issue and come back with a proposal. Commissioner Browne moved. Commissioner Davert seconded, to continue the hearing to a date uncertain to allow staff the opportunity to meet with interested utilities. Motion carried 4-0. REGULAR BUSINESS: Planning Commission Minutes March 8, 1999 Page'8 STAFF CONCERNS: 4. Report on Actions taken at the March 1, 1999 City Council Meeting Karen Peterson, Acting Senior Planner reported on the subject agenda. COMMISSION CONCERNS: Commissioner Davert Noted that a tent has been up for months in the driveway at 17531 Amaganset and asked code enforcement staff to investigate. Commissioner Kozak Noted that the fence is broken around the trash enclosure at Marcella's Pawn Shop in the El Camino Plaza and building materials are being stored there. - Noted that the trash bin at The Barn restaurant is overflowing and is unsightly. Noted that banners on a fence and a semi-truck can be seen from the freeway at Tustin Avenue. Thanked staff for bringing the Cabinet Design Guidelines forward. Chairperson Pontious Asked staff about a status update from the Redevelopment Agency. Karen Peterson noted that she will check into the Commission's request. ADJOURNMENT: ' Commissioner Davert moved Commissioner Kozak seconded, to adjourn the meeting at 8:08 p.m. Motion carried 4-0. A regular meeting of the Planning Commission will be held on March 22, 1999 beginning at 7:00 p.m., City Council Chambers, 300 Centennial Way, Tustin. _ -b � Y eport to the US �1 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/013 PARTNERS,LLC TIM O'BRIEN 426 30TH STREET, SUITE 14 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 LOCATION: 12972 NEWPORT AVENUE . ZONING: RETAIL COMMERCIAL DISTRICT (C-1); TOWN CENTER REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: THIS PROJECT 1S STATUTORILY EXEMPT PURSUANT TO SECTION 16270. (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;. 1998-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 f - F. 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 1.995, the service station was demolished. The parcel is an irregular, triangular shaped corner lot, which is less than .31 acres in size (13,188 square feet). The width of the street frontage on Newport Avenue is 140 feet and the width of the street frontage on Old Irvine Blvd. 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 also used on the stucco covered foam trim. Three wall 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". r 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) • A 1,472 square foot building; a A 1,545 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 0 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-way on 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 ightof-way on Newport; No vehicularaccess around the building • Vehicular access around the building and insufFcientarea to accommodate and enough area to accommodate vehicular turn-around; vehicular turn-arou nd; • A total of seven parking spaces.Three a 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-foot wide,36-inch high landscape • A 31'/2-foot wide,36-inch high berm located at the corner of the site; landscape berm is located.on the corner and, of the site; and, ® A three-footwide planter extending a 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 t from three areas to four areas of tandem workspace within each service bay. The need for any discretionary review of a Leight 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 entering or exiting the parking spaces and created conflicts for patrons waiting for service. Outstanding Issues r ✓ The Auto Service Design Guide]ines.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 tall 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 pattem of the development is still 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. L i 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.pereportkup98-0.073-22LLdoc -- LOCATION MAP/-,- T4 r007 M9E5--,007 r IFZ LVA � I ' 712 n h x 1 r?� R0 All, tDUNTY or ORANGE aTr OF TUS TIN /,. /• ,Gj 1 LAFAYETTE PLAZA J`toiJ�• �� �� yL . . 14712 J� 9 •!14772 J• ., .�• �--OSS-- 10�Cti Cy !!!!/1O6 Ory• •,� O ULEVARD IRVINE BOULEVARD Sim O 10n y0 NO SCALE Jj, 10 ATTACHMENT 'I ATTACHMENT A .' PLANNING COMMISSION INFORMATION : • PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT & MINUTES, OCTOBER 26, 1998; • RESOLUTION NO. 3623; • ORIGINAL SITE PLAN & ELEVATIONS; • EZ LUBE LETTER DATED OCTOBER 1, 1998 • EZ LUBE LETTER #1 DATED OCTOBER 18. 19.98 ® EZ LUBE LETTER #2 DATED,OCTOBER 18, 1998 ITEM n3 ' Report to the Planning Commission DATE: OCTOBER 26, 1998 SUBJECT: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 98-007 & DESIGN REVIEW 98-007 APPLICANT: EZ LUBE MICHAEL J. DOBSON 1604 DOVE-STREET, SUITE 230 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 PROPERTY 5 OWNER: KC/OB.PARTNERS, LLC TIM O'BRIEN 425 30TM STREET, SUITE 94 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 LOCATION: 92972 NEWPORT AVENUE ZONING: RETAIL COMMERCIAL DISTRICT (C-4); TOWN CENTER _ REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT 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 '1,472 SQUARE FOOT , DRIVE-THROUGH OIL CHANGE'FACILITY WITH THREE WORK BAYS AND INDOORIOUTDOOR WAITING AREAS. RECOMMENDATION That the Planning Commission adopt.Resolution No. 3623 denying Conditidhal Use Permit 98-007 and Design Review 98-007. PROJECT DESCRIPTION The applicant is requesting approval to construct a "quicklube service"which is a drive- through oil change facility. The oil change facility includes the following improvements: ✓ Con§truction` of a 1,472 square foot building with 'three work bays and an indoor/outdoor waiting area. Planning Commission Report CUP 98-007 & DR 98-007 October 26, 1998 Page 2 ✓ The proposed French architectural style of the building is designed to complement the existing structures located within the adjacent "Plaza Lafayette". The architect has provided an alternative Italian Mediterranean style. (Attachment B) However, there-are no other similar architectural styles within the area. The French architectural style includes the following elements: • A 35-foot tower is proposed on the south and east elevations of the building: The tower has a polygonal roof with eight sides. The eave line of this roof extends above the main structure's mansard roof. The height of the main portion of the building, which includes the work bays is 24- feet. The proposed roof material is a flat tile material made by "Lifetile" in a brown color. • The elevations illustrate a finial on the top of the tower element. • 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 color is also used on the stucco covered foam trim. • The service bay doors are a glass and panel style. ✓ Three wall signs and a monument sign are proposed. Two of the three wall signs and the monumEnt sign depict the "EZ Lube" name and logo. The third wall sign states "fast oil change experts". Two internally illuminated channel letter wall signs are proposed on the tower element's south and west elevations. The color of the copy is blue and the proposed logo is red. The size of the west elevation sign .is approximately 42 square feet and the south elevation sign is approximately 24 square feet. The third wall sign is a 35 square foot internally illuminated cabinet and is located above the service bays on the south elevation. The copy color is blue with a white background. • A-six foot high, 32 square foot monument sign is located in front of the west elevation at the comer of the intersection. The cabinet sign is 4' X 8' with a two-foot base. The colors are consistent with the wall signs. ✓ The rectangular building is proposed to be located in the middle of the lot, setback 15 feet from the right-of-way on Old Irvine Blvd. and 12 feet from the future right-of-way on Newport Avenue. The future right-of-way line is in anticipation of the City's future Planning Commission Report: CUP 98-007 & DR 98--007 October 26, 1998 Page 3 project to widen Newport Avenue. The setbacks and right-of-way lines are illustrated on the site plan. (Attachment B) ✓ Seven parking spaces are provided on both sides of the lot. Three standard spaces and one handicap space are located on the Newport side of the lot and three standard size spaces are located on the Old Irvine side. r - A 36-inch high landscape berm is proposed at the comer of the site. A minimum 10- foot wide landscape area extends along the streetsides of the iot,-with the exception of the driveway aprons. A three-foot wide planter is proposed to extend along the rear property line. The planter physically separates the site from the adjacent.commercial center. ✓ Two 30-foot curb cuts are proposed on the site providing access from Newport Avenue and Old Irvine Blvd. Entrance to the site can only be accessed on Newport Avenue. Exiting the site is-permitted on Newport Avenue and Old Irvine Blvd. The Old Irvine access has been made an exit only. ✓ To traverse from the Newport Avenue side of the. lot to the Old Irvine side, a vehicle must pass through the service bay. There is no other alternative vehicular route around the building. A vehicle must use one of the parking spaces as a tum-around to exit the site on the Newport Avenue side of the lot. Site and Surrounding Properties The site is currently vacant and surrounded by a chain link fence. . A Mobile Service Station was previously located on the project site and was vacated in December 1994. In March 1995, the service station was demolished. Since then the property has remained -vacant. - The parcel is located on an irregular shaped comer lot, which is less than'.3 acres in size (13,188 square feet). The width of the street frontage on Newport Avenue is 140 feet and the width of the street frontage on Old Irvine Blvd, is 125 feet. The rear property line diagonally connects the two adjacent comers of the site together, creating a triangular shape. The property is zoned Retail Commercial (C-1). 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. Planning Commission Report CUP 98-007 & DR 98-007 October 26, 1998 Page 4 APPROVAL CRITERIA 'The discretionary actions requested in consideration of the project include the following: 1. CUP 98-007 to authorize the establishment of an .auto service station (TCC Sections 9233c(c); 2. Design Review 98-007 to-authorize site design, architecture,.landscaping and other site amenities of the project (TCC Section 9272). The- project has also- been reviewed for conformance. with the City Council's adopted ordinances, design guidelines and plans for. Auto Service Design Guidelines; Parking Area Design Guidelines; Landscaping and Irrigation Guidelines; The City of Tustin Sign Code; and The Town Center Redevelopment Plan. t 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 has. referred the Design Review' to the Planning Commission for concurrent consideration (TCC Section 9299b). DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS The discussion that follows includes detailed analyses of the proposed, project, and applicability with all City Codes, the City's Design Guidelines and the Redevelopment Plan. The discussion of the primary areas of concem have been separated as follows: the site plan and development standards; circulation, parking, and access; landscaping; architecture and signs, and, operational characteristics. Site Plan and Development Standards The:Auto Service Design Guidelines was adopted by Council in August 1998, to regulate the development of all auto service facilities, such as drive through oil change facilities, car washes, service stations, etc. The Auto Service Design Guidelines, the "Site Design Order of Preference", describes the design and development preference order for auto services. (Attachment 4) The proposed site design is not in compliance with the specifications stated in the "Site Design Order of Preference" in the Auto Service Design Guidelines. In part, the Auto Service Design Guidelines state that the facilities should be constructed..."On a comer lot designed so the service bays are oriented away from public view. Due to the proposed orientation on this Planning Commission Report CUP 98-007 & DR 98-007 October 26, 1998 Page 5 comer lot, the service bays are visible from public view from Newport Avenue and Old Irvine Blvd. The applicant has provided written documentation demonstrating efforts in designing the facility with the service bays oriented toward the interior of the property and screened from public view, in -accordance with the "Site Design Order of Preference". This written documentation is required in accordance with the Auto Service Design Guidelines. The applicant has provided two letters addressing this issue. (Attachments 5 and 6) In the letter dated October 1, 1998, the applicant addresses the proposed orientation by stating: `All quicklubes are drive thru facilities, therefore it would be impossible to layout the site plan where the bays would not be visible from the street...Through a combination of landscaping and screen walls we have accomplished this (screening the service bays from the street)." In a recent letter dated October 18, 1998, also attached, the applicant has listed their efforts to screen the bays from public view. "1. The building was angled to screen the bays from public view. At the current angle the bays are effectively screened from view from the main view of Newport Ave.... 2. A lush landscape buffer (park) was installed to provide additional screening of the bays. The site requires 15% landscaping and we are proposing 25%... 3. A landscape berm at the comer is being proposed as an additional effort to screen the bays from public view. 4. A 3-foot high landscape wall along Newport Avenue and another screen wall along Irvine Avenue were added as an additional screening method 5. Furthermore, we located the theme toward the waiting area towards the intersection to further-screen the bays. 6. All other areas other than the circulation driveways consist of decorative paving or landscaping. We reduced the width of the driveways to incorporate more landscaping in front towards the sidewalk". The inadequate size and irregular shape of the lot and the paved area needed for site circulation, parking and landscaping 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 4, page 2) Planning Commission Report_ CUP 98-007 & DR 98-007 : October 26, 1998 Page 6 The service bays, paved areas, parked vehicles and tall stucco walls will be visible over the. landscaping and through the 30-foot wide 'driveway aprons. The future widening of Newport Avenue will remove approximately 10 feet from the Newport Avenue frontage. Without any screening from the street, the insides of the service bays will be visible during closed hours,.because of the visibility through the glass and panel style doors. The loss of landscaping after the street widening on the Newport frontage will create a hard appearance of asphalt, sidewalk, stucco %i ails, concrete pavement, parked vehicles and visible service bays. Circulation, Parking &Access The Gigs Traffic Engineer has reviewed the proposed development.and determined that the proposed,circulation:pattem of the development is 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. It was suggested that the applicant investigate obtaining a reciprocal parking, circulation and access agreement with the property owner of the adjacent commercial center. The adjacent property owner is not desireous of participating in a reciprocal agreement. However, to date the applicant has not been able to provide a site plan that does not negatively impact the adjacent site. ' Since it is likely that.this can not be accomplished, it indicates that the site is inadequate in size and an inappropriate location for the proposed development. The configuration -of the proposed site plan presents circulation. and parking conflicts. Patrons waiting for service in the "stacking area", conflict with patronsentering or exiting the parking spaces. The ingress and egress to the seven parking spaces provided would not be possible if there were more than two vehicles waiting behind or- in front of the service bays. The internal circulation on the site does not comply with the Auto Service Design Guidelines, which states, "That traffic flow and stacking room shall be provided to preclude interference with internal parking and off-site traffic circulation." (Attachment 4, page 4) The circulation pattern is awkward in'that there is no maneuverability around the building to exit or sufficient area to accommodate a vehicular tum-around. If the parking spaces were occupied and there were vehicles waiting behind the service bays, a vehicle that was waiting for service or entering the facility that decides to leave, would not be able to turn around to exit. This may constitute a safety hazard for egress or ingress of an emergency vehicle requiring-access to a vehicle or structure. This is inconsistent with the Auto Service Design Guidelines, which states, 'Alf paved areas should be designed to accommodate any anticipated circulation patterns."(Attachment 4, page 3) Due to the number of curb cuts along Newport Avenue and Old Irvine Blvd, the site access and circulation is not efficiently designed. The Auto Service Design Guidelines state: 'That driveway cuts should• be limited to one per street frontage or as otherwise determined by the Engineering Division. When possible shared access between properties shall be provided" (Attachment 4, page 3) Although the applicant only `1 711 Planning Commission Report z CUP 98-007 & DR 98-007 October 26,. 4998 _ Page 7 proposes one driveway per street frontage shown, .the- driveways are within 30 feet of driveways servicing the adjacent center on 'Newport and Old Irvine. The City. Traffic Engineer htas shared this concern with the applicant, in that numerous driveway cuts can cause confusion and hesitationas to the proper site access, which may lead to traffic accidents. Landscaping The future widening• of Newport Avenue would remove all landscaping along Newport. The minor vegetative buffer proposed along Newport would eventually be eliminated. This is not in compliance with the Auto Service Design Guidelines, which requires landscaping on all street fronts, setback areas, and along propertylines and a minimum of 15 percent of the site must be landscaped. Also, "a veget6tive,bufferbetween the structures and the street front":(page 3, Auto .Service-Design Guidelines), is required in accordance with the Auto Service Design -Guidelines.. The applicant was requested. to provide detailed - t landscape plans depicting the size and species of the proposed plant materials for the landscaped areas. However, the plantmaterial schedule was not provided. Architecture &Signs The site is located at a .prominent intersection within the Town Center Redevelopment Area and is a major gateway into the City from the north., With such a prominent location, the site plan, architectural design, building mass, design details, architectural form and site amenities are very important to the image and appearance of the community. 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. In addition to analyzing compatibility with the Auto Service Design Guidelines, the project has also been analyzed for compliance with the Tustin City Code. ; The following. ' inconsistencies were determined: • The proposed finial on top of the tower element of the building appears.as"if it exceeds the maximum height allowed by the Zoning Code. The plans do not indicate any details regarding the height, design,.color,'or material or the proposed finial. Deviation of the maximum height standard require_ s a. variance. No application for a variance was submitted. • The 35 square foot cabinet wall sign, located above the service bays on the south elevation, exceeds the maximum,allowed size of 25' square feet for a secondary sign. This is a violation of the Sign Code,which would require a sign code..No application for a sign code'exception was submitted. Planning Commission Report CUP 98-007 & DR 98-007 October 26, 1998 Page 8 Operational Characteristics The facility is proposed to be open Monday— 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. The accuracy of this information is questionable due-to the fact that the facility is open 12% hours on a weekday, and only servicing 40 vehicles, at 10 minutes a vehicle,'within three service bays.. This means there is ten hours within the day that no vehicles are being serviced. ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENTATION No environmental. analysis has been prepared.. Projects that are rejected or disapproved are exempt from review pursuant to Section 15270 of the California Environmental Quality Act. FINDINGS a A decision to deny the Conditional Use Permit request can be supported by the following findings: The circumstances of the proposed establishment, maintenance, and operation of the uses applied for, would be detrimental to the health safety, morals, comfort, or general welfare of the persons residing or working in the surrounding neighbothood and that it would be injurious, detrimental to, resulting- in a- negative effect on properties and improvements in the surrounding-neighborhood, and also negatively effect the general welfare of the City, in that: 1. The site shape, size .and design is: not adequate to accommodate circulation patterns, thereby creating a negative effect on the safety of individuals and-is not in compliance with the Auto Service Design Guidelines, adopted by City Council, in the following manner. The number°of curb cuts along Newport Avenue and Old Irvine Blvd. -would create a traffic safety hazard. m The inability to tum a vehicle around in the stacking area behind the service bays and the site design, which does not provide access around the building for exiting, may cause a traffic safety hazard. 2. The site design could create potential obstruction to access required off-street parking spaces. This-is not in compliance with the Auto Service Design Guidelines. Planning Commission Report CUP 98-007 & DR 98-007 October 26, 1998 Page 9 3. The site design may create a safety hazard for egress or ingress of an emergency vehicle requiring access to a vehicle or structure due to the absence of maneuverability around the building and the insufficient area to accommodate vehicular tum-around. .4. The Town Center Redevelopment Plan states: Sec. 413 The Redevelopment Plan is intended to promote and encourage a mixed-use design concept, which will strengthen the interrelationship of different land, uses to benefit all. Sec. 420 No use or structure which by reason of appearance, traffic, smoke, noise, odor or other similar factors would be incompatible with the surrounding areas or structures shall be permitted in any part of the Town Center Redevelopment Area. The proposed use does not integrate and is incompatible with the surrounding uses and would detract from development_on adjacent properties and therefore, does not comply with the Tustin Community Redevelopment Agency's Redevelopment Plan for the Town Center Redevelopment Project Area. 5. The City of Tustin General Plan states: Goal 1:- Provide for a well balanced land use pattem .that accommodates existing,and future needs for housing, commercial and industrial land, open space and community facilities and services, while maintaining a healthy, diversified economy adequate to provide future City services. Policy 1.6: Encourage compatible and complementary infill of previously by-passed parcels in areas already predominantly developed. Goal 3: Ensure that new development is compatible with the surrounding uses in the community, the City's circulation network, availability of public facilities, existing development constraints and the City's unique characteristics and resources. Policy 3.8: Encourage consolidation of parking and reciprocal access agreements among adjacent businesses. The proposed use would negatively impact access with the adjacent site and is incompatible with the. surrounding uses, which is inconsistent with the City's General Plan. Planning Commission Report CUP 98-007 & DR 98-007 October 26, 1998 Page 10 6. The location, inadequate size, architecturai'features and general appearance of the will impair the orderly and harmonious development of the area, the present or future development therein and on any adjacent*properties or the occupancy as a whole (TCC Section 9272). The following site designs support this finding: 1. The height of the proposed structure does not meet the required code standards and is therefore out of scale with the neighborhood. The lack of landscaping on the Newport frontage will exaggerate the bulky appearance of the structure. 2. The proposed setbacks and design of the site plan does not provide enough landscape areas or areas to accommodate the necessary parking and on- site traffic demands. The building orientation causes visibility of the service bays. The use of a glass,and panel door will be unattractive allowing visibility into the service bays when the doors are closed. 3. The physical relationship of the proposed improvements is not compatible with the existing structures in the neighborhood. 4. This visible comer lot is a gateway into the City from the north and the relationship of the building, landscaping and site design will set precedence for any future development or improvements to structures in the neighborhood and public thoroughfares. 5. Due'to the site's inadequate size, proposed uses .and circulation patterns cannot be accommodated on the site and do not promote the- orderly development of the property or the surrounding area. 6. The proposed development is not in compliance .with the sign code. The proposed cabinet wall sign exceeds the maximum size permitted by the City Code. 7. The proposed development is not in compliance with' the Auto Service Design Guidelines adopted by the City Council. The site design and building orientation is not in compliance with the "Site Design Order of Preference" due to the visibility of the service bays from public view and ,that the development is not .on a lot where the topography, vegetation, buildings, or other structures provide the greatest amount of screening of the service bays from public view. �} -1 Planning Commission Report CUP 98-007 & DR 98-007 .October 26, 1998 Page 11 ; • The proposed access is not in compliance with the Engineering Division's recommendations to limit the number of driveways and provide shared access with the adjacent center. • The vehicles within the stacking area interfere with the access of the required off-street parking. • The site design does not provide adequate room to accommodate anticipated circulation patterns. ® Significant size and area of landscaping ,is required to buffer the structures from the street frontage and landscaping is required for all street fronts, setback areas and along property lines. The street widening will eliminate the proposed landscaping along Newport. • The plan does not provide the minimum 15% landscaping. • The site size, proposed uses and circulation patterns cannot be accommodated on the site and do not promote the orderly development of the property Ak Elizabeth A. Binsack, Associate P anner Director, Community Development Attachments: 1. Location Map 2. Site Plans and Elevations 3. Resolution No. 3623 4. Auto Service Design Guidelines 5. EZ Lube letter dated October 1, 1998 6. EZ Lube letter##1, dated October 18, 1998 7. EZ Lube letter#2, dated October 18, 1998 11_cup98-007 Planning Commission Minutes October 26, 1998 Page 3 3: Conditional Use Permit 98-007 & Design Review 98-007 a request to construct a 1,472 , square foot drive-through - oil change facility with three 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. APPLICANT: EZ LUBE `MICHAEL J. DOBSON- . - PROPERTY OWNER: KC/013 PARTNERS, LLC ; TIM O'BRIEW- Recommendation That the Planning Commission adopt Resolution-.No. 3623 denying Conditional Use Permit 98--007 and Design Review 98-007. The Public Hearing opened at 7:04 p.m. .Lori°Ludi presented the subject report. Commissioner Davert inquired about ,stacking room at the northwest side of the Newport Avenue entrance and the possibility of overflow into the traffic lanes. Douglas Anderson -responded that 2% cars per lane-could stack approximately 45 feet which, theoretically, would block the-parking spaces at the north of the site and, with this site plan,configuration,.cars could also overflow into the public right-of-way. Commissioner Kozak asked about an increase in traffic counts with the forthcoming Widening of Newport Avenue. Douglas Anderson.replied that the traffic count could increase from 30,000 to 50,000' cars per day. Commissioner Jones asked for the trip generation for this site. Douglas Anderson replied that (here was no industry standard for .a self-serve lube station and staff typically requests -information for similar sites around the County and believed that 45 and 50 Vehicles per day was representative for a normal weekday but is substantially increased over the weekends. Tile Direcf6 h6fedrfiiarfi0Hd'9 fior;denlaVcan-•be-found-in-the-resolutiorr-and-ttte-sta'Ff� report. The Director-further noted that the' projecf is in the Town--Center„Redeveiopmb f Area and a member of the redevelopment agencystaff is available for,'questions. RESOLUTION NO. 3623 1 " ` A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA, DENYING CONDTIONAL USE PERMIT 3 98-007 AND DESIGN REVIEW 98-007, TO CONSTRUCT A 1,472 SQUARE FOOT DRIVE- THROUGH OIL CHANGE FACILITY AT a 12972 NEWPORT AVENUE. S The Planning Commission of the City of Tustin does hereby resolve as follows: 6 1. The Planning Commission finds and determines as follows: 8 A. That a proper application for Conditional Use Permit 98-007 and Design Review 98-007 was fled by EZ Lube, to construct a 1,472 9 square foot drive-through oil change facility with three work bays and 10 indoor/outdoor waiting areas. 11 B. That a public hearing was duly called, noticed and held on said application on October 26,1998, by the Planning Commission. 13 C. That the construction, establishment, maintenance, and operation of a drive-through oil change facility will be 'detrimental will be 14 detrimental to the health, safety, morals, comfort, or general welfare of the persons residing or working in the neighborhood .of such 1s proposed use, or be injurious or detrimental to the property and 16 improvements in the neighborhood of the subject property or to the general welfare of the City of Tustin, as evidenced by'the following 17 findings: 18 1. The site shape, size and design is not adequate to 19 accommodate circulation•patterns, thereby creating a negative effect on the safety of_individuals and is not in compliance with 2° the Auto Service Design Guidelines, adopted by City Council, 21 in the following manner: 22 The number of curb cuts along Newport Avenue and Old. 23 Irvine Blvd. would create a traffic safety hazard. 24 The inability to tum a vehicle around in the stacking area behind the service bays and the site design, which does 2s not provide access around the building for exiting, may 26 cause a traffic safety hazard. 27 2. The site design could create potential obstruction to access 28 required off-street parking spaces. This is not in compliance with the Auto.Service Design Guidelines. , 29 Resolution 3623 Planning Commission October 26, 1998 Page No. 2 3. The site design may create a safety hazard for egress or 3 ingress of an emergency vehicle requiring access to a vehicle or structure due to the absence of maneuverability around the. a building and the insufficient area to accommodate vehicular tum-around. 6 4. 'The Town CenterRedeveiopment Plan states: ' Sec. 413 The Redevelopment Plan is intended to promote 8 and' encourage a mixed-use design concept, which will strengthen the interrelationship of 9 different land, uses to benefit all. to Sec. 420 No use or structure which by reason of 11 appearance, traffic, smoke, noise, odor or other similar factors would be incompatible with the 12 surrounding areas or structures shall be 13 permitted in any part of the Town Center Redevelopment Area. 14 15 The proposed use would negatively impact access with the adjacent site and is incompatible with the surrounding uses, 16 which is inconsistent with the City's General Plan. 17 5. The City of Tustin General Plan states: 1s . Goal 1: Provide for a well balanced Iand use patter that .19 accommodates existing and future needs for housing, commercial and industrial .land, open 20 space and community facilities and services, 21 while maintaining a healthy,-diversified economy adequate to provide future City services. 22 23 Policy 1.6: Encourage compatible - and complementary infill of previously 24 by-passed parcels in areas 25 already predominantly developed. 26 Goal 3: Ensure that new development is compatible with ' the surrounding uses in the community, the 27 City's circulation network, availability of public 28 facilities, existing development 'constraints and the City's unique characteristics and resources. 29 Resolution 3623 Planning Commission ' October 26, 1998 1 Page No. 3 z Policy 3.8: Encourage consolidation of 3 parking and reciprocal access agreements among adjacent a businesses. - s The proposed use does not integrate the parking, circulation, 6 and access with the adjacent site and is incompatible with the surrounding uses, which is inconsistent with the City's General Plan. D. The location, inadequate size, architectural features and general 9 appearance of Design Review 98-007 will impair the orderly and 10 harmonious development of the area, the present or- future development therein, or the occupancy as a-whole (Tustin City Code 11 Section 9272). The following site design supports this finding: 12 1. The height of the proposed structure does� not meet' the 13 required code standards and is therefore out of scale with the neighborhood. The lack of landscaping on the Newport 14 frontage will exaggerate the bulky appearance of the structure. 2. The proposed setbacks and design of the site plan does not 16 provide enough landscape areas or areas to accommodate the necessary parking and on-site traffic demands. The 17 building orientation causes visibility of the service bays. The 18 use of'a glass and panel dopy will be unattractive allowing visibility into the service bays when the doors-are closed. 19 3. The physical relationship of the proposed improvements is not zo compatible with the existing structures and sites in the 21 neighborhood. z'- 4. Tl is visible comer lot is a gateway into the City from the north 23 and the relationship of the building, landscaping and site design will set precedence for any -future development or 24 improvements to structures in the neighborhood and public 25 thoroughfares. ' 26 5. Due to the site's inadequate size, proposed uses and circulation patterns cannot be accommodated on the site and 27 do not promote the orderly development of the property or 28 surrounding area. 29 6. The proposed development is not in compliance with the sign code. The proposed cabinet wall sign exceeds the maximum - size permitted by-the City Code. Resolution 3623 i Planning Commission October 26, 1998 1 Page No.*4 2 7. The proposed development is not in compliance with the Auto 3 Service Design Guidelines adopted by the City Council. 4 a) The site design and building orientation is not in 5 compliance with the "Site Design Order of Preference" due to the visibility of the service bays from public view and that 6 the development is not on a lot where the topography, vegetation, buildings, or other structures provide the greatest amount of screening of the service bays from 9 public view. 9 b) The proposed access is not in compliance with the 10 Engineering. Division's recommendations to limit the number of driveways and provide shared access with the 1� adjacent center. 17 c) The vehicles within the stacking area interfere with, the 13 access of the required off-street parking. 14 d) The site design does not provide adequate room to 15 accommodate anticipated circulation patterns. 16 e) Significant size and area of landscaping is required to buffer the structures from the street frontage and 17 landscaping is required for all street fronts, setback areas 18 and along property lines. The street widening will eliminate the proposed landscaping-on Newport. 19 20 f) The plan does not provide the minimum 15% landscaping. 21 g) The site size, proposed uses and circulation patterns cannot be accommodated on the site and do not promote 222, the orderly development of the property 23 E. This project has been determined to' .be exempt from the 24 requirements of CEQA pursuant to Section 15270. of the,California Environmental Quality Act, which states that CEQA does not apply to 25 . projects rejected or disapproved by. public agency. • 26 11. The Planning Commission hereby denies Conditional Use Permit No. 98- 27 007 and Design Review No. 98-007 to constnlct a 1,472 square foot drive- 28 through oil* change facility on the property located at 12972 Newport Avenue. 29 Resolution 3623 Planning Commission October 26, 1998 1 Page No. 6 3 PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Tustin Planning Commission, a held on the 26th day of October, 1998. s �� . LESLIE A. P - NTIOUS 8 Chairperson 9 10 I1 4LIZABETH A. BINSACK 12 Planning Commission Secretary 13 14 15 STATE OF CALIFORNIA . ) COUNTY OF ORANGE ) 16 CITY OF TUSTIN ) 17 I, ELIZABETH A. BINSACK, the undersigned, hereby certify that I am the Planning 18 Commission Secretary of the City of Tustin, California; that Resolution No. 3623 was duly passed and adopted at a regular meeting' of the-Tustin Planning . 19 Commission, held on the 26th day of October, 1998 20 21 22 rLIBETHA. BINSACK 23 Planning Commission Secretary 24 25 26 27 28 29 I I F ` I I � 1 / UDUO(1 9NICP9 taw iem�.a�.e3F�lANurauW�u�+W.poN3u!mA umEx �' � ��Q I I I I w�..ammds..n -Rl Namw�uuvw.dunqund3i IA vlcNIm PLAN/IUM CURRENT BOINDARIE5 l mr+..d.,edm..w��Imbd.wn. - ppp p I I I I i° .�] T4!]:We.�e panoE33tiecea ryk.ofNS�tlwNm.mmm�Jmm 7A 611E IiAN/WTH CURRENT BGYJOARIES I I """�4"Lem LI N37Nduiminiwp. 16. VICINITY PLAN/WIN hJTUIlE CR055•ACCE65 I 9 I 7& SIZE PL FLOOR /WM p URE CRO59•ACCE59 i oVT.d.ee�tiy u,..l . I�..uwi•m4•po.n,W4�'W.YWI?3 . . ' I I NYa.A.:116.0.obGIV w•3l mrYa 1p�p.((ylyudu3l� 31 PLAN9 I EXTERIOR ELEVAlILNS,ITALIAN STYLE B n 37 QIJ-�I�{ ' I TW.Pgm.e.0 mmol,.3l a ondr s.o.o,odl...... I I LJ I I l l Il l Ilu.3.Trn..mml.M�.Nwu..m�„A:lap.AB lee�pe BOOR PLANS.EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS,FRENCH STYLE 4. ARCHITECTURAL SITE SURVEY '-- I l �p:Eo.LNr NM3+ImPl...�s,I+d..w A..3Iv eS.0 I LLY 5. SIGN 1 TRPaI`IENUOWRE PAC I! V LA CAMERA 1L91E1 BDY6_PJO LANES . r1 I i I_rr p.bl 7� �rT�o P I oae.4 e��Y. IAYikR�JP + _ y ya 090 ¢h HI am III. � I t 1 I 1 m I , I I �. :.I = ITY , I fir+ I Ecaly T-80 � LL _ --------�-�-�_- - -�--"- - - • N g o e e o 0 0 0 aj PROPOSED NEW'EI-1.02',3-BAT _ ____ DRNH•TNRCAG/N OIL CIIAINGE STATICH MITI1 ——_--—-- OLD HIM BLVD. -————— NOJOR 1 OUTDOOR 11AllUG Af�A C� 611E, -----------•----------------------------�-��\ EXISTM.UIE9 SaFT [ qq 'Nr JF .W4 80Fr. \ �\ FUM DEDICATION:1254 60.FT. �3PR.$a EZ•LUaE, e tl tl tl G, tl °DN"'e EIIE WILPNG C RAGEI UL ;1 Y l ■ TO AL LANDSCAPE ofP 1 l j I I I RtAfiIACY DIi111=i}FIII �/� A37 Sc,A..35t 3SITE SITE AREA 1 I I( I DAWY ALLK TEWIRED DEO PARKIG: 33 •I I •, I LICUOR e L445C.1Rg 1 • I I � I RACID BUCK .. _ i // PROJECT DATA, �0 id Bfi i�116 OCCTIPA CY,IS AID 63 13!MITM AWAAD6Q FT��dNIN���=ss n.FY. 9l wrxre Tnr 53"Wow AREAA Ip15 6Q FT. [ Ano m / P TYPE OF CGNSTRICTICW v-N T waw --p i 1 SEPARATI,ON WALLS NOT W IWO 1 V"f rc I ! I ACB9M / v // PER UH6.546ECTICH 3071 NIAITNG AREA ' LESS THAN 4p 6Q FTJ BDlR10AaIF.9 dfoflorl -- / / 'in SPRsnER NOT REaIIREO PER OCPA Y� v "7 - - - l tA rr 45 - 'k�S'£�"r' �•". i.e. 3-'. 4^+ 4 ''-`�-J � '^ .,}�_. °i` s 5 "3• t 3, � l -f,S - _ r• ��'!-�"r' £ � -x f S �' -s �S. t'a' �.� �4 ;� �w$a-i.'^'(rs r e,���� ae.- � � ,,: f i �•r f'' .��y ^s c._•.i�'�ki��a s�.ye �.trc S x'�--r"e �� -„c •-�'�4 a 7 � _ - •: 'r _ #�' n..•+ .��� -�'i?^'r �r^tt _r„�'�l'- �u.`,ex-, r �y.._ h-..- v„!.. •. a � m �, t _ �Y-i:Y�,i}"}c/�-�r•'�'"2`x• `Y,� �c�=�� mss•'- k''4�2 n}'�[,��..�-+ � 4 L -� -,>..i- ,f�Lsz � � ffT rjj OVO �'4•.-s„....7,�L..?-,f t��'rr `G �t�Y• a-,S�- +��h LSf�J y M r L 1x - '� - i 4 N O •�::5"-'.-`Y.Y{`rY-.}� '� sC .�h.."acr ,� 3�''^-Y. rr-;. ��� n�^ i..K '^- ac L-"2= t" .. _.i a a: r��i-�� F.e,h.$. - 7 r iT r Y "• S�,.ti, � �a r. , �f - � ��.. .tea � -s.+ �` �. •�- s� � .,•t t xy ��,.•...°i9�'� �-�Z, L �.`:.'K` - Yes c_ _ i" .a 4di Y '. - �! �" `.Y-' PSF - :yr- '_�� •C'r r�q',� �'i fly i ,. �� a>��J� � ,�. --�..,'i � �,;��t�r�{�,� _,,,BSc•'- 3 'z 3i: 44 .f-� f Kms- Y.l••E .q�.+4 �,- *-.t�£ ��4,�-� yam''" , ,r,,, s '� 3 $ .'•• �,�'�^`��.a_-h.t`ri �r.fF�' ;'4- .�' _ _ ^_m. ; k -r„���-k�%`�_-I O�� v`•r�s.s*C /� S_� ��• z�'`� y� nz'^.-.�� � ,�'-rte;Sr p.�.� s- � r r � -.y'��s"tZ3.•..a"- z••kr t c ENM •�'$- � -t tires _�rr. � 1`� �.,.,yr�. z � - r s+srr. -)• � a...E .�. � wy.'� �.a" .Y s `;,c .� �� r r' ��Y �,� -;; � ■.ai.,(� .�e„���.�. C �.. ".����-xc3"� ZS''Y .,`' -•�+c� :n'�" s .rw 7,.t.,.��� - '`� •n:' - r �v't,. + �"'Ze!, ,��- � x...� y _,�c.. on Im'�r` �".:-t"'a.-:�; � •�: E,!'S -- r - , � e�'L� 1 a� 9�--'=:'�- � �'-�•- 4 t ��' �' � ski y� '� - -L'k r. -=c- Y - se}s m. I R�� F �.� �._ ��=_w i�+� ALEGREBASSOCiATES = EZJLUBE 92 W-GZLAW DR �-------- RANLYIOFALASVFAS7SS.G9X15 N Sq d •' ----------- FAST CLCAANar-DUIERi5 mPLe�cwmF OC)54r4 r.,,ol A e ®� 1 r � Will IA F:; F say.•1 ` �i���_a�� .� �`-, ,.-j•.:Z-:.�, �� -;•, y.,- rye �.`L�`rY: /�. .ri�iL a -:� •�Y�, Wo U � / \ \ 70714 W.tG N. .Npl w, / V�. \ Is ISI , BASI5 OF BEARINGS: —Wa.,. BENCH MARK: -LEGEND; R W�Pluu STM• 01. `\ w /' 4 ` PRELIMINARY .�. •;.�;.p,«. mom• ,amT RmT TWn rNm/wnuM �` . WOR HN:., ARCHITECTURAL SITE SURVEY e b+;. ��►.p.wp. � or I i 0� : i g,-.EZLUBE C Old w-e td 4Lev pi � y.�Ir�w a TTT I.l.tmEW.•VI[�I6'r MIJ��. -�— �2lIZNf3YJ1�A— � � r.-r•f.' •:��N'.M. LI 01- lip, I''wWCRh LirPLL:�:n�J�tM1-,sG,Wr...` ' _ �YxakyR...oM1..'ensent..-•- 01-l' GCj4iL�Y1��+I �XKl'�W�a'�1fiW�fc�fiW'^w6I boF^taCy'baGP�c(11ld.�bRL�tr•it�}etl(6htdY1.�wg� olG'TOe s.bi•Wlr^lM1iIMlt6dIltirbCr lbT�Gl4t1rir,IFMIb�IAGj}ln�{r41k}F�'N.I'c'P�lIy9Al'Ff�Ni4i��t t l 4Gy ,tI hl- gateate amb 16 rash WMIDSve pals§ q ID ,IA .31 1' :Y?.•,w'^ - - 3:•Il.r�.inn iv•• _ r -.. 1 _.. -{�- 1 3 A"t y..--.._ ,'•...rr.w.n. p, - I fil-- ' 4 (FAST OIL CHANGE EXPERTS Ii1 :trash endosue wal r .ra 17 Trash Enclogure Plan 3 7rY t�tl�°l�''hK���ChWrF� f�•lU• l ] + be qua IwrF�tal PmlRvwmleuwtm�hdulEarw t . nmartcroT 'vl~rxd clar�ler ,MAtkq�s�pwhcp wmlq..sk _ N d �rl+isuty.lraWd�+TltG¢anpgtu:wtl�G r44- r. • ,.d1.�l+mw�al Nw�br�laututr�• ��• 1 W � EZ INS �_ EZO0 r ,awwl� l .► ►��a`` ` �+ •, r�t ,ll �a ,:, 1 � --'"�"rl' r['C�ugal-k�'q''r�b�'�w•1 �la�lu�wl,te��. �{��� n Moab E11M E 1 MMr rr. s}vcvixja�wbt l�h d wb tem +�taJctl�h�l 9 � '�' . 1:Mr.lr,.l.• `r onm ew gym++ }az. �l rro � t9eti, 1�1.�ac'r�1wnF ��,aplle��:`t� '� - 4t 11w?�jf�1�ILlk,_val�twl�° ��1. -ti - '�.�::.'+S '"'^ f -c. r•^ L� I�t.Ws,814nS. I • I I I I 60'•O• ..I TO R=RO �1 S0._0. I1 I I 11* lD91' � Y M LLj i �] I 3C 'ffI✓✓/ { J or I 42 S I I � P 0.Y14L �•�• �' Z I � Z I -6.-To'.a .. I. wvEwar / c � I NIS � W R4-F g � d 9 f' WALL I Ru Res p. yR FMTCN fu.y'i.'11T. { ------ Exi 1 3O'•0' ` � . O WVE°4T m�. 'm.o• ,eao• u'.m ara• 1'Btl itl itl 31tl i1 - - {IGYC Y'IOIkO SITE PLAN OLD IRVINE BLVD. scale:1'-10' PLw. cupAw 2A L U E RE B; ` - C F I V E R OCT Ag 1998 October 1, .1998 �-�+a� �� T Mr. Dan Fox coMaiit Redevelopment Department City of Tustin 300 Centennial Way Tustin, CA 92.780 Re: EZ Lube Proposed Site-Newport Ave& Old Irvine (Vacant Mobil Gas Station Site) Dear Mr.Fox, The following detailed information is intended to brief the you on our proposed use for the 'vacant site located on the corner of Newport Ave-and Old Irvine(Vacant Mobil Gas Station)- Our intent for this parcel of land•is to construct and operate an automotive quick lube facility. The quicklube use will be that of performing convenient oil maintenance services. Currently the property is vacant land. EZ Lube does not consider itself in the automotive business, but rather the customer service '~ business. We have designed the building and landscaping to look more like a upscale retail business rather than an,automotive-business. See attached elevations for an illustration of how the building appears more retail than automotive. Many people have a pre-conceived notion of automotive. The EZ Lube quicklube concept does not truly belong in this perception,but rather a perception that conveys a more professional atmosphere; clean,-sharp buildings and employees, . and,an image that is good for the City as well as the business. , The EZ Lube use, aIthotsgh it is'exclusiv.ely automotive in nature; has been able.to exist and flourish in areas.where other automotive service facilities have been prohibited from operating. Currently,our company operates sites in Laguna Niguel,Manhattan Beach, Huntington Beach, Redondo Beach, Hermosa Beach, Canyon Country,Toluca Lake, Upland, Laguna Hills, Costa Mesa, Santa Monica, West LA and many other cities. In all of these cities the EZ Lube buildings are on gateway type corners with high visibility. The design of our Mediterranean building has+ received a lot of praise from the residents and planning departments of these cities. We feel our building and concept is further ahead than our competitors. We want our buildings . to be attractive and conservative looking like a bank and as clean as the kitchen in your home. We empathize with the public concerns regarding abandoned office buildings and gas stations. They can be an eye sore and they can give automotive business in general a bad image. Our concept is a solution to cleaning up some of these old eye sore corners by putting in a needed service that enhances the image of the City! Areas that may be of some concern to the'City Staff or residents in the area are addressed below. f 1`. CIeanIiness: °16o1 Dove st.,suite N 230 Newport Beach, CA 9266Q (714)477-1223 ■ FAX(714)477-1275 I � No vehicles will be serviced outside of the building's interior service bays. It is physically impossible to service vehicles outside the EZ Lube building. Vehicles are not lifted into the air. 2. Aesthetic Concerns (Image): Please see attached elevations. Our concept is a retail concept. Our ItaIian Mediterranean buildings are very professional and do not look like the image of most automotive businesses. Our company does not Nyant to look automotive. The EZ Lube building will have-ceramic tile floors in the shop area with an extremely attractive waiting room and patio area. In addition,we will be planting extensive landscaping around the site.,The project proposes an attractive signage package with year round flowers and landscaping around the site. The elevations of the building have been carefully and very professionally designed. The goal is to make the building look more Iike a bank or retail structure-than an automotive building. The building is attractive and will enhance the entire corner surrounding the site. It is our hope that the fellow businesses surrounding the site will approve of the building when they see something new and refreshing going in on this corner. All bay doors are attractive glass and panel used typically on custom homes and retail shop windows. This project will cost approximately$500,000 to build and will be fully equipped with the latest in design, furniture, fixtures and computers. The store will be fully equipped with state of the art equipment designed exclusively for this business. '3. Traffic Concerns: EZ Lube's average daily customer count per day will be approximately 45 vehicles once the business is mature. The national average for car count at a quicklube business is 42 per day. It will take almost two years for EZ Lube to reach 45 cars per day. In our experience operating this type of business shows that peak operating period is usually between I Oam and 4pm. Our peak operating hours are not during rush hour in the morning or evening. The EZ Lube facility only requires 4 employees during normal working days. In addition, we keep some of the customers in the vehicle, therefore reducing our need for parking: This makes the experience more convenient_ for the customer. During our peaks.we will average approximately 5 trips per hour at EZ Lube. These facts show that the project wiII have a negligible impact on the traffic on the bordering streets. 4. Noise: EZ Lube's operation has a unique underground basement design, minimal noise carries outside the basement in the shop area. All of the tools used-at.EZ Lube are hand tools which require no power and produce no noise. We went through 10 different site plan layouts until we came up with this final site plan design. With the street traffic noise at this location the noise our business will produce is negligible. 5. Environmental Concerns: �f We recycle 98%of all the products we use. Our business is the solution to environmental concerns. The Exxon Valdez spilled 15,000,000 gallons of oil, but over 250,000,000 gallons of oil are poured down sewers by do-it-yourself oil changers. The following are some environmental facts concerning the project. • Used oil is picked up by a Federally approved used oil hauler and the used oil is recycled into fuels. The same hauler picks up our used oil filters and deposits them at Tamco,Inc. where they are melted down into rebar used in concrete construction. • EZ Lube accepts used motor oil from residents of the County and would be extremely willing to work with the City to become official recycling centers for used oil from do-it-yourself oil changers. • None of the fluids used in the center are considered to be hazardous materials by the State of California Environmental Protection Agency. • All used and new oil is stored in OSHA approved UL rated tanks specifically constructed for this use. The EZ Lube underground basement is legally considered secondary containment for storage of these tanks. Therefore, it is not feasible for any new or used oil to come into contact with soil of any kind. All quicklubes are drive thru facilities,therefore it would be impossible to layout a site plan where the bays would be not be visible from the street. This being the case, EZ Lube has designed this project so that the bays are screened by landscape buffers from both streets (Newport Ave and OId Irvine). We have been working with planning for almost 8 months designing a layout that would meet public works requirements and screen the bays from the street. Through a combination of landscaping and screen walls we have accomplished this. A person driving on either street would have to look perpendicular to their path of travel to look into our bays. Also keep in mind we keep the customers vehicle only 10 to 15 tninutes. In conclusion,we feel it would be extremely difficult to find another use that would work as well as our concept for this property. It is our company's sincere opinion that our business on this corner would I) enhance the appearance of this location,2) increase tax revenue for the City and 3) bring a much,needed service to the community in general. We request your support of this project. Thank you. Best Regards, Mic/seJ. I 'n President cc Mr. CJ Nasol, City Planner LET'T'ER #1 October 18, 1998 E 11. 1L UIB E Ms. Lori A. Ludi , Associate PIanner 300 Centennial Way Tustin, CA 92780 ; Re: EZ Lube Project-CUP Application Newport Ave and Old Irvine Blvd. Dear Ms. Ludi, In compliance to City Council Resolution No. 98-61 (Auto Service Design Guidelines), "Site Design Order of Preference"' paragraph 2, listed is documentation demonstrating a good faith effort'in designing the facilities in accordance with the site design order of preference. . The subject site is a closed Mobil service station site that previously sei viced approximately 700 vehicles per day. EZ Lube is projecting approximately 40 vehicles per day. EZ Lube is an affiliate quicklube company of Mobil Oil Corporation applying for a conditional use permit on the subject site. Please note-that the quicklube business is unique in the.auto service category because it requires a drive thru building. There' are over 10,000 quicklubes in the United States (Jiffy Lube, Q-Lube etc,) and they are all drive thru,buildings. All other automotive service businesses do not require drive thru buildings as a condition of their business. The quicklube"business performs no automotive repair work and do not hoist vehicles into the air. Listing of efforts screen bays and to meet design and building requirements. 1. The building was angled to screen the bays from public view. At the current angle the bays are effectively screened from view from the main view of Newport Ave. Please note that there is no adjacent residential to this property. 2. A lush landscape buffer (park) was installed.to provide additional screening of the bays. The site requires 15% landscaping and we are proposing 25%. A;total of 3,332 square feet is dedicated to landscaping and the building footprint is only 1,640 s.f. or 12% of the usable land area. 3. A landscape berm at the comer is being proposed as an additional effort to screen the bays from public view. . 4. A 3 foot high landscape wall along Newport Avenue and another screen wall along Irvine Avenue were added as an additional screening method.. 5. Furthermore, we located the theme toward with the waiting area towards the intersection to further screen the,bays. 6. All areas other than the circulation driveways consist of decorative paving or landscaping. We reduced the width of the driveways to incorporate more landscaping in front towards the sidewalk. 1601 Dove St.,Suite"#230 Newport Beach,CA 92660 !7141 477-1?23 . FAX(714)477-1275 The Building Design requirements of Resolution 98-61 requests that all structures consist of a high level of architectural detailing consistent and appropriate for the neighborhood or center theme that may exist. EZ Lube has provided an upscale high level of architecture that is consistent with the PIaza Lafayette shopping center design across the street (French Normandy Style). EZ Lube has provided an alternative modern Italian Mediterranean architectural theme to integrate with the shopping center towards the south of Newport Avenue and the design'of the city hall building. EZ Lube has received 22 consecutive use permit approvals on gateway comers with its upscale architectural format. See attached cities list. In its last two city use hearings, EZ Lube was approved in a "neighborhood commercial' zoning in Dana Point and a redevelopment district in Culver City. All 22 EZ Lube sites are adjacent to similar types of businesses as compared to the businesses near this subject site. EZ Lube sincerely believes that ii has met the literal meaning and the intent of the Resolution 98-61. The site has been vacant for numerous years and no other reasonable project has been proposed for this site. It is an extremely difficult property, to.develop because it is small and odd shaped. Thank you for your consideration. If you have any questions, I can be reached at (949) 477-1223 ext. 16. Best Regards, Michael J. bs President cc Management Team Mobil Team West LETTER #2 October 18, 1998 E11LUBE mime= Ms. Lori Ludi Associate Planner City of Tustin 300 Centennial Way Tustin, CA 92780 Re: EZ Lube Project-CUP Application Newport Ave and Old Irvine BIvd. Dear Ms. Ludi, As you may know, the referenced project is in the Town Center Community Redevelopment Project Area. In preliminary staff reports, planning staff has stated that the EZ Lube project does not meet Section 413 and 420: Section 413 The Redevelopment PIan is intended to promote and encourage a mixed use design concept which will strengthen the interrelationship of different land uses to benefit all. Section 420 No use or structure which by reason of appearance, traffic, smoke, noise, odor or other similar factors would be incompatible with the surrounding areas or structures shall be permitted in any part of the Town Center Redevelopment Area. EZ Lube believes the project meets these conditions. The EZ Lube project is a mixed use design concept which will strenthen the interrelationship of different land uses-to benefit all.- This has been proven by all the other existing EZ Lube's that have been built in other cities (Town Centers, shopping centers, stand alone corners, redevelopment and non-redevelopment zones). EZ Lube co-exists within earshot of hundreds of other mixed use type tenants and has a proven success record of successfully integrating with these tenants. EZ Lube is a much needed service business that is performed while the consumer is shopping, eating, running errands, and visiting numerous other business establishments. Furthermore, after dedicating land to the City of Tustin for the widening of Newport Ave there remains less than 8,000 square feet of usable Iand. This is too small for the majority of businesses. This is one of the reasons it has been vacant for so long. EZ Lube is aesthetically pleasing, and produces minimal traffic.- Traffic will be 40 vehicles per.day, Iess than 5% of what the Mobil station produced. Estimated traffic at this corner is over 50,000 vehicles per day Traffic i act gn thg existing cep era d adjacent boulevards is negligible.when compared_to existing traffic. EZ Lube does not produce smoke, noise, odor or other similar factors that would be incompatible with the surrounding uses. Some of the surrounding tenants are a bowling alley, fitness 1601 Dove St., Suite#230 Newport Beach.CA 92660 center, two liquor stores, brewery, gas station, donut shop, ice cream shop, drive thru- dairy, restaurants, etc. The fitness center is in support of the project because it will add parking. The fitness center peak hours are after 6pm. EZ Lube has offered its parking to the fitness center during the evening hours. Lastly, the most important factor to consider is that this project will not hinder any potential future redevelopment of this shopping center. In discussions with the property owner, there are no current plans for redeveloping this center. Because of the low impact-of the use and the small footprint of the building (1640 square feet) the project will not interfere with a potential future redevelopment of this site. This project meets all building and parking codes, will add tax revenue to the city, eliminate a vacant gas station property, employee 12 to 15 people from the surrounding area, match the architecture of the Plaza Lafayette and enhance the surrounding businesses and general area. Thank you for your consideration of this project. If you have any questions, I'can be reached at (949) 477-1275, ext. 16. Best Regards, - - Michael 3'_ D on - President cc Management Team i ATTACHMENT B CITY COUNCIL APPEAL. INFORMATION : • EZ LUBE APPEAL LETTER, DATED OCTOBER 29, 1998; . o CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. 98-102; and ® DENNIS D. HAYDEN LETTER DATED JANUARY 11, 1998. UEZ LUBE. October 29, 1998 City Council RECEIVED c/o: City Clerk City of Tustin N O V 0 2 1998 • 300 Centennial Way Tustin,'CA 92780 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENTBY Re: EZ Lube Project-Appeal of Planning Commission Decision Newport Ave and Old Irvine Blvd. Dear City CIerk, Please accept this letter as a formal request to appeal the Planning Commission denial of the EZ Lube project proposed.for the former Mobil Station at the NECof Newport Ave and Old Irvine Blvd. The majority of the comments from Planning Commission relates to their belief the project may be unsafe due to poor traffic circulation. EZ Lube will prove in more detail at the City Council appeal hearing that the project is safe and has good circulation. In addition, the Redevelopment Agency stated they have serious negotiations on a redevelopment of the adjacent site_ The redevelopment agency has made no effort to contact the property owner of our land to discuss redevelopment options. Furthermore, in discussions with the adjacent property owner he has verbally told EZ Lube that a redevelopment is unlikely. To restrict us from developing our property in the hopes that a future redevelopment of theadjacent propertymight happen seems wrong. This project meets all redevelopment, use, building and parking codes, will add tax revenue to the.city, eliminate a vacant gas station property, employee 12 to 15 people from the surrounding area, match the architecture of the Plaza Lafayette and enhance the surrounding businesses and general area. Thank you for your consideration of this project. If you-have any questions, I can be reached at (949) 477-1275,ext. 16. Best Regards, Michael 3. D son President cc Management Team ' Alegre & Associates 1601 Dove St.,Suite#230 Newport Beach, CA 92660 RESOLUTION NO. 98-102 1 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN, 2 CALIFORNIA, UPHOLDING THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S DECISION TO DENY CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 98-007 AND DESIGN 3 REVIEW 98-007, REQUESTING AUTHORIZATION TO CONSTRUCT A 4 1,472 SQUARE FOOT DRIVE- THROUGH OIL CHANGE FACILITY AT 12972 NEWPORT AVENUE. 5 The City Council of the City of Tustin does hereby resolve as follows: 6 1. The City-Councii finds and determines as follows: 8 A. That a proper application for Conditional Use Permit 98-007 and Design Review 98-007 was filed by EZ Lube to construct a 1,472 square foot drive- 9 through oil change facility with three work bays and indoor/outdoor waiting areas. to B. That a public hearing was duly called, noticed and held on said application 11 on October 26,1998, by the Planning Commission. 12 C. That on October 26, 1998 the Planning Commission denied Conditional Use 13 Permit 98-007 and Design Review 98-007 by adopting Resolution No. 3623. 14 D. That on November 2', 1998, the applicant, Michael J. Dobson, President of EZ Lube, appealed the Planning Commission's denial of the project, 15 E. That a public hearing was duly called, noticed and held on said appeal on '6 November 16,'1998, by the City Council. 17 F. That the construction, establishment, maintenance, and operation.of a drive- 18 through oil change facility will be detrimental to the health, safety, morals, comfort, or general welfare of the persons residing or working in the 19 neighborhood of such proposed use, or be injurious or detrimental to the property and improvements in the neighborhood of the subject property or to 20 the general welfare of the City of Tustin, as evidenced by the following 21 findings: 22 1. 'The site shape, size and-design is not adequate to accommodate circulation patterns, thereby creating a negative effect on the safety 23 of individuals and is not in compliance with the Auto Service Design Guidelines, adopted by City Council, in the following manner. 24 25 O The number of curb cuts along Newport Avenue and Old Irvine Blvd. would create a traffic safety hazard. 26 9 The inability to tum a vehicle around in the stacking area behind 27 the service bays and the site design, which does not provide 28 access around the building for exiting, may cause a traffic safety hazard. 29 2. The site design could create potential obstruction to access required off-street parking spaces. This is not in compliance with the Auto Service Design Guidelines. Resolution 98-102 City Council November 16, 1998 I Page No. 2 z 3. The site design may create a safety hazard for egress or ingress of 3 an emergency vehicle requiring access to a vehicle, or structure due to the absence of maneuverability. around the building -and the 4 insufficient area to accommodate vehicular tum-around. 5 4. The Town Center Redevelopment Plan states: 6 Sec.413 The Redevelopment Plan is intended to promote and encourage a mixed-use design concept, which will strengthen the interrelationship of different land, uses 9 to benefit all. 9 'Sec.420 No use or structure which by reason of appearance, traffic, smoke, noise, odor or other, similar factors 10 would be incompatible with the surrounding areas or II structures shall be permitted in any part of the Town Center Redevelopment Area. 12 The proposed use would negatively impact access with the adjacent 13 site and is incompatible with the surrounding uses, which is inconsistent with the City's General Plan. 14 15 5• The City of Tustin General Plan states: 16 Goal 1: Provide for a well balanced land use pattern that accommodates existing and future needs . for 17 housing, commercial and industrial land, open space and community facilities and services, while A maintaining a-healthy, diversified economy adequate to provide future City services. I9 20 Policy 1.6. Encourage compatible and complementary infill of previously by 21 passed parcels in areas already predominantly developed. 22 Goal 3: Ensure that new development is compatible with the 23 surrounding uses in the community, the City's 24 circulation network, availability of public facilities, existing development constraints and the City's 25 unique characteristics and resources. 26 Policy 3.8: Encourage consolidation of parking and reciprocal access agreements 27 among adjacent businesses. 28 The proposed use does not integrate the parking, circulation, and 29 access with the adjacent site and is incompatible with the surrounding uses, which is inconsistent with the City's General Plan. Resolution 98-902 City Council November 96, 9998 _ 1 Page No. 3 2 G. The location, inadequate size, architectural features and general 3 appearance of Design Review 98-007 will impair the orderly and harmonious development of the area, the present or future development 4 therein, or the occupancy as a whole (Tustin City Code Section 9272). The following site design supports this finding: 5 6 9. The height of the proposed structure does not meet the required code standards and is therefore out of scale with the neighborhood. 7 The lack of landscaping on the Newport frontage will exaggerate the bulky appearance of the structure. S 2. The proposed setbacks and design of the site plan does not provide 9 enough landscape areas or areas to.accommodate 'the necessary parking and on-site traffic demands. The building orientation causes �� visibility of the service. bays. The use of a glass and panel door will lr be unattractive.allowing visibility into the service bays when the doors are closed. 12 3. The physical relationship of the proposed improvements is not 13 compatible with- the existing structures and sites in the 14 neighborhood. is 4. This visible comer lot is-a gateway into the City from the north and the relationship of the building, landscaping and site design will set. 16 precedence for any future development or improvements to structures in the neighbdrhood and public thoroughfares. 17 5. Due to the site's inadequate size, proposed uses and circulation 18 patters cannot be accommodated on the site and do not promote 19 the orderly development of the property or surrounding area. 20 6. The proposed development is not in compliance with the sign code. The .proposed cabinet wall sign exceeds the maximum size 21 permitted by the City Code. 22 7. The proposed development is not 'in compliance with the Auto 23 Service Design Guidelines adopted by the City Council. 24 a) The site design and building orientation is not in compliance with the "Site Design Order of Preference" due to the visibility of the 25 service bays from public view and that the development is not on a lot where the topography, vegetation, buildings, or other 26 structures provide the. greatest amount of screening of the 27 service bays from public view. 29 b) The proposed access is not in compliance with the Engineering Division's recommendations to limit the number of driveways 29 and provide shared access with the adjacent center. C) The vehicles within the stacking area.interfere with the access of the required off-street parking.. Resolution 98-102 City Council November 16, 1998 1 Page No. 4 2 d) The site design does not provide adequate room to 3 accommodate anticipated circulation patterns. 4 e) Significant size and area of landscaping is required to buffer the structures from the street frontage and.landscaping is required 5 for all street fronts, setback areas and along property lines. The street widening will eliminate the proposed landscaping on 6 Newport. - 7 f) The plan does not provide the minimum 15% landscaping. s g) The site size, proposed uses and circulation patterns cannot be- 9 accommodated on the site and do not promote the orderly development of the property 10 11 H. This project has been determined to be exempt from the requirements of CEQA pursuant to Section 15270 of the California Environmental Quality 12 Act, which states that CEQA does not apply to projects rejected or disapproved by a public agency. 13 II. The City Council hereby denies Conditional Use Permit No. 98-007 and Design 14 Review No. 98-007 to construct a 1,472 square foot drive-through oil change facility 15 on the property located at 12972 Newport Avenue. 16 PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Tustin City Council, held on the 16th 17 day of November, 1998. 19 20 THOMAS R. SALTARELLI Mayor 21 22 PAMELA STOKER 23 City Clerk 24 25 26 27 2s 29 Resolution 98-102 City Council November 16, 1998 1 Page No. 5 2 STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) 3 COUNTY OF ORANGE ) SS CITY OF TUSTIN ) 4 CERTIFICATION FOR RESOLUTION NO. 98-92 s - PAMELA STOKER, City Clerk and ex-officio Clerk of the City Council.of the City of Tustin, 6 California, does hereby certify that the whole number of the members of the City Council of the City of Tustin is 5; that the above and foregoing Resolution No. 98-102 was duly and 7 regularly introduced, passed, and adopted at a regular meeting of the Tustin City Council, held on the 16th day of November, 1998. 8 COUNCILMEMBER AYES: 9 COUNCILMEMBER NOES: to COUNCILMEMBER ABSTAINED: COUNCILMEMBER ABSENT. 12 13 PAMELA STOKER City Clerk 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 DENN15 D. HAYDEN ATTORNEY AT LAW 2014 NORTH BROADWAY SANTA ANA. CALIFORNIA 92703 TELEPHONE {714) 542-3003 FAX 17141 542-4263 January 11, 1999 City Council City of Tustin 300 Centennial Way Tustin, CA 92780 Re: Appeal of Conditional Use Permit.-98-007 & Design Review 98-007 Application of EZ-Lube to construct a - drive-thru oil change facility at 12972 Newport Avenue (AP No. 501--081-05) Property Owners : Gary Siegel, John Siegel and Patricia Siegel Gibson Honorable Members of the City Council : The owners of the above-described property, the. Siegel family, have been residents and business property owners in Tustin for more than 50 years . Until approximately four years ago and for more than 40 years prior to that time, the above property was improved with a Mobil gasoline service station (full service, including auto repairs) . Since the removal of the service station improvements approximately four years agog the property has been a vacant, non- income- producing property on which it has been ' difficult to ` maintain a neat, orderly appearance, a fact which has been distressing to the family, as well as affecting surrounding property values . In addition, during the four years, the property has produced no sales tax revenue to the City. For the first three of the past four years, the Siegel family deferred offering the property for sale due to their uncertainty as to the eventual impact on the site which might result from the City' s environmental and engineering : studies of proposed future widening and improvement of the Newport/Irvine intersection, studies which are still ongoing at this time. DENNIS D. HAYDEN ATTO F N EY AT LAW ' City Council January 11, 1999 City of Tustin Page Two Re : Appeal of Conditional Use Permit 98-007 & Design Review 98--007 Application of EZ-Lube to construct a drive-thru oil change facility at 12972 Newport Avenue (AP No. 501-081--05) Property Owners : Gary Siegel, John Siegel and Patricia Siegel Gibson In February, 1998, with so much time having, elapsed since the onset of the City' s studies, and desiring that the property be sold and developed in a manner which would enhance the appearance ofthe corner site, as well as the general area, the family entered .into an escrow with EZ-Lube 'for the sale of the property. The family entered escrow only after careful review of EZ-Lube' s proposed use, development and maintenance of the property as an architecturally attractive and landscaped drive-thru auto oil change business performing no automotive repair work 'and no hoists for lifting vehicles into the air. The Mobil Service Station which previously occupied the site serviced approximately 700 vehicles per day. EZ--Lube is projecting approximately 40 vehicles per day. The property is zoned C-1 and its proposed use is not incompatible with the surrounding areas or uses and it will, in fact, strengthen the relationship of different land uses in the area. After being vacant for a number of years, no other reasonable project has been proposed for the site. Ten months ago on March 19, 1998 EZ-Lube filed its Application for a Conditional Use Permit to construct its drive- thru oil- change facility on the property. EZ-Lube has 22 similar facilities in other Cities all adjacent to similar types of businesses that exist near this site, -all of which have received Conditional Use Permit approvals from the various Cities in which they are located. In the last ten months EZ-Lube has, at the request of City Staff, prepared and filed numerous revised plans and made', additional submittals including submittals on April 13, 1998, June 15, 1998, August 14, 1998, September 3, 1998 and September 11, 1998 . In August 1998, five months after. the initial Application, the City adopted "Auto Service Design Guidelines" to regulate the DENNIS D. HAYDE\ ATTORNEY AT LAW ' City Council January 11, 1999 City of Tustin Page Three Re: Appeal of Conditional- Use Permit 98-007 & Design Review 98--007 Application of EZ-Lube to construct a drive-thru oil change facility at 12972 Newport Avenue (AP No. 501-081-05) Property Owners : Gary Siegel, John Siegel and Patricia Siegel Gibson development of all auto service facilities such as drive-thru oil change facilities, car washes, service stations, etc. On October 26, 1998 the Planning Commission denied CUP98-007 and' DR98-007 setting forth certain findings each and all of which the owners take issue with. Tt is the owners ' position that in actuality the Planning Commission was induced by �Staff to deny the project and thereby delay and deny indefinitely the legitimate use of this site based upon presently .unknown and undetermined uses for the redevelopment of other properties in the area by the Redevelopment Agency some time in the distant future. No objections to the project were made by any property owners at the public hearing. Admittedly, neither the Staff nor the Redevelopment Agency has identified any projected uses for the -adjacent properties and no negotiations have been conducted by- Staff or the Redevelopment Agency with property owners in the area concerning any specific or general uses for the property. This is confirmed by the fact that the owners of this site have never been contacted by Staff ,or the Redevelopment Agency in that regard. To further delay and. deny this project, which is not incompatible with existing permitted uses in the area, and is ` certainly preferable to the previous gasoline service station use, based upon unknown developments that may occur some time in the distant future, effectively precludes the economic use of the property, is damaging to the owners and deprives the City of an aesthetically pleasing development which is compatible with existing businesses in the area as well as depriving the City of sales tax revenue. The owners respectfully request that the City Council grant the appeal of the Applicant from the. decision of .the Planning Commission which denied Conditional Use Permit No. 98-007 and Design Review No. 98-007, overrule the Planning Commission' s DENNIS D. HAYDEN ATTDANF_Y AT LAW City Council January 11, 1999 , _ f City of Tustin Page Four Re: Appeal of Conditional Use Permit 98-007 & Design Review 98--007 Application of EZ-Lube to construct a drive-thru oil change facility at 12972 Newport Avenue (AP No. 501-081-05) Property Owners: Gary Siegel, John Siegel and Patricia Siegel Gibson decision as set forth in Resolution No. 3623 and approve the Application for Conditional: Use Permit No. .98-007 and Design Review No. 98-007 as filed and supplemented by the Applicant. Respectfully submitted, six ( 6) copies herewith , GARY SIEGEL, JOHN SIEGEL and PATRICIA SIEGEL GIBSON By. e DENNIS D. HAYDEN Attorney for Owners ATTACHMENT C REVISED PLAN SUBMITTAL. 1 N Z lug I� NORTH ELEVATION WEST ELEVATION g — I Q'� 9 \ tee^'. t s , 'EAST ELEVATION SOUTH ELEVATION � I 4 \ 9vgdfna Slze 1,541 sq.Pt. 1 � yLoi 5/re I (Before DedfeatlonJ 19,!05 5q.PG, iY wrt,te rsai'ti �` Lf § so.o' lea' 3•R (AfGBf Dad/cdtlonJ !1,934 5q,Pi. 1 5 It l rYr I � ♦ - Parkl��oavlred 6 Spaces Park/n�Provfdad 6 Spaces• 11 . I I I D �a' O Landeca�i9 Rea Irsd i 1\\ I (Before Dedlcai/on) 1,978 Sq..PG,(15%J 33 .I 9`, O 1p,aao'p„�itiy6 /After DadlcaGfogl 1,790 sq,Pi.(15%J 1 Land c pin9 Pravlded ` (Aftw z diaobr m) 5,044 Sq:FG.(39%) 7 (Afiar DodleakfonJ 4,044 Sq.Ft.(4439) i PRELIMINARY SOTfEPLAN n 50 %13' SIGN AREA loci Dave 8lre�t ON THE BUILDING "�O I— ' EZJLUBE Newport Bench,Cellfomd 9299 i CATDRAWN By; 5.s I (949)199.122,7 i SCALE:ml. ___ ——_ _ _ _ ______ NEWPORT AVENUE AT OLD IRVINE BOULEVARD,TUSTIN L nLE NAME: OLDMINEDOULEVARD ELEVATIONS 1TEPA , SHEET: A I LANDSGAPE LEGEND 5YMB01 BOTANICAL NAME(M-MN NAMFJ TREES. Ef l KOELR9TTERIA FANIaLATA(60LDENRAIN TREE) I PYW15 CALLERIANA'BRADFORD'(BRADFORD PEAR) a W15HIMTONIA HYBRID 91YBRID FAN PALM) I I 5k94,65e I� I G AGAPANTHM.AFWCAK%(LILY-OF-THE-NILE) O CI5TU5 LANDANIFER(CRIMSON 5POT ROGKRoW Q ® METES 6RANDIFLORA(FORTNI6HT LILY,WHITE) j I O NAND NA DOME5TICA(HEAVENLY BAM13W) RAPHIOLEPI5 INDICA'5PRIN6TIME'(INDIA HAWTHORNE) R PITT05PORUM TOBIRA VARIE6ATA'VARIEGATED MACK ORANGE) O 6ROUNDCOVER5, TRACHELOSPERMUM JA5HINOIDE5(STAR JASMINE) ZtI I r I u PRELIMINARY LANDSCAPE PLAN I EZ LUBE 1swatSultuit s 136 Newport Beach,California 91686 (949)477-1113 OLDIRK1NEBOULEYARD __________ NEWPORT AVENUE AT OLD IRVINE BOULEVARD, TUSTIN i m mg s rl „.• 9 Q 0 --------------------- I� II II II II II II II II � II II '4 W o ii iiqq3 OPEN TO 6ELOW� I I I 1 g I � B II II II I � j JI II II I I � 4ti [� u II I II I I I I . --------__ ��� �� I----------� 0 w- -.V DRAWN --.VDRAWN BY: Be. EY DATE: . [SCALE: V/•.1'-0' i !�FILE NAMF: ROOF PLAN 5ASEMENT FLOOR PLAN FIRST FLOOR PLAN R PLANS 0 SHEET: A 2 LAIMAFE LEGEND SYMBOL BOTANICAL NAME(COf mN.NAMFJ TREES. I _ KOELREUiERIA PmiaLATA(60LDENRAM TREE) FYRUS CALLERIANA'6RADF0RD'(BRADFORV MARL I i _ WA5HINGTONIA HYBRID(HYBRID FAN PALM) I II ' StT2UB5�. • A6APAMWSAFRICA46(LILY-oF-TIE-RM a 05TU5 LANDANIFER(CRIM50N SPOT ROGKR05E) I O DIETES(RMPIFLORA(PDRTNICHT LILY,MITE) a I ' • NANDINA DOMESTICA MVENI..Y BAME100) RAFHIOLEPIS INDICA'SPRIN5TIME'(INDIA HAWTHORWJ .6 _ All _ PITT05PORUM TOBIRA VARIE6ATAWARIE6ATED k0CK'ORAN6E) 6RDI1OCOo ER5, . TRAL40.05PE4IUM JASMINOIDE5(5TAR JA5MINE) I f ® I I PRELIMINARY LANDSCAPE PLAN I EZ LUBE 1691 GOYO Street $ulb 190 Newport Beach,CallTorula 91869 1 (949)477-1223, DLD/RWAEBDULEVA D _ _ _ NEWPORT AVENUE AT OLD IRVINE BOULEVARD, TUSTIN �_ — ATTACHMENT D AUTO SERVICE DESIGN GUIDELINES EXHIBIT A RESOLUTION NO. 98-61 AUTO SERVICE DESIGN GUIDELINES POLICY: The purpose of the design guidelines is to.promote and protect the public health, safety and general welfare, and preserve and enhance the aesthetic quality of the City relating to auto service uses. To fulfill this purpose, it is the intent of the design guidelines to: 1. Establish appropriate development guidelines related to site and.building design, circulation, parking and landscaping to promote orderly development. 2. Identify expected operational guidelines to minimize impacts ..on adjacent properties and neighborhoods. 3. Implement certain facilities and amenities necessary to protect the public safety and convenience. DEFINITIONS: Auto Repair Shoos: These services include the retail sale of petroleum products and automotive accessories; automobile washing (by hared); waxing and polishing of automobiles (by hand); the sale and repair of tires; battery service; cleaning and flushing of. radiators; and the installation of accessory components. ' The following operations are permitted if conducted within an enclosed building: painting; body work; detailing; lubrication of motor vehicles; brake service limited to servicing and replacement of brake cylinders and brake shoes; wheel balancing; testing, adjustment, and replacement of ,carburetors, coils, condensers, distributor caps, fan belts, filters, generators, points, rotors, spark plugs, voltage regulators, water hoses, and wiring; and the performance of minor emergency repairs on a vehicle. Car W.6sh: An occupancy which primarily provides the service of washing, waxing, polishing and vacuuming- automobiles by .hand and/or.by an automatic machine. Services incidental to this use include the retail sale of.petroleum products, automotive accessories and food items. Service Station: - Means an occupancy which provides for the servicing of motor vehicles and operations incidental thereto, limited to the retail sale of petroleum products and automotive accessories;automobile washing by hand; waxing and polishing of automobiles;tine changing and repairing (excluding recapping); battery service, charging and replacement,not including repair and rebuilding;radiator cleaning and flushing, excluding steam cleaning and repair; installation of accessories; also including the following operations if conducted within a building; lubrication of motor Exhibit A, Resolution No. 98-b i City Council August 3, 1998 Page 2 - vehicles; brake servicing limited to servicing and replacement of brake cylinders and brake shoes; wheel balancing;the testing, adjustment and replacement of carburetors, coils condensers,distributor caps, fan belts, filters, generators,points, rotors, spark plugs,voltage regulators,water and fuel pumps,water hoses and wiring. (TCC 9297) PERMIT PROCESS The Tustin General Plan and- Zoning Code identifies properties within the City where auto services are conditionally approved. 'The process and procedures for the development, modification,br operation of auto services i.e. service stations, auto repair shops, car washes, or convenience markets (including drive-through), shall be consistentwith the General Plan and Zoning Code. PROJECTS SUBJECTTO DESIGN GUIDELINES . Any new service station, auto repair shop, or car wash, or an existing nonconforming facility that.is altered more than 50 percent of the building's assessed valuation per Section 9273b of the Tustin City Code, shall comply with these design guidelines. SITE DESIGN ORDER OF PREFERENCE �. Auto service facilities shall be designed and developed in the following order of preference: a. On a comer lot designed so the service bays are oriented away from public view and the .pumps located at the rear of the lot behind the structures to buffer them from public view (See Exhibit-A). • b. On a lot where the topography, vegetation, buildings or other structures provide the greatest amount of screening of the service bays and pumps. 2. As a part of the application process, applicants for auto,service facilities shall be required to provide written documentation demonstrating a good faith effort in designing the facilities in accordance with the site design order of preference. DEVELOPMENT GUIDELINES 1. Placement of structures on the site shall be clustered and oriented to shield the service bays and pump stations from view with. service bays and pump islands oriented toward the interior of the property (See Exhibit A and Figure 1). The interiors of work bays shall be screened from public streets, adjacent residential properties or open space areas. Building openings shall be buffered from residential properties to ensure noise and odor attenuation. Exhibit A, Resolution No. 984 1 City Council August 3, 1998 Page 3 2. Site design shall include paved areas to accommodate all legitimate, anticipated circulation patterns. All other areas shall consist of decorative• paving or landscaping. Driveway cuts shall be limited to one driveway per street-frontage, or as otherwise determined by the Engineering Division. When possible shared access between properties shall be provided. 3. Landscaping is required in all street front and side setback areas, adjacent to customer entrances to buildings, and along property lines. Landscaping shall be designed as a buffer between the structures, adjacent properties and street frontages. (See Figure 2). A minimum of 15 percent of the lot shall be landscaped; consistent with the City Landscaping and Irrigation Guidelines. All landscaped.areas shall have permanent irrigation systems and maintained on a continual basis. A 6" high curb shall separate the planting areas from paving areas. 4. Air and water service shall be located in a convenient, conspicuous, well-Iit area that will not obstruct the on-site circulation patterns or required parking spaces. 5. Outdoor storage shall be permitted in approved areas screened from view. Accessory buildings used for storage of accessory goods to be sold at retail on site, such as tires, tubes, waxes, lubricants, etc., shall be architecturally compatible with the design of the main structure. Trash enclosures shall be an enclosed masonry structure, minimum 6'X 8' size.. T;" �r�s,rork ba yam a u�otrFiaiblre r �. .. .ter-�,.,'�j#�.r .:rP... .' `ti.`1^•_',+.,',. :12indscap��`aa�tcaa; �aaigapprap�a;�eus3s-e .'�:�ie_faeade�af l;hdstructure- -; Qjt1�C.... xCseaCe;.;,t0�t�s`=: Y a_tree t�rscaaa� a?add avrojda 'w="i ,: �`-' 4_ ,=-_• ,:. � tlie.:appeara�aae:vf:'the -17! "'back-cif 7a btjld3ng. Figure I Exhibit A, Resolution No. 9M'i" City Council August 3, 1998 Page 4 6. Restrooms shall-.be located within the approved structure with entrances or signage clearly visible from the pump islands or cashier area and concealed from view of adjacent properties by planters or decorative screening. 7. Pay Telephones shall be located within the approved structure. The pay phones shall be programmed to prohibit incoming calls. The location of pay phones outside the auto service establishment is prohibited. 8. Stacking for two vehicles (401 feet)for each pump island shall be provided on-site . to preclude interference with internal parking and on and off-site traffic circulation. 9. Truck circulation patterns and positions for tank filling shal[not conflict with critical customer circulation patterns or cause .a potential for stacking overflow onto a street 10. Masonry walls, 6'8" high masonry walls shall be constructed adjacent to all interior property lines abutting residentially zoned or used properties. 11. Compressors shall be located in the interior of the site ar within the buildings to minimize any impacts on adjacent properties. 12. Lights for illuminating the site or advertising the facility shall be located in such a' manner so as to contain all direct rays upon the subject property. Fixtures and intensities shall require the approval of the Community Development Director. - '� a�revesae ' y plaM - - A ' the;rpurapa�nli�sl ' •- - ��'�• -T�a�an8scitpe; - --�-;=;�: • :, fheatraetM �c��`PumP�s�a�d Figure 2 Exhibit A, Resolution No. 98-6'i ' City Council August 3, 1998 Page 5 - 13. Outside waiting ams shall be incorporated with the site design. The design of these areas shall be compatible with the .main structure providing an inviting atmosphere with desirable elements such as shade structures, benches, decorative furniture, umbrellas, landscape planters, etc. 14. Water Quality, development shall comply with all applicable provisions of the City of Tustin Water Quality Ordinance and all rules and regulations set by Federal, State, and Regional Water Quality Boards and the Orange County Sanitation District, as they relate`to Auto Service facilities. PARKING 'Unless otherwise specified in the Tustin Zoning Code, the following parking regulations shall apply: Auto repair: 4 spaces per service bay, plus adequate queuing lanes for each bay., plus 1 space for each 2 employees on'the largest shift. Auto parts sale: .1 space for each 400 sq. ft. of gross floor area, plus 1 space for each 2,000 sq. ft_, service area, plus 1 space for each 300 sq. ft. of gross floor area for a parts department plus 1 space for each 2 employees. Car washes- self-serve: 2.5 spaces per washing stall, for queuing and drying. Car washes-full-serve: 10 spaces, plus 10 spaces per wash lane for drying area, plus queuing area for 5 vehicles ahead of each lane. Convenience markets: 1 space for each 200 square feet of gross floor area. Service Stations: 1 space for each pump island plus as required for ancillary uses. BUILDING DESIGN 1. All structures, including accessory buildings, canopies and pump islands, shall include a high level of architectural detailing consistent and appropriate for the neighborhood or center theme that may exist. 2. All building elevations shall be architecturally detailed to avoid the appearance of the "back of the building"; buildings shall contribute a positive presence to the street scene. 3. Building materials shall have the appearance of substance and .permanency; lightweight metal or other temporary appearing structures are not appropriate. - Exhibit A, Resolution No. 98-& City Council August 3, 9998 Page 6 SIGNS Section 9401 of the Tustin City Code or the approved sign program for the subject property shall be referenced regarding sign regulations. OPERATIONAL CONDITIONS 1. Service operations shall be entirely within approved structures, except for the services of dispensing gasoline, oil, water, air and the replacement of wiper blades, hand washing, waxing, polishing, vacuuming vehicle interiors and outdoor seating, which shall take place only in areas designate on approved plans for such activities. No vehicle repair shall take place in any parking space or drive aisle. 2. All vehicles that are not being worked on within the building shall be parked only within designated marked parking spaces. No parking shall be permitted in front of the roll up doors or any drive aisle 3. No outdoor storage or-display of materials small be, permitted except allowed by the Zoning Code. 4. Vending machines shall be located within the approved structure. Outdoor vending activities is prohibited. 5. • 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 approved structure except within the designated trash storage area. All inoperative vehicles shall be parked within the building. No inoperative vehicles shall be permitted to be parked on the site outside the building, including marked spaces.. 6. Storage or parking of buses and trucks or similar vehicles is prohibited. This excludes tow trucks, pick-up trucks, and small vans incidental to the service station use. 7. Parking and.advertising of vehicles for sale or lease is not permitted. 8. 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. 9. All service stations and self-serve stations shall provide water and air, at no cost and available 24 hours a day. All air hoses shall be equipped with operating and accurately calibrated gauges. Exhibit A, Resolution No. 98-5 r City Council August 3, 1998 Page 7 10. Provisions shall be made for the storage of used oil and lubficants pending recycling. 11. Public address systems shall never be used in outdoor areas. 12. All requirements of the City's Noise.. Ordinance (Chapter 6 of the Tustin City Code) shall be met at all times. LL;vehides.doc Exhibit A. Resolution No. 98-�':i City Council August 3, 1998 Page 8 POTENTIAL ACCESS TO AD7ACENT COB=CZAL'CENTER PROPMTY LIVE I I 6'S• Y.ASONRY WALL • r • if • TRASR' ENCLOSaRE PAVINENT DRIVE APRON '� • AIR & WATER SERVICE . y xn?MrcaP PA1t1CAVc � - PARAINC SPACES `y f \ / covsREp Pvrt�sLArms - C;LS$zER. CONVENSENCS / STORE ADID RESTROOMS / / i • • I5 .S$:9AC1C / PzkXBETER PLANTER } 1 CI SERVICE BAYS - y LAMS E BERM \ � 6• CONCRETE COREntq po} OF %001 a . L.3NDSCAP$�PSANTER. lYONO1�NT SIGN - . ""� • DRIVE APRON PROP$RTY ro= STREET- STREET CITY IVASTER PLAN EXHIBIT- A ITEM#3 Y O eportto the �UsTt� Planning 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 AS' 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/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)). Planning Commission Report Conditional Use Permit 9M22& 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 9 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 95-019. 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-bf way. On March 3, 1.997, 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 to 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 o 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 a 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 6V 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. o 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 Newport Avenue between Warreri 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; ® 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. Jus aWillkom - 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/--/"f/_ " a r fril- f l WARREN 14452 N Ch J 6l 14472t 1 m 18-327 r, -C a, %n r +n 1 14491 14492 i i 14512 14,501 n/ 14511 14512 11451 ,e, 14503 14482 1 L___ 1451111114522 14521 Q i 1522 '--- i 1'' 3 i 14505 `I g`1 H 1 1'n 14531111 14542 14512 k4' 14531 13532 i�i� i[i 14511 �T 1F Q — in 1`�V il' 14552 s s� 14551 -� :4552 14522 145511e, 14521 456 gee ],561 14562 �o n i 15572 --• 1458),' 14561 14562 e ahq* 14581 14582 ;* } —1 ',14,582 14591 .1459 g<13 lli • 14612.18 ti 91�, \ ,a r adJ , 22.26,32, U —�d62_1 2\ 1"L9�o' e 38,42,46,52 14681 1 82 ' ,1'19005 s 14672,74, q ` ` I76,78,8D 14682,61 fp 14 2 LU , 86,88.90 146914 A 1 oz J Z _ n h � ` [ �n W' e N N N ~ N 1 12 N ol r4 J? V > , v 901 J Q PLAZA JVy i 22 -- --�----- e N N N o4Jo 0410 14751 4 147 J e r R < O 14752 ' Q�IC IJ 7 2 14771 o�J [ 14762 14772 IJD x, 14772 4 — -- JJ '14782' cl � m m m � r NO SCALE IRVINE BOULEVARD _ A rVrV A t"TTu► TT-P..TrT A I RESOLUTION NO. 97-16 2 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN REVERSING THE PLANNING COMMISSION' 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 AN 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 : 10 I . The City Council finds and determines as follows : 11 A. That a proper application, Conditional Use ' Permit 96-037 and Design Review 96--051, was i2 filed by C.L. Burnett to authorize- . the establishment of a parking lot on a vacant 50' •13 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 establish the subject parking lot . 19 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 28 Apartments, submitted an appeal of the Planning Commission' s action on this project. Attachment B Resolution No. 97-16 Page 3 1 I . Height, bulk and area of buildings . 2 2 . Setbacks and site planning. 3 3 . Landscaping, parking area design and 4 traffic circulation. 5 .4 . Location, height and standards of exterior illumination. 6 5 . Location and method of refuse storage . 7 6 . 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 thoroughfares. 12 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 15 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 2B SEE SHE 2. �. "A ,Y^'! ro.r w.r. /�es.ra..•r• _ / NZ lZ.2'WlE2 " Q .- 1Zair�S• ,,•,\� EASEMENT LEGEND ���1��."I� I� �...r vara _ �es6.99:".�.. .n. _ .�l.V I•\` ` �"/ `'' �•�Y4 r..�ren..„. �'�y 1� �`�iI .":.°:. !� •. .. ` ��h '�� •C°j, r fJ a...r�r' 71efii r (k i ` � ...�._ yy .., �,c I....I�J,,� ,�r..�„'._._ Fid � y �` R;:s s`•. r+J�=^oL;La« w�. I ' !`�I �` ..., l yr =-c.�.11`uiT.'IJ,i4'2 -+.�tli'y'✓ i' �/`t�l'''�•.,,. ^�_, rv1p. �'+nu". . n \- It /J�v,;l',_ %~ \�}�N', eft ` VICINITY MAP .h.,`/ - i er:L� 44 zi IF LEGEND 5' �� i �j /•N off: �_/ - -- r , \ PADNING SUMMATION EU^AITLNIAL USE PE6rAf 96-022 DESIGN REVIEW 98- 026 SITE 9 T� Jr a...... nsos 4AGWAIN�[EIt SAI IOfrlid fi.]I ��_�IRVINE BOULEVARD Attachmci iNtl9d 3AOldY1 .i la, u�^.iii vi�,�w�- - xx n..i�x x....n�,�.xi nine ia�r�i.n,�.,.r+a.wi^..,•.,..inx 3113 VdVI VZVld •��.,,;,�;„�.,��.��,...�.�r.,,.,.,..,..�..,,....n,n x�..;��.G;GT �J• .W i , I;., - r' ..• .. ,.,moo,'N« -` , __ y canoe q•kyr S "�b19 PARKING- ANALYSIS AND CIRCULATION STUDY AT PLAZA LAFAYETTE IN THE CITY OF TUSTIN, CALIF. Ref. No. 9810.03 Date-. December 1998 Paul Singer, P.E. TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERING,& PLANNING Attachment D r Pau! Singer, P.E. TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERING & PLANNING "33 Columbus Drive • Anaheim Hills, California 92807 • (714) 261-3222 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 traff is 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. SiZerely, etp�{5510,r - �9J�sfryG Eye. * IXP.3-31-00 Paul Singer, P.E. orf OF CAL\E4�� 9810 .03R Page 1 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 5 Parking usage Page & Parking ratios Page 8 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 , y_ Appendix DrMODUCTION: 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. Pzo-i ect 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 S=p1Y: 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 -*41231 6W-el" LOT H VANOERUP AND ROWAN TRACT LU4 51160 A it[Ll PL• P,/,YrdJizzr /'r Aro 41a r[rrC wyew".l I.l. AVA. PP rr,tU-SCC�c cftVG'pr: _ca�curnrrv+r N.89'52'�2'NL! l� JoLvarr""urw�v�rm,o' 6Q2.14�T ^�rou••� rGurivrwaR4. —536-. f.vt•cu 6•LLGATE W XZW qt -rer' ar/r� CFA•34,Iya 5F. d f>sEYENY R yrlrJ HT•32,5 � �v urve r �dvrx ' ' 491 r �� � �.::.;�',�:•r,�'.�.,.':nEre _,(off# .• - I l 9P Py ` V m I Ihi [ I trcrrr , al asatee r cwctl ti t [�Ps a LO tj IT P.s � FLOWER SHOP a. 1 A paot[crr _G 13 21 -T • ti 13031 �� � � I / / ..- • CHT.325'35E t - r-+R. [ .. - + ' S M/?4 •iS •I c.0. �ti M'/IA Iia 1��• 4 � 8 I I �TI ;� � • r ♦ � / 4�C� jt /V I r•V � v� , �j � ' 1., I Indicates detail handicap Lj parking area modification as shown on Figure 3, 4 and 5 r xn Ti— /IRVINE BOULEVARD Paul Singer, P.E. TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERING & PLANNING SITE PLAN Fig- 1 j • x• I� s r k i :Vt�Y��•f7�- EL •�x�sT Ps�ll'KnVC-}�r�4 Paul Singer, ,P.EQ NEW, PACING TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERING a PLANNING AREA ADDITION F19. 2 STUDY ELEMENTS: City Re irements: The City of Tustin follows a comprehensive Parking requirement standard. The following Parking Demand Study will address the existing parking supply on the 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, 847 sq.ft . Vacant 6, 363 sq. ft. Retail* 24, 515 sq. ft . Kiosk 100 sq.ft. Total square feet of buildings : - 54,126 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 Required 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 Prosect 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 6 { 1 rR See Figure 1 . for Location Existing 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 19 ' Paul Singer, P.E. AREA 1 FiJ TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERING & PLANNING Parking 3 See Figure 1 _ for Location .Y• tis••. Existing Proposed Sidewalk Sidewalk i� 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 within the •same area. This will yield one additional, on-site parking space to the parking supply. Typical Parking Space = 8 .51x 19 ' Paul Singer, RE. AREA 2 TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERING & PLANNING Parkhng Fig-4 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 . Highest parking Occupancy 12 ; 00 Noon Friday: 205 . 8 spaces Parking supply - occupancy = 232 .0 spaces Net vacant spaces worst condition: * 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. Page 7 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 1.99 .72 square feet of floor area -- proposed This ratio averages 5 parking spaces per 1, 000 square feet of leasable area. Based 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. 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 i5 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 . Page 11 , 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. Page 12 I APPENDIX Paul Singer, P.E. TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERING & PLANNING PLAZA LA FAYETTE LEASE SUMMARY LEASED ADDRESS SUITE TENANT SQ.FT. SQ.FT. BUILDING 13011 Bldg. tat Floor 100 Tustin Brewing 4,546 4,548 8.40% 1atFloor 100A Owner 1,345 1,345 2.48% 1st Floor 101 R.Pellaller Interiors 704 704 1.30% 1st Floor 102 Starting Line 3,050 3,050 5.63% 1st Floor 103 Mark Jordan Portraits 1,200 1,200 2.221/6 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% IatFloor 107 Crestline Nutrition 1,292 1,292 2.39% 1st Floor 108' Needlepoint,Unitd. 1,580 1,680 2.92% 1 at Floor 109 Grilfin,H.R J. 1,526 1,526 2.82% 1 at 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 2000 2,100 2,100 3.88% 1st Floor 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 BurnellCevelopmenl 1,222 1,222 2.26% 2nd Floor 207 TravelTyme 1,080 1,080 2.00% 17011 Building Totals 34,164 34,164 63.10% 13021 Bldg. Klask Petals A La Carl 100 100 0.16% 13031 Bldg. tat Floor 115 Great Western Bank 6,363 6,363 11.76% VA v A,.e T 2nd Floor 200 Burnell Cevelopment 3,345• 3,345 6,18% 2nd Floor 202 Burnell Cevelopment 655 855 1.58% 13031 Bulling Totals 10,563 10,663 19.62% f 3041 Bldg. Pain du Monde 2,427 2,427 4.46% 13051 Bldg. Nleuport 17 Restaurant 6,862 6,882 12.71% 1304151 Building Totals 9,309 9,309 17.20% PROJECT TOTALS 64,126 54,126 100.00% •TS 1 Transportation Studies, Inc. A Traffic Data Collection Company La Fayette Center Tustin, CA. Thursday 10-22-98 Friday'10-23-98 Front Back Front Back 11:00am 43 59 61 68 12:00pm 103 121 101 115 01 AOpm 90 119 87 123 02:00pm 84• 79 82 89 03:00pm 66 72 70 80 04:00pm 67 71 77 66 05:00pm 87 72 71 75 06:00pm 102 100 100 108 07:00pm 104 117 102 110 1720 E.Garry Ave.Ste. t 19,Santa Ane • CA 92705 • (949) 852.8460 a Fax(948)852-8441 Seri 9y:. ; 714 7.34 8120; Oct.1.3-9a 3:3'PSI; Page S N ? j Community Development Department City. of T stin ! 30.0 Cen:onnial Way Tustin GA 92780 'I (714 573-3100 '.October 7, 1998 ;:rack Stanaland `'plaza Lafayette,LLC. ;{30872 So.Coast Highway, Suitc 160 1 aguna Beach, California 92651 UBJECT: COMPLETENESS OF,CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 98-022 & �SIGN REVIEW 98-.026 ]esi Mr. Stanaland: "ll'bank you for your application, submitted September-I5, 1998, for a parking lot expan,ion to Plaza Lafayette at 13011 Newport Boulevard. ' This project has been identified as Con itionaI lIse Permit 98-022 and Design Review 98-026. -i Community Development Department has reviewed your application and in confol Vance Government Code Section 65943, this is notification that your submittal is `considered Incomplete. For your application to be considered cumplete, all information, exhibits, and materials identified in the attached Exhibits A and B must be provided; items id=tified*ith an asterisk (1) shall be addressed with any .future submittals. Items with a (c) will be pgtential s londitions of approval' unless the submitted materials address the comment. In add' on to gxhibit A.we offer the foilowitig eonunents: As noted in a meeting with you an May 28, 1998,and in cotscspond.mcc to you dated ugust 10, 1998, the City identified a parking and circulation deficiency at Plaza LafayP e.and Irequested that you provide appropriate mitigation in accordance with Condition! 18 of : 'Resolution No. 3413. Approval of your request is subject to the discretion of•the oning Adn;inistrator, and if appealed; the Planning Commission and City Council. Shou d this °{ project be denied,the obligation to mitigate the pa"riting and circulation deficiency wbu Id still be in effect. : As you know, the City Council denied a previous projrct that proposed additional:p king _. behind Plaza Lafayette. Residents of the Woodcrest Apartments actively participatedrn the putslic hearing process. We would strongly encourage you to meet with the property. ers :1 and residents to discuss your project and possibly allay their concerns prior to a ublid hearing on the project. . .Hill ..4, , . Selt 8y: ; 714 734 8120; Oct-13.98 3:32PM; Fage 2J6 II Mr.:StanaIand October 7, 1998 Page 2 ,ISo that the Community Development ment De pertinent may consider you to be in campliap a with :Condition 6.18 of Resolution No, 3413, please submit aI1 requested materials by Octo er Z7, 1998, Please contact me so that I can arrange to meet you and pctsonally ace' it your :,:!resubmittal. If you have any questions or concerns related to this matter, please contad. me at (714) 573-3123. '��SincereI _ Karen Peterson ssociate Planner Attachments: Exhibit A e Comments and Corrections �cc: Danicl Fox,AICP,Senior Planner f i `f 1r._WI A . Sent Ey: ; Ti4 734 8120; bet-13-98 3:32PM Page 318 =! EXF•IISIT A COMMENTS AND CORRECTIONS CONDITIpNAL USE PERMIT 98-022 AIND DESIGN REVIEW 98-026 —COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT ' Planning Division - : �. Please provide eight(8)sets of revised plans, stapled and folded to $ ? "x a 11", { 1.2 Provide a parking analysis that evaluates haw the provision of additional parking will address'the existing parking and circulation deficiency. 'he parking analysis should be prepared by a Califomia Registered T affic Engineer andlor California Registered Civil.Enginecr experienced ii his type of analysis. The analysis should also identify how Conditions 614, 6.15 6.16, 'and 6.18 of Resolution No.. 3413 (attached),have -ben implemented. Be sure to include information related to parking operatibns and restrictions in effect for the entire tetter (e.g., valet service 'ti,e restrictions, etc.). This information should beprovided in a narrativ� >nd illustrated on a site plan. 1.3 Employee-only parking is.a more appropriate use for the proposed pa qng r- -area. Valet scivice may�,�bc too disruptive-to .adjacent residential uses, especially in'the late evening hours. Please modify the plan accordingl5l (*) 1.4 Please provide a site plan that.shows the entire center,including'loci on and numbers of existing and proposed parking:spaces: The plan silo ild i clearly show;points of access to the retail spaces from the pro ied parking area. All casements should be shown and identified on tb ite plan. Provide written evidence from each agency that holds an easein nt that they support project approval and implementation. 1 (*) 1.5 A four(4) foot wide landscape arca is proposed between the sidewalk and ° parking spaces. 'Since this area is located to the rear of the center, it ay be appropriate to reduce&,e width of the planter and increase the wi of the 20' drive aisle. A number of bollards could be installed to dcfin he boundary between the parking area and sidewalk. ' (*) I.6 The proposed pian shows a,total of thirty-seven (37)parking spaceswi a dimension of eight (8) feet by nineteen (19) feet. -If the landscape pl er 'I is reduced as noted in #1A, each parking space should be 9' by 20"With i no overhang. i Al ,.:[ :'!,.t By i 714 734 81-20; Oct-13--38 3:33PM; Page 418 Exhibit A October 7, I998 i Page 2 : l { ) 1.7 Provide a section detail of the proposed sidewalklmuIti-use trail, paring spaces, and drive aisle and the existing parking arca. This will help clartfy :. how the existing impcvvements will transition into the proposed area. 1.8 The County of Orange Public Facilities &Resources Department indic .� � IC5 that the proposed seven (7) foot wall-%,ay is of adequate wid to :-j accommodate a trail use (see comment 5.1). Please indicate on the ite plass where the trail would be accommodated within the remainder orf the i cent or. 1.9 On the site plan, indicate the location of proposed lighting lixiies. Provide a separate detail of the proposed light fixtures. (*) 1.10 On the site plan, indicate the location of proposed walls and provid�tf a section detail. Section 9271(2) r uirrz a solid mac wall six 6 1--et ul masonry � (�>� 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 reductigrr� of required spaces from 327 parking spaces to 241 parkingspaces. ' e s approval of Conditional Use Permit 98-022 and Design Review 9$,-t 26 i and installation of thirty-seven (37) parking spaces will partially ib III t Mitigation Measure 6.18 of Resolution No. 3414 which requiro�4 he i I provision of additional parking up to the minimum number requircii or :.f the aggregate of shopping center uses. The provision of additional patkin,g j spaces shall not be used to increase or intensify restaurant scatir;Rg or� i eommerciallretail square footage. Building Division ( ) 2.1 Provide a site plan, that shows the number and iocation of parking saes =; for the entire commercial center and include the number of parking sga cs accessible to .i disabled persons. Additional accessible parking spaces.!' ay be required based on the total number of exisiing and proposed p g spaces. ' ") 2.2 Provide details of outdoor lighting in the parking areas, landscape er ias, on the buildings and at entrance doors as required by the City of T# in . :I Security Ordinance. Since lighting will be of concern to :adj t residents, it is suggested that several low wattage lighting bollards or 15 • i seri 3y: ; 714 734 8'20; Oct-13-98 3:33041; Page 5'8 . 1 Exhibit A October 7, 1998 f Pago 3 ; lighting standards be used instead of the two fighting standards shown on the plan: {c) .2.3 When submitting for a building permit, submit four sets of plans an4 t 6vo sets of soils reports. (c) 3:A Ail,grading, drainage, vegetation-and circulation shalt comply with, he City of Tustin Grading, Manual. All succi sections, curbs, gL rs, sidewalks, lighting, and- storm drains shall comply with or_ ite { improvement standards...Any deviations shall be brought to theartct 'on j of the Building Dfficial and a request for approval shall be submitt in writing prior to approval. P_JBLIC WORKSDEPARTMENT (") 3.1 Submit a metes and bounds deseription of each parcel and an el bit 4; which c:carly shows the:eonftguration and dimensions of'each parcel.: (*l 3.2_ Protide written authorization from the Orange County Sanitation Did i'ct that construction over their easementwill be allowed. { ORANGE COUNTY FIRE AUTHORITY A ('") 4.1 Plot the location of existing on-site and off-site building footprints in relation to the proposed parking Iot area. COUNTY OF ORANGE PUBLIC FACILITIES&RESOURCES 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 exi' ng walkway will connect to the proposed walkway. It is suggested pv ing part of the landscaping at the north end of tho existing parking 1?1 to provide a transition between the cxiisting 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. FS (*) 6.I Please submit $25.00 in conjunction with the next submittal for pay4nt = of fees for preparation of a Notice of Exemption. I ' i Sent 3y: ; 714 734 8123; Oct-13-98 3:34P:d; Page 613 Exhibit A October 7, 1998 Page 4 (c) 6.2 Prior to issuance of any building permitsa i p ymeni steal] he made d all applicable fees, including but not limited to the following. Payment;sall ' be required based upon those rates in effect at the time of payment and arc subject to change. : .1 , A. Building plan check and permit fees to the Comm44ty Development Dcpartment based on the most current schedule. B. Orange County Fire. Authority plan check and inspection fess t the Community Development Department based current schedule. Pon Chestt (1) 6.3 Within forty-eight (48) hours of approval of the subject project. she applicant shall deliver to the Community Development Department a :I cashier's check payable to the COUNTY CLERK in the amount of $3$•00 (thirty eight dollars) to enable the City to file rho app mrropiri to environental documentation for the project, If within such forty- i�'ht { (48) hour period that applicant has not delivered to the Cotnmt4b ty Development Department the above-noted check, the statute of lirrmitatis j for any interested parry to challenge the environmental deternnination under the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act could be :j significantly lengthened. } Z. Community Development Department Gity of Tustin NOTICE TO 300 Centennial Way COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT CUSTOMERS Tustin, CA 92780 (774;573-3100 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 Dcfruiter 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' 573-3I4I 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 ! 0 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 Gahan ' Code Enforcement Officer 573-3134 Felix Garcia Code Enforcement Officer 573-3I35 Ron Johnson Code Enforcement Officer 573-3122 George Wiesenger Code Enforcement Officer 573-3I49 REDEVELOPME;sT TITLE PHONE Jim Draughon Senior Project Manager 573-3121. Dana Ogdon 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 COUn'TY HEALTH CARE AGENCY Inspections 559-7537 Environmental Health Division 667-3600 General Offr-clHeadquarters 744-0400 Public Health Services 667-3737 ORANGE COUA"TY SANITATION SOUTH COAST AIR QUALITY MANGE,MENT DISTRICT General Office 962-24I 1 General Office (909)396-2000 IRVIlgE 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 98-026 C01Mh1UNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT Planning Division (*) 1.1 Please provide eight (8) sets of revised plans, stapled and folded to 8 t/z" x Provide a parking analysis that evaluates how the provision of additional parking will address the existing parking 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 Nlo.. 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 Iate evening hours: Please modify the plan accordingly. (*) 1.4 PIease provide a site plan that shows the entire center, including location and numbers of existing 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 Iandscape 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 bollards 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 Iandscape planter is reduced as noted in #1.4, each parking space should be 9' by 20' with no overhang. • s zbitAi A Solution No. 3413 page .5 _ {1) 6.11• Authorization for, theon-site- sale of beer and.-wine • (ABC License Type "23") ' is contingent. uponthe -use of the subject premises remaining a restaurant. Should this use. � . change, authorization for this use permit 'shall become null and void. (7) 5.12 There shall be no .billiard tables, video games, dancing or live entertainment on .the,premises at any time, unless approval of a Conditional Use Peimit is obtained for these activities . (7) 6.13 All persons selling alcoholic beverages shall be 18 years of age or older and _shall" be supervised by someone 21 years of age or 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 a• the front. Notificaiion• of this reuirement 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. (2) 5.15 Prior to the issuance-of a Certificate of Occupancy for- the proposed restaurant/microbrewery, directional signage_ shall be provided to inform .,patrons that , parking is available in the rear of the shopping center. The installation and.maintenance of' directional signage shall comply with Section 9409C of the Tustin City Code Sign 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) 6;15 During peak months Isuch as December, or at other times as ''deter'mined necessary in writing by -the! :.Public Works Director , and/or Community 'Development Director,. based.F upon on-site traffic and circulation issues, valet " parkin'g:_for .the.proposed Tustin Brewing Company shall"be providedl- 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 receive 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 Page 6 Development Director and shall be implemented immediately ~ uT)on notification. (2) 6 :1.7 At the time of Plan Check submittal , . a revised time restricted time . 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 revision's . The property owner shall then provide the original , sicned acknowledament forms ' to the Community Development Denartment 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. b. Extending time restrictions on a portion of the parking spaces located in the front-central area 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) • 6:18 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 traf f is 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 i' A A ozution No. 3413 • mitigation may include, but not be limited t following: o the a. Establish alternate hours of operation. t.t= b• Provision of additional parking as needed, up to . = 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 'Variance. approval of a revised Failure to adequately respond to such a and to implement mitition measures within the timee st ga schedules established shall be grounds for 'initiation of revocation Procedures for Variace 95-011 and Conditional. Use Permit 95-019 . n FEES _ • (� } 7 .1 Prior to issuance of any building ,permits (5) ym be made �of all applicable fees, including b tGnotnt shall to the follomited wing. 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 . (1) 7 .2 Within forty-eight (48)J hours of {5), - 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 _ dollars) to enable the City tolfile the 00 (%appropriate environmental documentation for the project, pIf 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. SEE SNEET2 Ti, ^� o[� Moao.av,Hatt a�„r„�• � ' I y mol. �- r 6°2.wQ•\•'••Y�'Y� Ci fig*` ''["1y/\` EASEMENT LEGEND qdl ; i �� ... .r..r..e, rnrnr �,�1��� Se�0. /�•\ j �=��Y9 '-[n.-. .Y� .,C P-1 /,- \ref er,✓' ^ss s ; ;�'.�r�t:�•- � Ike I� 'I ,� .n I��$:.• k , f :':\S �\ „(� ';:; j-},I f�JpI`. i � ..aev..a fV[q°C1` ! [� I� ��}�, ti '•G••..;. '+,T� ,(j' �.., N. .i I � I iwy l � w F,"�V 21' Ix.•s '! ,f , .,\�:F� �(/"S. ...•:.,� isJ°i �"�"� ...u.lm..o...v«.w.,owe..0 I � •[ I I // / �/ / VICINITY M4P q� I i I�t I k I ,n II 2'-� .` � / �� �<a}��� ✓mow LEGEND u 4 tt a /\�t�4(/�//J�� /\ Stnq['wpC`SrMrvttM v� 4� .� N. valq+ Var-ki • PAR-ING SUMMATION nr'eY ePcw�'w �• q•I' =f _yT t / .lt?_ CU^ TMAL USE PER.1T 98-022 �, a:: c:.'�srecii eels - DESIGN REVIEW 98-026 a �••{ ,!!.fi d � ''h. :��. r� [o[uxnsu[[s SITE PLAN " ;_��.�.i.;r LN �k•/ ;� �^� RPia laua+EllL.ILC I, ry r ;�`� �-�•'M«Y� ns°sw+.l coesewc�nesN[sy \7 •,u,.n, ` •• IRVINE 'BOULEVARD Attachn • t E • An h Int - Mall of• �� Orange MEM AVE. Vila 9ALL RD. I .. Park _ TAFT AVE. e 4ca �l lillill .1111 i1lIIR! -- — r ^ Villa Park -"— - -' Town Cent r* 5° ❑❑r 0130 ❑ 1313❑❑❑ ❑I nahe; ❑ VILLA PARK RD. - �� Arena KATELLA AVE. . -< • F, Anaheim• COLLINS AVE, 11 r 1!I I I P Stadium LiLi /. s a Orange y a J,UCL47P hapman � � srry « © CHAPMAN AVE —Old Town Orange. I [A VETA GRoRo vim-.__ o FAIRHAVM. _ AVE. Santa Ana y w -Pa`ada r { L Vf Ca Tu Ca Tustin Branch - Trail w 17TH STREET Existing Trail' Railroad Right-of-Way PUrchaseG= ARRE14 Railroad'Right-of-Way PUrchase and Bikeway Development . 1 i j Pre:a Lala yet Proposed Interim Ort-Street "I41llllIST STREET,Connection i ` Tustin ' Pa� ' �. Proposed Final off-street hferghts �.� ~ I MAIN ST Cenrer Bikeway Carznedion 1313❑❑❑❑ Old Toiam '% Major Destinations Tustin y " oe Schools L'iv!LCar'�rs \AObEN AVENUE �. . nrs I f;% `.` ?0. Attachment F 1 RESOLUTION NO. 3662 2 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF• 3 TUSTIN TO APPROVE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 98-022 AND DESIGN REVIEW 98-026, AUTHORIZING THE ESTABLISHMENT OF"A PARKING 4 LOT ON A VACANT 50' BY 314' PORTION OF AN ABANDONED RAILROAD RIGHT-OF-WAY LOCATED TO THE NORTH OF.THE PLAZA LA FAYETTE 5 SHOPPING CENTER AT 13011 NEWPORT AVENUE AND TOTHE'WEST OF 12901-12943 NEWPORT AVENUE. 6 7 The Planning Commission of the City of Tustin does hereby resolve-as follows: 8 1. The.Planning Commission finds and determines as follows: 9 , 10 A. That a proper application, Conditional Use Permit 98-022 and Design Review a., 98-026, was filed by Plaza Lafayette, LLP. to authorize the establishment of i 11 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 12 Newport Avenue and to the west of 12901-12943 Newport Avenue. 13 B. That a public hearing was duly called, noticed and:held on said application on.- March 22, 1999 by the Planning Commission. I4 C. That the proposed use is allowed within the Multiple-Family Residential District 15 (R-3),with the approval of a Conditional Use Permit. 16 D. That establishment,maintenance,and operation of a parking lot in a residential 17 district to serve an adjacent commercial shopping center, as conditioned, will riot,be detrimental to the health, safety, morals, comfort, or general welfare of 18 persons residing or working.in the neighborhood of such proposed use, nor be injurious or detrimental to the property and improvements in the neighborhood 19 of the subject property, or to the general welfare of the City of Tustin, as evidenced by the following findings: 20 1., Jhe parking lot expansion area will be used-for employee parking only, 21 F thereby reducing the potential for noise and other nuisance impacts on adjacent properties. 2223 _ 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 24 adjacent.properties. 25 3. The proposed parking spaces will not be permitted to count as required parking spaces for the shopping center or be used to accommodate 26 additional parking intensive uses, such as restaurants or medical uses, in the shopping_ center. 27 4. The additional parking spaces will indirectly provide.more parking for 28 patrons of'the shopping center, thereby mitigating parking demand - impacts as required by Condition 6.18 of Planning Commission 29 ° ' Resolution No,. 3413(Variance No. 95-011). Resolution No. 3662 Page 2 1 2 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 3 garage or carportwalls. 4 E. Pursuant to Section 9272 of the Tustin Municipal Code, the Planning 5 Commission finds that the location, size, architectural features and general appearance of the parking lot expansion area will not impair the orderly and 6 harmonious development of the area, the present or future development therein, or the occupancy as a whole. In making such findings, the Planning 7 Commission has considered at least the following items: 8 1. Height, bulk and area of buildings. 9 2. Setbacks and site planning. 10 a 3. Landscaping,parking area design and traffic circulation. 11 . 4. Location, height and standards of exterior illumination. I2 5. ' Location and method of refuse storage. 13 6. Physical relationship of proposed improvements to existing structures in 14 - the neighborhood. 15 7. Appearance and design relationship of proposed improvements to 16 existing structures and possible future structures in the neighborhood and public thoroughfares. 17 8. Development Guidelines and criteria as adopted by the City Council. 18 H. This project is categorically exempt (Class 11) pursuant to Section 15311'of 19 the California Environmental Quality Act. 1 20 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 21 consistentwith the Air Quality Sub-element. 22 23 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 24 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 25 Woodcrest Apartments at 12901-12943 Newport Avenue, subject to the conditions contained in Exhibit A, attached hereto. 26 27 28 29 Resolution No. 3662 Page 3 1 2 PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Planning Commission of the City of Tustin at a regular 3 meeting held on the 22nd day of March, 1999. 4 5 LESLIE A. PONTIOUS 6 Chairperson 7 8 ELIZABETH A. BINSACK 9 Planning Commission Secretary 10 STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) 11 COUNTY OF ORANGE } CITY OF TUSTIN } 12 13 14 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 15 passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the Tustin Planning Commission, held on the 22°a day of March, 1999. 16 17 IS 19 Elizabeth Binsack 20 Planning Commission Secretary 2I 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 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 March 22, 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} " 1.6 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). PCICC POLICY EXCEPTION (4) DESIGN REVIEW . { i li 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 City 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-wayto.-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 garagest are removed in the future,the property owner of the shopping center shall be required,within sixty (60) days of removal, to construct,a V-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 minimum of eight(8) feet in width'and20 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. (5) 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'sdetail 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. (4) 2.6 Six (6) inch raised concrete curbs shall be placed on-site adjacent to the perimeter boundary walls and carport walls, unless approved otherwise by the Community Development Director. Landscaping,gravel, concrete or other material acceptable to the Community Development Director may be placed between the curb and the walls. - (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 �l ` which is attended by loud or unusual noise is prohibited on Sundays and City ,f observed federal holidays, before 7:00 a.m..and after 6:00 p:m. Monday through r Exhibit A Resolution No. 3662 Conditions of Approval for CUP 98-022 & 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 1ts 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,im: 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) foot high gate'shall be installed and maintained to secure the proposed parking lot from the adjacent shopping center parking area: (4) 2.10 The gate shall be closed between the hours of 12:0. 0 p.m. and 7:00 a.m..'and no parking shall be allowed within those hours. .'� (4) 2.11 The applicant shall provide security personnel to patrol the parking lot between the hours of 5:00 p.m,to 12:00 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. C. Retain additional security personnel. 3 Exhibit A Resolution No.,3662 Conditions of Approval for CUP 98-022-& DR 98-026 Page 4 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 any 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 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. ** 3.1.2 Within forty.-five (45) days of the. approval of,CUP 98-022 and DR 98-026, the applicant shall provide the followin : 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.• d. 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 applicant shall provide evidence to the Director of Community Development that the lease agreements have been modified. .. PLAN SUBMITTAL (1) 4.1 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 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 (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 far_review and approval prior to the issuance of a grading permit. (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. Exhibit A Resolution No. 3662 Conditions of Approval for CUP 98-022 & DR 98-026 Page 6 (5) 4.5 In compliance with the California Code of Regulations, Title 24 Part 2, Accessibility Standards, and prior to the pian 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 #4 �T F O c leport to the TUSTV' Planning Commission DATE: MARCH 22, 1999 SUBJECT: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 99-003 APPLICANT: MR..CRAIG WASSERMAN NUNYA ENTERPRISES,LLC, 672 EL CAMINO REAL TUSTIN, CA 92780 .PROPERTY OWNER: WILLIAM ZAPPAS EI CAMINO PLAZA 3922 EMERALD TORRANCE, CA 90503 LOCATION: 672 EL CAMINO-REAL -- ZONING: C-2,.P (CENTRAL COMMERCIAL DISTRICT,PARKING OVERLAY DISTRICT) ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: THIS PROJECT. IS CATEGORICALLY EXEMPT (CLASS 1) PURSUANT TO SECTION 95301 'OF THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT. REQUEST: AUTHORIZATION FOR THE PRESENTATION OF LIVE ENTERTAINMENT IN CONJUNCTION WITH AN EXISTING COCKTAIL LOUNGE. RECOMMENDATION That the Planning Commission adopt Resolution No. 3659 approving,Conditional Use Permit 99-003. Project Description The applicant is requesting authorization for the presentation of live entertainment in conjunction with the existing cocktail lounge located at 672 EI Camino Real. The live entertainment would include a variety of Iive bands, with approximately three to five members each. The- bands would be featured on Friday and Saturday nights from 9:00 p.m. to 1:30 a.m., Sunday afternoons and approximately once or twice per week on weeknights from 9:00 p.m. to 1:00 a.m. Live entertainment, with some exceptions, is subject to the approval of a Conditional Use Permit pursuant to Tustin;City Code Section Planning Commission Report CUP 99-003. March 22, 1999 Page 2 9270(b) and an Entertainment Permit pursuant to Tustin City Code Section 3221 et. seq.- Exceptions that dd not require a conditional use permit or a live entertainment permit include disk jockeys and planists. The applicant is not proposing any expansion to the size of the premises or any changes to the seating in the cocktail lounge. Site and Surrounding Properties The existing cocktail .lounge is located within an approximately 1,650 square feet tenant space in the EI Camino Plaza Shopping Center. The center is surrounded by commercial uses to the east, commercial-and residential uses to the north, industrial uses to the west, and office uses and Interstate 1-5 to the south. Background According to City records, the existing cocktail lounge has-operated at 672 EI Camino Real for at least 23 years. The applicant assumed ownership of the business in 1998. In October. of 1998, the City 'of Tustin leamed ,through the Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control (ABC)that the applicant had requested a premises;to premises transfer of the existing Iiquor license to allow the existing.. cocktail. lounge to expand into an adjacent tenant space. City staff.notified ABC and the applicant that the cocktail lounge could not be expanded because the City has distance criteria for new or expanded alcoholic beverage sales establishments that must be satisfied. These criteria require a minimum :separation of 1,000 feet from new or expanded establishments to certain sensitive.uses, including residences. Because the existing business is approximately 600 feet from the nearest residence, the applicant is ineligible to apply fora conditional use permit. The liquor license finally issued by ABC-authorized a person to person transfer of the license only for the existing 1,650 square foot tenant space. Staff also notified the applicant that the proposed. live band entertainment required approval of a conditional use permit and a live entertainment permit. Although live entertainment has been presented at the cocktail lounge for many years; all previous approvals for live entertainment are ,no'longer valid because entertainment,permits are- non-transferable pursuant to City Code Section 3222(c). However, a dance permit issued in 1984 'is still valid ,because there are no restrictions on that permit with respect to transferability. Issues Staff`has reviewed the.proposed request for conformance.with applicable Zoning Code regulations and.has identified the following issues: 1. Type of Live Entertainment The applicant proposes-to feature live bands several nights per week. Condition 2.1 requires that the live entertainment be presented entirely within the interior of Planning CommissionReport CUP 99-003 March 22, 1999 Page 3 the premises and that no sexually oriented entertainment, figure modeling or fashion shows be.conducted anywhere on the premises. 2. Existing Nonconforming Cocktail Loun e The existing cocktail lounge is considered an existing nonconforming use because it was established prior to .the City's adoption of distance criteria for alcoholic -beverage sales-establishments and would not meet these criteria if the business were established under the present regulations: The distance criteria also prevent the expansion of the existing business. Therefore, Condition.•Number 2.6 has been included to prohibit the expansion of the.existing cocktail-lounge beyond its existing size of approximately 1,650 square feet. 3. Hours of Operation: The proposed.business hours are not proposedto change. However, the presentation of live entertainment will be prohibited between the hours,of 2:00 a.m. and 6:00 a.m. 4. Live Entertainment Permit The applicant is required to obtain an Entertainment Permit from the Director of Community Development prior to the presentation of live entertainment within the premises. As part of this process,l :the Police Department may conduct background investigations of the applicants and owners. 5. . Noise . :Because the presentation of live entertainment has the potential to generate excessive noise levels, outdoor amplification of the live entertainment will be prohibited, the business shall' comply .with all 'provisions of the Tustin Noise Ordinance,. and', noise attenuation may be' required as determined by the Community Development Director as part of the annual review of Conditional Use Permit 99-003. 6. Games City -records indicate that one pool table was authorized in, the existing establishment. Condition 2.3 limits the business to a maximum of one pool or billiard table. and Condition 3.2 requires the site plan to be revised to show a maximum of one pool/billiard table. This table shall be considered nonconforming because the City's current Guidelines for Alcoholic Beverage Sales.Establishments prohibit.pool or billiard tables in such establishments. Condition 2.4 prohibits coin operated video games since the guidelines do not allow video games within on-site sales establishments. Copies of the application and plans for Conditional Use Permit 99-003,were distributed to the Community Redevelopment Agency staff and other City Departments. The site is located within the Town Center Redevelopment Project Area. No significant concerns Planning Commission Report CUP 99-003 March 22, 1999 Page 4 'were noted by City staff. Conditions have been included to mitigate potential impacts related to the presentation of live entertainment in conjunction with the existing cocktail lounge. ANALYSIS . In determining whether to approve the Conditional Use Permit, the Planning Commission must determine whether or not the proposed use will be detrimental to the health, safety; morals, comfort and general welfare of the persons residing -in or working,in the . neighborhood.or whether it will be injurious or detrimental to property or improvements in the vicinity or to the welfare of the City., A decision to approve this request is supported by the following findings: 1. - The business .is approximately 600 feet.-from the nearest residences, directly adjacent to a_freeway, light industrial complex and commercial uses, most of which would be closed for business during the majority of the hours when live entertainment is proposed to be presented, thereby minimizing the potential for negative noise or other impacts on adjacent properties. 2. The'hours of operation of the existing cocktail lounge are not proposed :to change, and the presentation of live entertainment will be prohibited between the hours of 2:00 a.m. and 6:00,a.m. 3. Outdoor amplification of the live entertainment shall be prohibited. 4. . The business shall comply with all' provisions of the -Tustin Noise Ordinance. 5. The applicant has not requested approval to locate -any sexually oriented business or use within the existing cocktail lounge. - In addition, sexually oriented businesses are not permitted within the Central Commercial (C-2) zoning district. Therefore, no sexually oriented businesses will be conducted on the premises. Scott Reekstin - Karen Peterson Associate Planner Acting Senior Planner Attachments: Location Map A-Submitted Plans Resolution No. 3659 %%COMM_DE%AVOL115HAREDICDD-RDAICDDVPCREPORTkmp99-003.doc r � LOC rJ , L i AT101V MAP 14r 1 1 rf -- PRoTECT' s�rF 1 r \ f f slant s17t[CT 49 orsn v + v i 610 Goo AND GIRL'S i 428 i E 520 602 i CLUB I t 424 I t 6'20i 621 604 z i - 400 I I I 630 632 I t � --' ----------- g : FL CAUINO �,- ' —_ Lo PLAZA m—� r—_-------- fi4p 649 634 636 m I .I 642 f S42 c , rI SJ l i ` 566 652 n n [L n l Saar i s fi92 653 654 1. L J 656 660 env b m m 694 .I Sfi2 658 655 664 n +�f�i� b .O 10 10 W 10 .D n W 10 730 zz: c I I 34y ®tel NO SCALE J. QQo 0 0 O O 0 00 00o 000 ,oa.o op o � 0000.-000 a Q O a �r�-�n�� Q 0 1N � o O Q v 0 5 ATTACHMENT A - 1 No. Sq.Ft. -Terrarr7 600 1..800 11�R Block �'• , \�,� .\\`,\\\\\.\ I 602 1.200 Dusnino'sPiva - • '\\\•,\\•.•.\ ,\\;\\\\\\\.1\ .\\\\• 60.1 Loco Marvel's Jewelry Loan -sI•' 6cra Alltion Cleaners / J \ `.'• \,\\\\\\\\\\\\ _ ,\\\ \• "\\\\\\\\\� •Il,l ego 600 BestlloifC= / , \, \ \\ `\`,, \ \\\ \,\.\\ \�•.',\`I I(("I 630 30.000 Available 11 632A 4.000 Available _ i 637D 2.000 Available Ei - I I 632C 2.000 National h1- gage Cenrcr I 638 - 3.200Laalnl swats and Spices 610 1500 Baby Outtct 650,` 7.000 TustinHealthSpa 6542000 Available i m 's. 13.t 656 .2.OM Available: LL.I 658 2000 As'adaC]n _ji%%%%/�f/f1:�i.li/' '/ ^ �� •� 660 600 SboeRepair' -i 662 600 TJ'sSubmuine 664 61x1- 4311Irc. cn RL 668A- 600 -Bavarian Bakery rf - �.. `.\+.i]�. .+.�,i /��. �•• - _ _ _ a = 6?2 - 16blcGuixesLoung676 c . _�� i'- '�' - —� ,i I •.I X 678 Del Dale Rel Fit-vol + �� \ `. —J S:S At.DrisioeScfiool (3.I - I - .. :., 680 1.100 Hair Dynarrucs IL •. .—"�-.\\''• \'+ •1 =r• ^ .. N 632 1.375 Lone Hai Chinese R-uumnl I m0 I ' 683 IS•W La6orReady f^ I I r�u I I.•'''4`,\;\`\',�•., 1 ,c.1 �`T \,�. �/ ='—i _688 2.040 Iubor Rrad;. 4-- 'm f C' \,' \' I' I 6696 92 10.477 CuruinCaBDinnerThtatre O —f�. .'.• ...`- :•rte .. .7Ti Available I +. +. .'. �%/• '°a• f 694 563 #1 Nails I. r ur s-•.t, -\�`. ,�`_'. ��c i•-�C:.I i(�' r- i!; 696 1.315 Re-7[eads and Etc: V.`�• ` -700 2,000 Available LCI �� I l ti \ i \ 706 2.200 Bronco Cleaners ••.-' �� 708 750 Our Boutique Coiuisa—t . _. 710 4.750 partyTiruo. 712 3.750 Vileoland 0 _ } EL CAMINO REAL ^^M" Located on the 5 freeway,just EI Canino Plaza - - - EI Camino F\ south of tl1C 5 and 55 intefseCtlon. El Camino Real&6th St. Plaza T „�,� •`' Situated in the absolute center 700 A£t Camino Real �°. Tustin,CA 92780 N 0� of Orange CoUlAy,California. (714)8:,8-5808 I6Q . FAX(714)305-0907 VDIAJ E cyar` . P' - RESOLUTION NO. 3659 1 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING CONDITIONAL USE 2' PERMIT 99-0.03 AUTHORIZING THE PRESENTATION OF LIVE ENTERTAINMENT IN CONJUNCTION WITH AN EXISTING 1,650 3 SQUARE FOOT COCKTAIL LOUNGE AT 672 EL CAMINO REAL. 4 I. The Planning-Commission finds and determines as follows: s A. That a proper application for Conditional Use Permit 99-003, was filed by Mr. Craig Wasserman on behalf of Nunya Enterprises, Inc., requesting 6 authorization.for the presentation of live entertainment in conjunction with the existing cocktail-lounge located at 672 EI Camino Real, Tustin. 7 8 B. That a public hearing was duly called, noticed and held on said application on March 22, 1999 by the Planning Commission. 9 C. That the presentation of live entertainment is allowed with the approval of a 10 Conditional Use Permit. ,1 D. That the establishment, maintenance, and operation of the use applied for will not, under the circumstances of this case, be detrimental to the health, 12 safety, .morals, comfort, or general welfare of the, persons residing or working in the,neighborhood of such proposed use nor be a detriment to the 13 property and improvements in the neighborhood of the subject property, nor to the general welfare of the City of'Tustin as evidencedby the following 14 findings: 1s 1. The business is approximately.600 feet from the nearest residences, 16 directly adjacent to a freeway, light industrial complex and commercial uses, most of which would be closed for business during 17 the majority of the hours when live,entertainment is proposed to be presented, thereby minimizing, the potential for negative noise 18 impacts on adjacent:properties. 19 2. The .hours of operation of the existing cocktail lounge are not proposed to change, and the presentation of live entertainment will 20 be prohibited between the hours of:2:00 a.m. and 6:00'a.m. 21 3. Outdoor amplification of the live entertainment shall be prohibited. 22 4. The business shall comply with all provisions of the Tustin Noise Ordinance. 23 24 5. The applicant has not requested -appr'oval to locate any sexually oriented business or use within the existing cocktail lounge: In 25 addition, sexually oriented businesses are not permitted within the Central Commercial (C-2) zoning district. .Therefore, no sexually 26 oriented businesses will be conducted on the premises. 27 E. That this project is Categorically Exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act, pursuant to Section 15301 (Class 1). 28 _ F. That the project has been reviewed for consistency with the'Air Quality Sub- 29. element of the City of Tustin General Plan and has been determined to be consistent with the Air Quality Sub-element. Resolution No. 3659 Conditional Use Permit 99-003 1 March 22, 1999 Page 2 2 3 11. The Planning, Commission hereby approves Conditional Use Permit No. 99-003 . authorizing the presentation of live entertainment in conjunction with an existing 4 ° cocktail lounge located at 672 El Camino Real, subject to the conditions contained within Exhibit A, attached hereto. 5 PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Planning Commission of the City of Tustin at a regular 6 meeting held on the 22nd day of March, 1999.. 7 8 9 LESLIE A. PONTIOUS Chairperson 10 I1 ELIZABETH A. BINSACK Planning Commission Secretary 12 13 STATE OF CALIFORNIA' ) COUNTY OF ORANGE ) 14 CITY OF TUSTIN ) IS 1, ELIZABETH A. BINSACK, the undersigned, hereby certify that I am the Secretary of 16 the`Planning Commission of the,City of Tustin, California; that Resolution No. 3659 was duly passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the Tustin Planning Commission, held 17 on the 22nd day of March, 1999. 1s 19 ' 20 ELIZABETH A. BINSACK 2I Planning Commission,Secretary ' 22 23 24 25 26 27 28, 29 i� EXHIBIT A RESOLUTION 3659 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 99-003 GENERAL (1) 1.1 Approval of Conditional Use Permit 99-003 is contingent_ upon the applicant signing -and returning an• "Agreement' to Conditions Imposed" form as- established by the Director of Community Development. (1.) 1.2 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) 1.3 Conditional Use Permit 99-003 may be reviewed on an annual basis, or more ;often if necessary, -by the Community Development Director. The Community Development Director shall review the use to ascertain compliance with the conditions of approval. If the use is not operated in accordance with Conditional Use Permit 99-003, is found to be a nuisance or negative impacts are affecting the surrounding neighborhood, the Community Development Director shall impose additional conditions to eliminate the nuisance or negative impacts, or may initiate proceedings.-to revoke the Conditional Use Permit. (1) 1.4 Any vlolation 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) 1.5 The applicant shall be responsible for costs associated with any necessary code enforcement action. USE RESTRICTIONS (5) 2.1 Live entertainment shall be presented entirely within the interior of'the premises during normal business hours. No sexually oriented entertainment, figure modeling, or fashion shows shall be conducted anywhere on the premises.. (5) 2.2 Prior to the presentation of live entertainment- within the premises, the applicant shall obtain an Entertainment Permit from 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 r (4) DESIGN REVIEW EXCEPTION Exhibit A Resolution No. 3659 Conditional Use Permit 99-003 March 22, 1999 Page 2 (5) 2.3 A maximum of one pool/billiard table shall be permitted .on the premises. Based on the City's Guidelines for Alcoholic Beverage Sales Establishments, pool/billiard tables are,. not permitted and as such, the . existing pool/billiard table in the subject establishment is considered nonconforming. (5) 2.4 No coin operated video games shall be located on the premises. (5) 2.5 The business shall comply with the requirements of Assembly Bill 13, which-pertains to smoke-free workplaces. (5) 2.6 The premises shall' not be expanded beyond the existing size of approximately 1650 square feet. (5) 2.7 The occupancy limits for the business, established by-the City and Fire' Codes, shall be-strictly enforced by the manager on duty. (1) ', 2.6 Authorization for the presentation of live entertainment is contingent upon the use of the subject premises remaining a cocktail lounge. Should this use change or be discontinued, authorization for this use permit is null and void. (5) 2.9 live entertainment shall .not be presented between the hours of 2:d0 am. and 6:00 a.m. The Community Development Director may modify the hours of operation to eliminate or reduce any future nuisances or negative impacts resulting from the presentation of live entertainment. (1) 2.10 The business shall comply with all provisions of, the Tustin Noise Ordinance (Tustin City Code Section 4600, et. al.). (5) 2.11 Outdoor,amplification of the live entertainment shall be prohibited. (1)' 2.12 "No loitering"signs shall be posted at the entrance'of the business. (1) 2.13 Public.telephones inside the establishment shall be modified to prevent incoming calls. SITE PLAN, FLOOR PLANS & ELEVATIONS (5) 3.1 The existing .roof mounted sign shall be removed or shall be refaced to correctly identify the name of the business. Sign design review by the Community Development Department shall be required prior to ..the installation of any new signs and prior to the face change of the existing roof mounted sign. With the exception of removal or face change, the, existing non-conforming roof mounted sign shall not be enlarged, modified, or changed in any way. ; r Exhibit A Resolution No. 3669 Conditional Use Permit 99-003 March 22, 1999 Page 3 (5) 3.2 The floor plan shall be°modified to show a maximum of one pool or billiard table. FEES (5) 4.1 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 irn 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. Sr:pereso13659.doc 4 I !1 ITEM #5. .'�teport to the Planning Co'm.m'ission DATE: -MARCH 22, 9999 SUBJECT: DESIGN REVIEW 98-031- APPLICANT: FRANK P. BENNETT BENEVEST DEVELOPMENT GROUP 5242 BOLSA AVE. HUNTINGTON BEACH, CA 92649 PROPERTY OWNER: JOHN HILE IRVINE INVESTMENT PROPERTIES I ADA, SUITE 250 IRVINE,CA 92618, LOCATION: 2530 & 2560 BRYAN AVENUE TUSTIN MARKET PLACE ANNEX(PADS B & C) . ZONING: MIXED USE LAND USE DESIGNATION_, { EAST TUSTIN SPECIFIC PLAN ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: ',THIS PROJECT IS COVERED BY- A PREVIOUSLY CERTIFIED EIR (85-2) - FOR THE EAST TUSTIN SPECIFIC PLAN. NO ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTATION IS REQUIRED. REQUEST: TO CONSTRUCT'-TWO NEW 6,000 SQUARE FOOT MULTI- TENANT ULTI- TENANT COMMERCIAL BUILDINGS RECOMMENDATION 1. Adopt Resolution No. 3660 approving the environmental determination for the project. 2. • Adopt Resolution No. 3661 approving Design Review 98-031. BACKGROUND The Tustin Market Place Annex Center was approved by the Planning Commission in February of 1992. , The approved development consists of two major retail tenants (Costco and K-Mart) acid five individual tenant pads: The tenant pad at the corner of Tustin Ranch Road and Bryan Avenue was developed into a McDonalds restaurant in January 1995. The two pads adjacent to.the K-Mart were developed into a Goodyear tire store in March 1997. Future development of the two vacant tenant pads (B and C) on Planning Commission Report Design Review 98-031 March 22, 1999 Page 2 Bryan Avenue requires separate design review since development on each pad was to be designed and built by future tenants. The East Tustin Specific Plan requires that design review be conducted by the Planning Commission for any new construction. At the time the original development plans for the Tustin Market Place Annex Center were proposed by the Irvine Company, it was anticipated that these pads would be developed with general retail stores and services. Pad B was anticipated to be a commercial bank or other financial institution. DISCUSSION Project Description The applicant proposes to construct two 6,000 square foot mufti-tenant buildings on pads B & C on the northern portion of the Tustin Market Place Annex Center on the south side of Bryan Avenue (See Vicinity Plan). The buildings are setback 85 feet from the centerline of Bryan Avenue which is consistent with the minimum building setback required by the East Tustin Specific Plan. The applicant has entered into negotiations with several potential tenants for these buildings. The anticipated tenant uses include: NTENANT`ii�,�� SQUARE�FFC3TAGE� Toy Store 4,000 Nail Salon 1,000 Cellular Phone Store 1,500 Dental Office 2,000 Jeweler 1,500 Dry Cleaner 2,000 TOTAL 12,000 Site and Surrounding Properties The main access into the center is located on Bryan Avenue between the two vacant pads. K-Mart and Goodyear are located south of the proposed project, Costco is located' to the southeast, and McDonalds is located to the west. Existing multiple family residential units are located across Tustin Ranch Road to the west and across Bryan Avenue to the north. Planning Commission Report Design Review 98-031 March 22, '1999 Page 3 Architectural Design 1 Landscaping The architectural design of the project is generally consistent with the design guidelines for the center. The guidelines suggest: the following: A maximum building height of 24-feet for all pad buildings within the center with tower elements extending to a maximum of 35-feet in height. The proposed buildings are 21 feet in height with two 33 -foot tower elements on each end of the buildings. • That the pad buildings have a residential scale and that building masses be broken down through the use of architectural features.and decorations. The single story height of the building, use of a mansard roof and hip roof towers, and the covered arcade across the front fagade of the buildings impart a residential and pedestrian scale to the buildings and create visual interest with vaned building masses. ® That building materials, forms, and colors relate .to the surrounding residential neighborhoods. The exterior facades of the identical are .predominantly a light beige stucco plaster (same as the Costco and K Mart) which is similar to and complements the surrounding residential projects. Contrasting bands of darker beige concrete masonry blocks are used to accent the base of the pilasters supporting the arcade located along the front and sides of the structures. Accent tiles are located above the two pilasters on the tower elements, providing a complementary color contrast. The proposed mansard roofs and towers have clay barrel the roofing to match the existing K-Mart building and surrounding residential properties. The proposed conceptual landscape plan meets the requirements of the ETSP and the Center design guidelines. The plant palette includes planting six -additional Mexican Fan Palms on each pad, consistent with the tree species within the Center. The existing shrubs and ground cover will remain. At the rear of the building along Bryan Avenue the existing ligustrum hedge will be extended to surround each site. The ESTP requires that all parking areas adjacent to arterial highways be screened from view. Since Bryan Avenue is identified as an arterial highway, the parking area adjacent to this street is required to be screened pursuant to the ETSP. Based upon the conceptual landscape plan and the existing and new extension of the vegetative hedge, the parking area would be adequately screened, consistent with the requirements of the ETSP. In addition, Condition 5.1 is included to require screening of the rear of the buildings to soften the view from Bryan Avenue. Planning Commission Report Design Review 98-031 March 22, 1999 Page 4 Parking The off-street parking provided on both sites meets the minimum number of spaces required for all retail uses since retail uses require more parking spaces per square foot than office uses or medical office uses under 4000 square feet. SQ. FT a FUSE{ PARKING PARKING PARKING; { t- ' RAT r.REQUIREI7 I?RO11i�ED .r `� ;3. B 6000 Retail 1:200 30 30 C 6000 Retail 1:200 30 32 The City's Traffic Engineer has reviewed the project for compliance with the traffic trip budget established for the Tustin Market Place Annex Center in the approved traffic study. The trip generation of the proposed retail and dental uses do not exceed the trip budget approved in the traffic study. Condition No. 7.1 has been included to require a use and parking summary for review and approval by the Community Development Department and City's Traffic Engineer for any uses other than retail that would increase the traffic trip generation or parking demand. Signs The proposed location and size of the tenant wall signs have been illustrated on the elevations. Due to the applicant's on-going negotiations with potential tenants the design and copy of these signs has not been determined. Condition No. 6.1 requires Community Development Department review and approval for these signs to assure compliance with the sign program for the Center. The sign program allows up to 60 square feet of signage per elevation for double bay storefronts and 40 square feet of signage per elevation for single bay storefronts. ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS Based upon review of the proposal, as well as Environmental Impact Report 85-2 (as supplemented), it has been determined that environmental issues relating to this project have previously been addressed. Also, appropriate mitigating measures identified in EIR 85-2 are included as conditions of approval for the project; therefore, staff recommends that the Planning Commission make the finding that requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act have been met and that no further environmental review is required. LL AA Lor . Ludi Karen Peterson ^ Associate Planner Acting Senior Planner Attachments: Location Map Resolution No. 3660 Submitted Plans Resolution No. 3661 s:perepYdr J8-031.doc l La CATI O N MAP/--/, . Imin =spy EAN - 3 ' 1 i i i ' r 1 Av t l ssrAr Arirut a lel L TUSTIN ANNEX TUSTIN MARKET PLACE NOR TN jeox P EL CA O PIAL •. p.¢Luar{f -lot, mo of f j W2 zl Poilo R r _ J f �o• o.pKPY� ;.�� raw u�ni t i 10! l im t 1 '' ,�•-���..` i' . i TUSAN MARKET PLACE i SOUTH I wow-' r' i � f!►�� - s•'' NO SCALE • � 'fvyeta � • AWA FP[FWIY g ATTACHMENT B SUBMITTED PLANS BRYAN AVENUE I I I i I I I I IT7IT3TTTrMTf1TfITl ME. �� _ ADpAMcD------ f1J _ Li c - - k �I�IIIII},1I1H��H - _ — — UIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII�IIIU CDSTCO . K-MART TUSTIN ANNE% VICINITY PLAN oENEVES TUSTIN ANNEX KLLERB OROZCO R E' Ae�A S D�����- ��- _- GROUP�"_ PADS B & C 17911 SKY PARK CIRCLE, SUITEC IA141)7 CALIFORNIA 202714 -DO3 (714)752.8222 FAX(714)752-0033 j' £L Y00Eli A. CN'ANN EL _ ------- PLAN NENOE ! .tee �- --------------- ;------------------- s� i 9 P II .. 11 1 I � 1 ! v t ' C `••,0 THiWilill1ii WHIMP I �' pAEIlUd4gEQWBEdEdyS �Sy]y� iKMMiro 1f0,,sOn lf �i ;I li lT li- li li li li li}li 1i, I II I;1 I' ! II yA e 1;;00924y2E! .� H— +- m.rw ,TCYI 340,0 f101/]00.1E.1•em -. ; � $: � .-_�.- 1111 i+l l i I I I I I I I .,. '�••��' J _ I y. ........... t- ._.._.._.._.._-.. ..._..-.._.._.._!. „-.._.-� _ .:��•• :1 i exNOa IOIAI e"I�SeePACE i�` ' `•`•`••'� - PAo vAo ° ,111 ! II ,; it :!u'.!:.. !I ! 11 IIli 11 � e a: �W I E i � -• _ •ss — e.yy amu_I I PARKING PROVIGEG • � � I � •�� !} !11'1=� II I�'I. !Ilil.,ll 'ITrll layif'i:`I i''';!' lil a •'� i srror�o�s9ea�o ese tl l� 4 i i ft2 1 !i_ I IIi II'• � i !anmm� ,:e .tee ...., Ld Si d rorx ............_..__ i, 111 III 1 1 5g' � i{1:'�. !!li' �} e{ I i'• � lE!-, I�.I I I 1 I %'�:�' $ I I I� sa},� I.: 1� •.••S1S 1! !a 1~I I'vj i I ii,i I li j i I t e .. ,...� !1:•11 ..' •..,� 1i•'I'I!. I! I. ""an.�.. �!1? �'1 �l;• `g. � r•�III �<$ C1��„ _ _ __p.•.___________ .______'___ spa' d EL CRMO PEN. nm=Ps[o.sexa _ wnKlxa vux MILK K9 a�983T P eo �Im tao ;! PARKING PLAN r �- CIL BRYAN AVE b m 6 Lr:<.r.- --------- - -- -'--'----'--'-- 1.x.,6 z In i I B7 o p 8 8 9 8 13 r h I C z I------------------------------------ ------------------------------ ---------'>..--------------------------------------------------------------- ------� 2530 Bryan 2560 By eWelp ICs 6000rt BJ6ng vze6 K1 Oeeyarylypekl 1991 UBC Ol gtylype M,1237 UK o hpe VN WIR;x hPe YN Prt[ry0.egelrrmb PrklrpRqulrrm6.e Dl6vlcl Cmmrrciel 1/x22 r•x]epern OIeV i6lCrrmereRll/2zz rt•z]speer PrtlrgpreNdei 1/209r•39 Rrr PeklnppmbeR Vx00 of-ex spree [CNL;1'-ICL' SITE PLAN#1 KOBA Architects o V Lam_'E E ES 11 KELLER OROZCO &4RRE' ASSOCIATES �EVELOMEW GROUP IRVIN SKY PARK CIRCLE, SUITEC � p RVINE. CALIFORNIA 82713 (714)752.9222 FAX(714)752-0333 II 1i1 I I E�Ntt�E i i vv n : I E€ I € I I I -- --------- E---------------- ------+ --------------� I FIN FLOOR ELEV 92.5 j T I 301-3' . 71 Y�6' fQn 2313' 20'-0' 20'-0' 20'-0' 20•-0• 23•-3• nR�EpSTROOM PLANS 0 10 20 30 9 a 14 TM-M b z' r Qj BUILDING FLOOR PLAN '.m,°' SCPLE 1/B•-I'-C 0 10 20 30 40 SO reX, EPONT'SihEETi ELEVVTION �(q ELEyphoX riT AS�IRF F DATIONS v Kpo /� ^ FLOOR PLANS CNC MEET T U ST I N ANNEX XELLLEERu nOROZCO �E'' A ASSOCIATES DEVELOPMENT GROUPPADS B � � 17017 SKY PARK CIRCLE, SIIITEC IRVINE, CALIFORNIA 92714 (714)752-9222 FAX(714)752.0003 I; I cn:.a�A.v"+r�aa �'I' vn.e.esoic:a.r _ ..u.a euiici arr p :a uoaa,.0 � ununo 23'-3' 20'-0' 20'-o' 63_3 e � REAR i_.;,;"3i`._....._...,a �.................:..:....�i rte._-._----==-'.� - - - r• i - -- ..a .,,>e�� 23'-3" 2010• 2p'-O• , ,26-6 BRYAN AVE HENEVES TUSTIN ANNEX KO BA Architects KELLER OROZCO BARflE' ASSOCIATES DEVEL1�OPMEW( CROUP PADS 6 & C ' ,7011 SKY PARK CIRCLE, SUREC 714)7 CALIFORNIA 33 i (IRVINE FAX(714)752-02-0 038 �r 7 1 � gym• .' �� �� 1 .I I �I 11 0 TUSTIN-RANCHE�a• -0• 6 , i yi $ o•mmeKrt0asu2 I���\\III SECTION 5 „a_,•-0• B ECJ EVEST TUSTIN ANNEX ELLERu OROZCO rBARRIE I ASO IA S 4 DEVELOPMENT GROUP PADS -B & C IRVIINESKY PARK CIRCLE, CALIFORNIA3UITEC 02714 (714)752-9222 FAX(714)7520033 • CL BRYAN AVE �� I urtwwa I �u axxlw C:#rR.:f:DI1Fr " t... -- - - ij •`ii;r;,,.•:>: :;:;:;<.«:;::;::;::;;�it�}s;;i � �!u• i III Ito I i i B I - - 1 I _ f i nro I 1 O � O I 011r� SsxF.l.Iso LANDSCAPE CONCEPT PIAN#1 o IENEVEST TUSTIN ANNEX K°RB AORUZCO„ r R e'Ae�TS DEVELOPMENT GROUP PADS B & (C IRVINE, SKY PARK CIRCLE, SU[TEC �❑ IRVINE• bAFAX(714) 92714 (714)752-8222 FAX(714)7520033 I - a BRYAN AVE o 0 O o O O , 0 0 0 0 0 0 I 0 0 oro o. o ;•- I E i I I iI ❑ ❑ I � J _--------------------------------------------------------__- ___ ____ __------------------------------ ____--------- - ROOF PLAN �o _ - KOBA Architects LY E V E VpE`CJ'RTS _ KEUER OAOZCO BARRE' ASSOCIATES DEMELOIf\VAIEN II ,GROUP 17811 SKY PARK CIRCLE, SUREC v v u�u u v u - IRVINF- CALIFORNIA SZ714 (714)752.8222 FAX(714)752-0033 ATTACHMENT C RESOLUTION NO. 3660 RESOLUTION NO. 3660 2 A RESOLUTION. OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF 3 THE, CITY OF TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA, FINDING THAT FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (EIR) FOR 4 THE EAST TUSTIN SPECIFIC PLAN (FINAL EIR 85-2, AS MODIFIED BY SUBSEQUENTLYADOPTED s SUPPLEMENTS; AND ADDENDA) IS ADEQUATE TO SERVE AS THE PROGRAM EIR FOR DESIGN REVIEW 98- 6 031 AND ALL FEASIBLE MITIGATION MEASURES HAVE .BEEN INCORPORATED AS REQUIRED BY THE 7 CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT. 8 The Planning Commission of the City of Tustin does hereby resolve as 9 follows. 10 1. The Planning Commission finds and determines as follows:: !1 A. That Design Review 98-03.1 is considered a "project" pursuant to the terms of the California Environmental Quality Act; and 12 B. That'the projects are covered by a previously certified Final 13 Environmental Impact Report for the East Tustin Specific Plan which serves as a Program EIR for the proposed project. 14 - 11. The East Tustin°Specific Plan Final Environmental Impact Report (85- 16 2) previously certified on March 17, 1986, and modified .by 16 subsequently adopted supplements and addenda, was considered prior to approval of this project. The Planning Commission hereby 17 finds: this.project is within the scope of the East Tustin Specific Plan previously approved; the effects of this project, relating to grading, !8 drainage, circulation, public services and utilities, were examinedin the Program EIR. All feasible mitigation measures and alternatives 19 developed in the Program EIR are incorporated into this project. The Final EIR is, therefore, determined to be adequate to serve as a 20 Program EIR for this project and satisfies all requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act as evidenced by the Initial Study attached hereto as Exhibit A. 22 Based on EIR 85-2, the Planning Commission has found that the 23 project involves-no potential for any adverse effect, either individually or cumulatively, on wildlife resources and therefore makes a 'De 24 Minimis Impact Finding-related to AB 3158, Chapter 1706, Statutes of 1990. 25 Applicable mitigation measures identified in the Final EIR have been 26 incorporated into this project which mitigates any potential significant environmental effects thereof. The mitigation measures are identified 27 as Conditions of Approval on Exhibit A of Planning Commission Resolution No. 3661 approving Design Review 98-031. 28 29 -. Planning Commission Resolution No. 3660 1 March 22, 1999 Page 2. 2 3 PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Planning Commission of the City of Tustin at a regular meeting held on the 22nd day of March, 1999. a 5 6 LESLIE A. PONTIOUS 7 Chairperson S 9 10 ELIZABETH A. BINSACK 11 Planning Commission Secretary 12 STATE OF CALIFORNIA) COUNTY OF ORANGE ) 13 CITY OF TUSTIN ) 14 15 1, ELIZABETH A. BINSACK, the undersigned, hereby certify that I am the Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Tustin, California; that 16 Resolution No. 3660 was duly passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the Tustin Planning Commission, held on the 22nd day of March, 1999. 17 la ELIZABETH A. BINSACK 19 Planning Commission Secretary 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 2& 29 1�Y d 1' COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMEN �s 300CentennialWay, Tustin, CA 92780 (714) 573-3100 r r INITIAL STUDY A. BACKGROUND Project Title: Tustin.Annex, Pads.B and C (Design Review 98-031) Lead Agency: City of Tustin 300 Centennial Way Tustin, California 92780 Lead Agency Contact Person: Lori Ludi Phone: (714) 573-3127 Project Location: 2530 and 2560 Bryan Avenue Project Sponsor's Name and Address: Benevest Development Group General Plan Designation: PC Commercial/Business Zoning Designation: PCC/B.-Mixed Use Project Description: Construction of two (2), 6000 square foot retailloffice buildings. Surrounding Uses: North: Residential East: Commerical South: Commercial West: Commercial Other public agencies whose approval is required: ❑ Orange County Fire Authority ❑ City of Irvine Orange County Health Care Agency ❑ City of Santa Ana ❑ South Coast Air Quality Management ❑ Orange County EMA District ' ❑ Other B. ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a"Potentially Significant Impact" as indicated by the checklist in Section D below. ❑Land Use and Planning ❑Hazards ❑Population and Housing ❑Noise ❑Geological Problems ❑Public Services [—]Water ❑Utilities and Service Systems ❑Air Quality ❑Aesthetics ❑Transportation& Circulation ❑Cultural Resources ❑Biological Resources ❑Recreation ❑Energy and Mineral Resources ❑Mandatory Findings of Significance C. DETERMINATION: On the basis of this initial evaluation: ❑ I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. ❑ I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described on an attached sheet have been added to the project. A NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. ❑ I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. ❑ I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect(s) on the environment,but at least one effect 1)has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and . 2)has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets, if the effect is a"Potentially Significant Impact" or"Potentially Significant Unless Mitigated." An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required,but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. ® I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there WILL NOT be a significant effect in this case because all potentially significant effects 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 measures that are imposed upon the proposed project. Signature• _.f.[z ,� Date Print Name ELi 24.8 1"A. is,&4'4c4- Title 17 i ngrTz 9 D. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS: ❑ Earlier analyses used: EIR-85-2, Amended Potentially Available for review at. City of Tustin Community Significant Development Department Potentially Unless Less than Significant Mitigation Significant Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact 1. LAND USE &PLANNING— Would the proposal: a) Conflict with general plan designation or zoning? ❑ ❑ ❑ b) Conflict with applicable environmental plans or policies adopted by agencies with jurisdiction over the project? ❑ ❑ ❑ c) Be incompatible with existing land uses in the vicinity? ❑ ❑ ❑ d) Affect agricultural resources or operations? ❑ ❑ ❑ e) Disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an established community(including a low-income or minority community)? ❑ ❑ ❑ 2. POPULATION&HOUSING—Would the proposal: a) Cumulatively exceed official regional or local population projections? ❑ ❑ ❑ b) Induce substantial growth in an area either directly or indirectly(e.g.,through projects in an undeveloped area or extension of major infrastructure)? ❑ ❑ ❑ c) Displace existing housing,especially affordable housing? [] ❑ ❑ 3. GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS— Would the proposal result in or expose people to potential impacts involving: a) Fault rupture? ❑ ❑❑ ® - El Seismic ground shaking? c) Seismic ground failure,including liquefaction? ❑ ❑ ® ❑ d) Seiche,tsunami,or volcanic hazard? ❑ ❑ ❑ e) Landslides or mudflows? ❑ El 1:1f) Erosion,changes in topography or unstable soil conditions from excavation,grading,or fill? ❑ ❑ ® ❑ g) Subsidence of land? ❑ ❑ ® ❑ h) Expansive soils? ❑ ❑ ® ❑ i) Unique geologic or physical features? ❑ ❑ ❑ 4. WATER—Would theproposal result in: a) Changes in absorption rates,drainage patterns,or the rate and amount of surface runoff? ❑ ❑ ® ❑ b) Exposure of people or property to water related hazards such as flooding? ❑ ' ❑ ® ❑ c) Discharge into surface waters or other alteration of surface water quality(e.g.,temperature,dissolved oxygen or turbidity)? ❑ ❑ ❑ d) Changes in the amount of surface water in any water body? ❑ ❑ ❑ e) Changes in currents, or the course or direction of water movements? ❑ ❑ ❑ Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less than Significant Mitigation Significant Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact f) Change in the quantity of ground waters,either through direct additions or withdrawals,or through interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations or through substantial loss of groundwater recharge capability? ❑ ❑ ❑ g) AItered direction or rate of flow of groundwater? ❑ ❑ ❑ h) Impacts to groundwater quality? ❑ ❑ ❑ i) Substantial reduction in the amount of groundwater otherwise available for public water supplies? ❑ ❑ ❑ 5. AIR QUALITY— Would the proposal. a) Violate any air quality standard or contribute to an ❑ ❑ ❑ existing or projected air quality violation? ❑ ❑ ❑ b) Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants? ❑ ❑ ❑ c) Alter air movement,moisture,or temperature,or cause any change in climate? ❑ ❑ ❑ d) Create objectionable odors? ❑ ❑ ❑ 6. TRANSPORTATION& CIRCULATION,— Would the proposal result in: a) Increased vehicle trips or traffic congestion? ❑ ❑ ❑ b) Hazards to safety from design features(e.g.,sharp curves or dangerous intersections)or incompatible uses (e.g.,farm equipment) ❑ ❑ ❑ 21 c) Inadequate emergency access or access to nearby uses? ❑ ❑ ❑ d) Insufficient parking capacity onsite or offsite? ❑ ❑ ❑ e) Hazards or barriers for pedestrians or bicyclists? ❑ ❑ ❑ f) Conflicts with adopted policies supporting alternative transportation(e.g.bus turnouts,bicycle racks)? ❑ ❑ ❑ g) Rail,waterborne or air traffic impacts? ❑ ❑ ❑ 7. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES—Would the proposal result in impacts to: a) Endangered,threatened or rare species or their habitats (including but not limited to plants,fish,insects, animals,and birds? ❑ ❑ ❑ b) Locally designated species(e.g.,heritage trees)? ❑ ❑ ❑ c) Locally designated natural communities(e.g., oak forest,coastal habitat,etc.)? ❑ ❑ ❑ d) Wetland habitat(e.g.,marsh,riparian,and vernal pool)? ❑ ❑ ❑ e) Wildlife dispersal or migration corridors? ❑ ❑ ❑ S. ENERGY&MINERAL RESOURCES—-Would the proposal: a) Conflict with adopted energy conservation.plans? ❑ ❑ ❑ b) Use nonrenewable resources in a wasteful and inefficient manner? 1 ❑ ❑ ® ❑ c) Result'in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of future value to the region? ❑ ❑ ❑ A Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less than Significant Mitigation Significant Impact Inco orated Impact No Im ac 9. HAZARDS— Would the proposal involve: a) A risk of accidental explosion or release of hazardous substances(including,but not limited to,oil,pesticides, chemicals,or radiation)? ❑ ❑ ❑ b) Possible interference with emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? ❑ ❑ c) The creation of any health hazard or potential health hazard? ❑ ❑ ❑ d) Exposure of people to existing sources of potential health hazards? ❑ ❑ ❑ e) Increased fire hazard in areas with flammable brush, grass,or trees? E ❑ ❑ 10. NOISE— Would the proposal result in: a) Increases in existing noise levels? ❑ ❑ N ❑ b) Exposure of people to severe noise levels? ❑ El El N 11. PUBLIC SERVICES— Would the proposal have an affect upon, or result in a need for new or altered government services in any of the following areas: a) Fire protection? ❑ ❑ ❑ b) Police protection? ❑ ❑ El N c) Schools? ❑ ❑ ❑ d) Maintenance of public facilities,including roads? ❑ ❑ ❑ e) Other government services? ❑ ❑ ❑ 12. UTILITIES &SERVICE SYSTEMS— Would the proposal result in a need for new systems or supplies, or substantial alterations to the following utilities: a) Power or natural gas? ❑ ❑ ❑ ED b) Communications systems? ❑ ❑ ❑ N c) Local or regional water treatment or distribution facilities? ❑ ❑ ❑ d) Sewer or septic tanks? ❑ ❑ ❑ e) Storm water drainage? ❑ ❑ ❑ f) Solid waste disposal? ❑ ❑ ❑ g) Local or regional water supplies? ❑ ❑ El N 13. AESTHETICS—Would the proposal: a) Affect a scenic vista or scenic highway? ❑ b) Have a demonstrable negative aesthetic effect? ❑ ❑ [] c) Create light or glare? ❑ ❑ ® L1 Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less than Significant Mitigation Significant Impact Incorporated Impact No Int act 14. CULTURAL RESOURCES—Would the proposal?: a) Disturb paleontological resources? ❑ ❑ ❑ IR b) Disturb archaeological resources? ❑ ❑ ❑ c) Have the potential to cause a physical change which would affect unique ethnic cultural values? ❑ ❑ ❑ d) Restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the potential impact area? ❑ ❑ ❑ 15. RECREATION— Would the proposal.• a) Increase the demand for neighborhood or regional parks or other recreational facilities? ❑ ❑ ❑ -b) Affect existing recreational opportunities? ❑ ❑ ❑. IR 16. 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 Ievels, 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 the potential to achieve short-term to the disadvantage of long-term,environmental goals? [] ❑ ❑ c) Does the project have impacts that are individually Iimited,but cumulatively considerable?("Cumulatively considerable"means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects,the effects of other current projects,and the effects of probable future proj ects). ❑ ❑ ❑ d) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? ❑ ❑ ❑ E. EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS Please refer to Attachment A for an evaluation of the environmental impacts identified in Section D above. Y Q ATTACEUgENT A TIERED INITIAL STUDY RESPONSES DESIGN REVIEW 98-031. (2530 and 2560 Bryan Avenue) B The applicant, Benevest Financial Group, is requesting approval to construct two (2) multi-tenant 6,000 square foot commercial buildings. The proposed development is located within Sector 12 of the ETSP(Lots 1 of Tract 14610)and is designated as Mixed Use. A variety of land uses are in the vicinity. The site is Iocated to the east of Tustin Ranch Road and south of Bryan Avenue. The subject site is bordered by existing multiple-family dwellings across Bryan Avenue on the north, and commercial development(Costco,K-Mart,McDonalds, and Goodyear)to the east, west,and south. This proposal is addressed by a previously certified program EIR(85-2)for the ESTP. Section 15150 of the CEQA guidelines permits an EIR or other environmental document to incorporate by reference all or portions of another document containing information relevant to that EIR. Therefore, in referencing EIR 85-2, this tiered initial study hereby incorporates East Tustin Specific Plan Environmental Impact Report 85-2, City of Tustin,December 1985 (State Clearinghouse#85052217), as well as the Technical Appendices,Response to Comments, Supplement (November 15, 1986) and Addenda (May 1989). In conformance with CEQA, the purpose of this tiered initial study is to identify and focus the environmental analysis for the project on significant new environmental impacts that were not previously considered in the Program EIR. EIR 85-2 identified several impact categories where a Statement of Overriding Consideration was adopted by the City for the entire ETSP area. For the purpose of this initial study check list,an evaluation has been made to ensure that impacts previously identified have not been intensified. Mitigation measures identified in the EIR to minimize the impacts that would be applicable to this project have been identified. EIR 85-2 also identified several impact categories where impacts could be lessened to a level of insignificance with the imposition of mitigation measures. Staff has reviewed each of these impact categories to ensure that no new project impacts associated with the project would occur that were not identified in the Program EIR Impact categories not identified to have a potential impact in EIR 85-2 have been reviewed and identified in the initial study check list appropriately to ensure that the project would not create any additional significant impacts which were not considered by EIR 85-2 and cannot be mitigated to a level of insignificance. Attachment A Evaluation of Environmental Impacts Design Review 98-031 Page 2 1. LAND USE&PLANNING Items a-e- "No Impact": The subject property is designated by the General Plan Land Use Map as Planned Community-Commercial/Business and zoned by the East Tustin Specific Plan (ETSP) as Planned Community Mixed Use. The proposed project is consistent with applicable land use and zoning regulations. The project will not create additional impacts other than those previously identified in the Program EIR Sources: Submitted Plans Certified EIR 85-2,as amended East Tustin Specific Plan 2. POPULATION&HOUSING Items a-b- "No Impact": The proposed project is a new commercial development on two vacant commercial pads. The project will not induce population growth or displace existing housing. No impacts beyond those previously identified in EIR 85-2 are anticipated. Sources: Submitted Plans Certified EIR 85-2,as amended East Tustin Specific Plan 3. GEOLOGICAL PROBLEMS Items a, b c h - "Less than Si :i scant Impact": The site has been mass graded in conjunction with construction of Tract 14610. Minor grading will be required to prepare the site for. construction.The project site is located in the Southern California region which is subject to ground shaldng and liquefaction. With implementation of conditions of approval-that require submittal of a precise grading plan, soils report, and compliance with-the Grading Code and Uniform Building Code, no-additional impacts beyond those previously identified in EIR 85-2 are anticipated. The project will not create additional impacts other than those previously identified in the Program EIR Item d, e.i- "No Impact". The project site is not located in an area that would be subject to seiche, tsunami,volcanic hazards,landslides, or mudflows. No unique geological features are present on the site. Sources: Field Verification Submitted Plans Tustin City Code,Grading Manual EIR 85-2,as amended East Tustin Specific Plan Mitigation Monitoring Required: Mitigation measures identified in certified EIR 85-2 regarding submittal of a detailed soils engineering report, grading plan, and plans demonstrating compliance with the Grading Manual and Uniform Building Code are required as conditions of approval. 4. WATER Remy a-and h- "Less than Significant Irripact": The-project site is within the ETSP area for which t c certified EIR 85-2 identified impacts to surface runoff, drainage flows, water quality and water Attachment A Evaluation of Environmental Impacts Design Review 98-031 Page 3 percolation. The project has been reviewed and will not create additional impacts other than those previously identified in EIR 85-2. Items c-i- "No Impact": The proposed development is within the ETSP area for which the certified EIR 85-2 identified impacts to the ETSP area as a whole related to the resultant negative effects to water quality. The project will not create additional impacts to water quality other than those previously identified in the Program EIR. Sources: Field Verification Submitted Plans Tustin City Code Certified EIR 85-2,as amended East Tustin Specific Plan MidgationlMonitoriug Required: Mitigation measures identified in.certified EIR 85-2 including plans to accommodate increased runoff flows associated with the proposed development by incorporating on-site drainage improvements, providing erosion control measures and developing appropriate pollution control plans have been incorporated into the project or are incorporated as conditions of approval. Erosion control measures will be developed and incorporated into final grading plans for the project to minimize potential increases in erosion and sediment transport during the short-term construction phases. 5. AIR QUALITY Items a - d- "No Impact": Potential air quality impacts associated with the development of the Tustin Annex were previously addressed in certified EIR 85-2, as amended. No additional impacts would occur beyond those identified in the Program EIR. Mitigation measures were identified in EIR 85-2. The development will not alter air movement,moisture,temperature or cause any changes in climate,or create objectionable odors. Sources: Field Verification Submitted Plans Tustin City Code Certified EIR 85-2,as amended East Tustin Specific Plan b. TRANSPORTATION&CIRCULATION Item a-g "No Impact": Potential traffic and circulation impacts associated with the development of the Tustin Annex were previously addressed in certified EIR 85-2, as amended. As all required parldng would be provided on site, there would be no demand for additional parldng. As the surrounding roads have been designed to accommodate peak traffic demands, the proposed project would not have a substantial impact upon existing transportation systems, nor would it impact the present patterns of circulation or movement of people and/or goods. As the site plan is designed to the specifications of the ETSP,and the Tustin City Code,traffic hazards to motor vehicles,bicyclists or pedestrians would be mitigated. No additional-impacts would occur beyond those identified in the Program EIR. Mitigation measures were identified in EIR 85-2. Sources: Field Verification Submitted Plans Tustin City Code Attachment A Evaluation of Environmental impacts Design Review 98-031 Page 4 Certified EIR 85-2,as amended East Tustin Specific Plan 7. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES Items a-e- "No Impacts": The project site has been mass graded and no significant plant or animal species are present on site. No additional impacts would be created beyond those identified in EIR 85-2,as amended. Sources: Field Verification Submitted Plans Tustin City Code Certified EIR 85-2,as amended East Tustin Specific Plan 8. ENERGY&MINERAL RESOURCES . Items a. c- "No Impact': The proposed development will not create additional impacts than those previously identified on energy conservation or mineral resources with respect to adopted energy conservation plans or loss of available known mineral resources. Item b- "Less than Significant Impact": Implementation of this project will increase the demand for and consumption of energy. The project site is within the Specific Plan area for which certified EIR 85-2 identified impacts to the project site related to the proposed development and the associated impacts to energy resources. However, the project will not create additional impacts other than those previously identified in the Program EIR. Sources: Field Verification Submitted Plans Tustin City Code Certified EIR 85-2,as amended East Tustin Specific Plan Midi atiomMonitorin Required: Mitigation measures identified in certified EIR 85-2 require that building construction shall comply with.the Energy Conservation Standards set forth in Title 24 of the California Administrative Code, that energy conservation techniques be considered, that insulation of walls, ceiling and floors be required, and that energy efficient lighting be used. These mitigation measures related to energy, as applicable, have been incorporated into the project as submitted or will be incorporated as conditions of approval. 9. DARDS Items a, e- "No Impact': Development or use of the commercial pads is not anticipated to result in exposure to hazardous substances or interfere with emergency response or evacuation plans. The project site is surrounded by a built environment and there is no flammable brush nearby. All grading and construction would be subject to compliance with all applicable Uniform Building and Fire Codes. Sources: Submitted Plans Uniform Building and Fire Codes J • Attachment A Evaluation of Environmental Impacts Design Review 98-031 Page 5 Certified EIR 85-2,as amended East Tustin Specific Plan 10. NOISE Rein a - "Less than Si ni cant Impact": Development of the site would result in short-term construction noise impacts and a long-term increase in the ambient noise levels in and around the project site. These impacts were originally considered as part of certified EIR 85-2. The project has been reviewed and will not worsen impacts previously identified in the Program EIR. Item b- "No Impact'% The proposed development will not expose-persons to severe noise levels. Sources: Field Verification Submitted Plans Tustin City Code Certified EIR 85-2,as amended East Tustin Specific Plan Miti$at tzlM' onitorin,z Required: Mitigation measures identified in certified EIR 85-2 required -measures to mitigate exterior noise levels with the use of berms, walls or a combination of both. Landscaping materials and setbacks from the roadway are also included in the site design as mitigation measures. Interior noise impacts where determined to be greater than the level permitted by the Noise Ordinance will be mitigated by providing improved noise rated windows. In addition, the City's Noise Ordinance has specific requirements in regard to construction noise. Those measures identified in certified EIR 85-2 and the City's Noise Ordinance, have been incorporated into the project as conditions of approval. 11. PUBLIC SERVICES Items a-e- "No 1'inpact"; Although the project would create the need for additional public services such as police and fire protection, impacts to public services were originally considered as part of EIR 85-2. The project will not create additional impacts other than those previously identified in the Program EIR. Sources: Field Verification Submitted Plans Tustin City Code Certified EIR 85-2,as amended East Tustin Specific PIan 12. UTILITIES&SERVICE SYSTEMS Items a-Q- "No Impact": Although.the project would.increase the demand on utilities, the project will not create additional impacts other than those identified in the Program EIR. Sources: Field Verification Submitted Plans Certified EIR 85-2,as amended . East Tustin Specific Plan Orange County Sanitation District Attachment A Evaluation of Environmental Impacts Design Review 98-031 Page 6 MitigatioiVMonitorinjzReguired: None Required. 13. AESTHETICS Items a b "No Impact":The proposed project will not affect any vistas or scenic highways,nor will it create a negative aesthetic effect. The project has been designed in accordance with the design guidelines for the center. Items c "Less than SipniIcant Impact": The proposed development will create additional light at the presently undeveloped site.Lighting decorative wall lights and parking lot lights will be added in the area. Sources: Field Verification Submitted Plans Tustin City Code Certified EIR 85-2,as amended East Tustin Specific Plan Mita adon/Monitorin Required.- Mitigation measures identified in certified EIR 85-2 require adherence to and compliance with the guidelines and provisions of the.ETSP,which address building height, building setbacks, parking requirements, and other site development standards which are incorporated into the project design or conditions of approval. 14. CULTURAL RESOURCES Item a-d- "No Impact": The subject site is within the Specific Plan area and the certified EIR 85-2 identified impacts to the project site related to the proposed development and the resultant negative effects to cultural resources. This project is not within an area identified as an archaeological site. Sources: Field Verification Submitted Plans Certified EIR 85-2,as amended East Tustin Specific Plan. 15. RECREATION Items a and h- "No Impact'% The development of commercial tenant space will not affect existing or proposed recreational opportunities in the vicinity. Sources. Submitted Plans Certified EIR 85-2,as amended East Tustin Specific Plan. 16. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE Items a-d- "No Impact': The project in and of itself will not cause negative impacts to wildlife habitat,nor limit the achievement of any long-term environmental goals,nor have impacts which are potentially individually limited but are cumulatively considerable and could potentially have an indirect adverse impact on human beings. The program EIR 85-2 addressed all of these concerns and this project is fully within the scope of that discussion. Attachment A Evaluation of Environmental Impacts Design Review 98-031 Page 7 Sources: Submitted Plans Tustin City Code Certified EIR 85-2,as amended East Tustin Specific Plan Mitigatioy/Monitoj*m Required: None required. tustinannex.doc ATTACHMENT D RESOLUTION NO. 3661 1 a RESOLUTION NO. 3661 2 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF 3 THE CITY OF TUSTIN APPROVING DESIGN REVIEW 98- 4 031 FOR CONSTRUCTION OF TWO 6,000 SQUARE FOOT COMMERCIAL BUILDINGS LOCATED AT 2530 AND 2560 5 BRYAN AVENUE. 6 7 The Planning Commission of the City 'of Tustin does hereby resolve as follows. 8 9 I. The Planning Commission finds and determines as follows: 10 A. That a proper application for Design Review,98-031 was filed on behalf of Frank P. Bennett of Benevest Development Group requesting approval of two 6,000 square foot 12 commercial buildings at 2530 and 2560 Bryan Avenue. 13 B. That said application was reviewed and considered by. the 14 Planning Commission on March 22, 1999. 15 C. Pursuant to Section 9272,of the Tustin Municipal Code, the Commission finds that the location,size, architectural features 16 and general appearance of Design Review 98-031 will not 17 impair the orderly and, harmonious development of the area, the present or future development therein, or the occupancy 18 as a whole. In making such findings, the Commission has 19 considered at least the following items: 20 1. Height, bulk and area of buildings. 21 2. Setbacks and site planning. 22 3. Exterior materials and colors. 23 24 4. Type and pitch of roofs. 25 5. Size and spacing of windows, doors and other. openings. 26 27 6. Towers, chimneys, roof structures,flagpoles, radio and television antennae. 28 29 7. Landscaping, parking area design and . traffic circulation. 1 Resolution No. 3661 2 Page 2 3 8. Location, height and standards of exterior illumination. 4 5 9. Location and appearance of equipment located outside of an enclosed structure. 6 10. Location and method of refuse storage. 7 8 11. Physical relationship of proposed structures to existing structures in the neighborhood. 9 10 12. Appearance and design relationship of proposed structures to existing structures and possible future 11 structures in the neighborhood and public 12 thoroughfares. 13 13. Proposed signage. 14 14. Development Guidelines and criteria as adopted by the 1s City Council. 16 F. That the project has been reviewed for consistency with the 17 Air Quality Sub-Element of the City of Tustin General Plan and has been determined to be consistent or has been 1s conditioned to be consistentwith the Air Quality Sub-Element. 19 Il. The Planning Commission hereby approves Design Review 98-031 20 for construction of two 6,000 square foot commercial buildings located at 2530 and 2560 Bryan Avenue, subject to the conditions 21 contained in Exhibit A, attached hereto. 22 PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Tustin Planning 23 Commission, held on the 22nd day of March, 1999. 24 25 26 LESLIE A. PONTIOUS Chairperson 27 zs ELIZABETH A. BINSACK l 29 Planning Commission Secretary 1 Resolution No. 3661 2 Page 3 3 STATE OF CALIFORNIA) 4 COUNTY OF ORANGE ) 5 CITY OF TUSTIN ) 6 1, ELIZABETH A. BINSACK, the undersigned, hereby certify that I am the Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Tustin, California; that 8 Resolution No. 3661 was.duly passed and adopted at a regular meeting of 9 the Tustin Planning Commission, held on the 22nd day of March, 1999. 10 1I 12 ELIZABETH A. BINSACK 13 Planning Commission Secretary 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 2I 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 EXHIBIT A DESIGN REVIEW 98-031 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL RESOLUTION NO. 3661 GENERAL ,(1) 1.1 The proposed project shall substantially conform with the submitted `plans for the project date-stamped March 22, 1999, on file with the Community. Development Department, as herein modified, or as modified by the Director of Community Development Department in accordance with this Exhibit. .The Director may also approve minor modifications to the plans if such modifications,are determined to be consistent with the approved plans.` (1) 1.2 Unless,otherwise specified, the conditions contained in this Exhibit shall be complied with prior to the issuance lof any building permits for the project, subject to review and approval by the Community Development Department. (1)" .1.3 Design Review and Conditional Use Permit approval shall become null and -void unless all building permits are.issued. within eighteen (18) months of the date of this Exhibit and'substantial construction is underway. (1) 1.4 The applicant and property owner shall sigh and return an Agreement to Conditions Imposedform prior to issuance of building permits. (1) 1.5 The applicant shall hold and defend the City' of Tustin harmless for all claims and liabilities arising out of the City's approval' of the entitlement process for this project. - SOURCE CODES ' (1). STANDARD CONDITION_ (5) RESPONSIBLE AGENCY (2) CEQA MITIGATION (6) LANDSCAPING GUIDELINES, REQUIREMENTS (7) PCICC POLICY . (3) UNIFORM BUILDING CODE/S, (4) DESIGN REVIEW " EXCEPTIONS J Exhibit A Design Review 98-031 Conditions of Approval Resolution No. 3661 Page 2 PLAN SUBMITTAL (3) 2.1 Indicate on the title sheet the applicable codes, City, state and federal laws and regulations to include: 1994 uniform Building Code with California Amendments • 1994 Uniform Mechanical and Plumbing Codes with California Amendments • 1993 National Electrical Code with California Amendments ® City of Tustin Grading and Security Ordinance • City of Tustin Landscaping and Irrigation Guidelines • City of Tustin Private Improvements Standards (3) 2.2 'Submit seven (7) sets of building plans to the Building Division for review and approval prior to the issuance of a building permit. Requirements of the Uniform Building Code (UBC) and state disabled access requirements shall be complied with as approved by the Building Official. All construction shall be in accordance with the 1994 UBC, applicable City Codes and the City's Security Code. No field changes shall be made without corrections submitted to and approved by the Community Development Department. (3) 2.3 Submit seven (7) sets of excavating/grading plans and two preliminary soils reports to the Building Division for review and approval prior to the issuance of a grading permit. (3) 2.4 The engineer of record must submit a final compaction report to the Building Division for review and approval prior to the issuance of a building permit. (3) 2.5 The engineer of record must submit a letter of pad certification to the Building Division for review and approval prior to the issuance of a building permit. (3) 2.6 Drainage, vegetation, circulation, street sections, curbs, gutters, sidewalks, and storm drains shall comply with the on-site private Improvement Standards. (3) 2.7 A surety/cash bond will be required to assure work is completed in - accordance with approved plans. Bonds will be based upon the estimated cost of the grading, drainage, and erosion control prior to the issuance of a grading permit. ExhibitA Design Review 98-031 Conditions of Approval Resolution No. 3661 Page 3 (4) 2.8 Elevations shall be provided which include all proposed dimensions, materials, colors, finishes, and partial outlines of adjacent buildings on-site and off-site where applicable. Details shall also be provided for the proposed windows and doors. Roofing shall be class"B" or better quality. (4) 2.9 The location of any utility vents or other equipment shall be provided on a roof plan. (4) 2.10 Manufacturer's details of all fighting fixtures and a lighting plan which identifies the location, type of fixture, and intensity of all exterior building mounted and free'standing lighting shall be prodded. A note shall be provided on the plans that "All parking areas shall be illuminated with a minimum of one footcandle�of light, and lighting shall not produce light or glare or have a negative impact on adjacent properties." All light fixtures shall be architecturally compatible with the proposed and existing, structures. (4) 2.12 The proposed trash bin enclosure shall be screened by a solid decorative mall consistent with the adjacent building's material and finish and be of a minimum height of six feet. The actual location of the enclosure and types of screening and details of the enclosure shall be submitted at building plan check and ,are subject to approval- by the Community Development Department. The location of the bin, size and quantity shall be reviewed and accepted in writing by Great Western Reclamation. (3) 2.13 Parking spaces designed for use by persons with disabilities shall comply with California Title 24 regulations. SITE AND BUILDING CONDITIONS (4) 3.1 Provide exact details for exterior doors and window types on construction plans. Door and windows shall be consistent with design for the center. (4) 3.2 All mechanical and electrical fixtures and equipment shall be adequately and decoratively screened. The screen shall be considered as an element of the overall design of the project and shall either blend with the architectural design of the building or be integrated into the landscape design. A dense type of landscaping could be utilized for screening. T Exhibit ,Design Review 98-031 Conditions of Approval Resolution No. 3669 Page 4 (1), 3.3 All exterior accent colors to be used.shall be subject-to review approval of the Community Development Department and shall be consistent with samples provided on the. color board. All exterior treatments.shalI be coordinated with regard to color, materials and detailing and clearly noted on submitted constructiori.plans and elevations. {4) 3.4 - All exposed metal flashing or trim shall be painted to match the building. - '(1) 3.5 Note on final plans that a six-foot-high chain linked fence shall be installed around the site prior to building construction stages. Gated entrances shall be permitted along the.perimeter of the.site for construction vehicles. (1) 3.6 Exterior elevations of the,building shall indicate any fixtures or-equipment to, be located on the roof of the building,and equipment heights. The building . parapet shall be an integral part of the building design, and shall screen all roof mounted equipment. All roof-mounted equipment and vents shall be a minimum of six inches below the top of the parapet. (4) 3.7 Ali roof access shall be provided from the inside of the building. (4) 3.8 No exterior downspouts shall be permitted; all roof drainage shall utilize ' interior piping, but may have exterior outlets at base of building. (4) 3.9 Six (6) inch continuous concrete curbing shall.be used through the parking. lot and adjacent to sidewalks, except where required to satisfy handicap access requirements. (4) 3.10 Roof scuppers shall be installed with a special lip device so, that overflow drainage will not stain the walls. (4). 3.11 Indicate the location of all exterior mechanical equipment. Gas and electric meters shall either be enclosing in the building or boxed' behind a screen wall designed consistentwith the main building. (4) 3.12 Installation. of security hardware and locking devices as required for commercial structures pursuant to the Tustin City Code.." c Exhibit A Design Review 98-031 Conditions of Approval Resolution No. 3661 Page 5 NOISE (1) 4.1 All construction operations including engine warm up 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 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 unless other construction noise standardsare subsequently adopted by the City Council in which case said new,standards shall be complied with. LANDSCAPING (1) 5.1 Submit a complete detailed- landscaping and irrigation plan for. all landscaping areas consistent with adopted City of Tustin Landscaping and Irrigation SubmittalRequirements and consistent with the plant selection list and regulations within the Tustin Market Place Annex Design Guidelines. Landscaping adjacent to Bryan Avenue shall be designed to sufficiently screen the view of the parking area and the rear of the- building from the public right-of-way: 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. Said plans shall be consistentwith the existing landscape palette for the center. (5) ,502 All landscaping should be kept below the window areas-to.maintain visibility. (1) 5.3 All,landscaping shall be maintained in a healthy condition such that all plant materials-are evenly cut, evenly edged, free of bare or brown spots, free of debris,weeds or dead vegetation. r SIGNS (4) 6.1 Prior to ,issuance of a sign permit, submit three (3) sets of plans depicting the site plan, elevations and details of.the proposed signage. The signs shall comply with the Tustin Market Place Annex Sign Plan,as approved for the Tustin Market Place Annex in.May 1992. (4) 6.2 All incidental signs for this.project including entry, exit, -yield and handicap signs, shall be designed. consistent with such signage"used elsewhere in the center, subject to review and approval'by the Community Development and Public Works Departments. Exhibit A Design Review 9&031 Conditions of Approval Resolution No. 3661 Page 6 (4) 6.3 No sign component shall flash, blink or be otherwise animated. Such { animation is strictly prohibited. ** . 6.4 ' All exterior illuminated signs shall be installed on .a timer so that the illumination is turned off at the closing time of the establishment. USE RESTRICTIONS ( ) 7.1 The proposed development and future uses shall comply with the approved traffic trip budget established for the Tustin Market Place Annex site. A use and parking summary shall be reviewed and approved by the Community Development and Public Works Departments for.any change in use that would increase the trip budget or parking demand for the center. O 7.2 The proposed' development shall comply with the requirements in the approved "Tustin Market Place Annex TR/TDM Program" approved in September 1992 for the subject site. FIRE DEPARTMENT (5) 8.1 Prior to the issuance of any building permits 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.A fire hydrant shall be located within 150 feet of all exterior portions of any structure. (5) 8.2 Prior to the issuance'of>any building permits a note shall be placed on the plans stating that all structures to be built on the lots shall be protected by an automatic fire sprinkler system, in a manner meeting the approval of the Fire Chief. (5) 8.3. 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.a' nd color ofiiettering and the contrasting background color shall be submitted to { and approved by the Fire.Chief. (5). 8.4 Prior to the issuance of the certificate of use and occupancy the approved fire lane marking plan shall be installed. i ExhibitA Design Review 98-031 Conditions of Approval Resolution No. 3661: .Page 7 „ r - (5) 8.& 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 each structure, in a manner' meeting the approval of the Fire.Chief. (5) 8.6 Prior to the issuance of any building permits on those lots determined applicable by'the Fire zChief, plans for the automatic fire sprinkler system shall be submitted to and approved by the Fire Chief prior to installation. This system shall be operational prior to the.issuance of a certificate of use and occupancy. (5) 8.7 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. `(5) " 8.8 Prior to the issuance of a building permit 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. the Orange County Fire Authority Plans Review Section at (714) Contact744-0403 for the Fire Safety Site/Architectural Notes to be placed on the plans. FEES (1) 9A Prior to issuance of any permits, payment shall be made of all required fees, as may be in effect at the time of permit issuance, including, but not limited to: ' A. All 'applicable plan check and permit fees to the Community Development Department, based on the most current schedule, as may be amended prior to permit issuance. E. Orange County Fire Authority plan check and-inspection fees to the Community Development Department based upon the most current schedule. C. New development fees to the Community DevelopmentDepartment in the amount of$.10 per square foot or as may be amended prior to permit issuance. ExhibitA Design Review 98-031 Conditions of Approval Resolution No. 3661 Page 8 D. Orange County Fire.Authority pian check and inspection fees to the, Community Development Department based upon the most current schedule. E. School facilities fees to the Tustin Unified School District, subject to any agreement reached and executed between the District and applicant., F. Sewer and water connection fees to the Irvine Ranch Water District. G. Major thoroughfare -and bridge fees to the Tustin Public Works Department in the amount of$3.03 per square foot:of building area, or as-may be amended prior to permit issuance. (5) 9.2 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 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 ` epos to the woST Planning Commission s DATE: MARCH.22, 1999 SUBJECT: CITY COUNCIL ACTION AGENDA, MARCH 15, 1999 PRESENTATION: ELIZABETH A. BINSACK, DIRECTOR COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT ATTACHMENT: CITY COUNCIL ACTION AGENDA-MARCH 15, 1999 ACTION AGENDA CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING MARCH 15, 1999 7:05 P.M. CALL TO ORDER GIVEN INVOCATION Rev. Allan Waterson, Aldersgate United Methodist Church GIVEN PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE -ALL PRESENT ROLL CALL NONE PUBLIC INPUT PUBLIC HEARING ( ITEM_ 1 ) CONTINUED 1. APPEAL OF CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 98-007 AND TO 4/19 DESIGN REVIEW 98-007 (APPLICANT: MICHAEL J. MEETING DOBSON, EZ LUBE) Conditional Use Permit 98-007 and Design Review 98- 007 are requests to construct a 1,472 square foot drive through oil change facility, with three service bays. The property is located at 12972 Newport Avenue on the northeast corner. of Newport Avenue and Old Irvine Boulevard. Recommendation: Continue the public hearing to the April 19, 1999, City Council meeting as recommended by the Community Development Department. CONSENT CALENDAR ( ITEMS 2 THROUGH 12 ) APPROVED 2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES — MARCH 1, 1999 REGULAR MEETING Recommendation: Approve the City Council Minutes of March 1, 1999. APPROVED 3. APPROVAL OF DEMANDS AND RATIFICATION OF PAYROLL - Recommendation: Approve Demands in the amount of $1,780,026.38 and ratify Payroll in the amount of $377,673.94. Action Agenda—City Council March 15, 1999—Page 1 APPROVED 4. AMENDMENT TO CONSULTANT SERVICES AGREEMENT FOR AN UPGRADE TO THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT'S INFORMATION MANAGEMENT SYSTEM Recommendation: Authorize the Mayor and City Clerk to execute an amended Consultant Services Agreement with Open Data Systems, subject to City Attorney's approval, for a comprehensive upgrade to the Community Development Department's information management system in the amount of $49,990.00 as recommended by the Community Development Department. APPROVED 5. TUSTIN POLICE SUPPORT . SERVICES ASSOCIATION MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING Recommendation: Authorize the City Manager to execute the Memorandum of Understanding two-year agreement ending December 31, 2000, between the City and the Tustin Police Support Services Association representing non-sworn/non-management Police employees as recommended by Personnel Services. APPROVED 6. BUILDING DAMAGE SAFETY ASSESSMENT MUTUAL AID AGREEMENT Recommendation: Authorize the Mayor and City Clerk to execute the Building Damage Safety Assessment Mutual Aid Agreement with the County of Orange and other' participating cities as recommended by the Community Development Department. ADOPTED 7. RESOLUTION NO. 99-23 - A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY RESOLUTION . COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN_, CALIFORNIA, NO. 99-23 ORDERING THE PREPARATION OF AN ENGINEER'S REPORT FOR THE TUSTIN LANDSCAPE AND. LIGHTING DISTRICT LEVY OF ANNUAL ASSESSMENTS FOR FISCAL YEAR 1999-2000 Recommendatiom Adopt Resolution No. 99-23 which orders the preparation of the Engineer's Report for the Tustin Landscape a.nd Lighting District Levy of Annual Assessments for fiscal year 1999-2000 as recommended by the Public Works Department/Engineering Division. APPROVED 8. RELEASE OF BONDS FOR TRACT NO.- 13627 (EAST TUSTIN-MASTER TRACT NORTH OF IRVINE BOULEVARD) Recommendation: Release the following. bonds for the indicated amounts: ' Faithful Performance Bond No. 15- Action Agenda —City Council March 15, 1999— Page 2 29-681 $372,500.00; Labor and Materials Bond No. 15- 29-68, $372,,500.00; and Monumentation Bond No. 15- 29-67, $8,000.00 as recommended by the Public Works Department/Engineering Division. ADOPTED 9. RESOLUTION NO. 99-25 - A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY RESOLUTION COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA, NO. 99-25 APPROVING LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT NO. 98-2 Recommendation: Adopt Resolution No. 99-25 approving Lot Line Adjustment No. 98-2 (Kaufman and Broad Coastal, Inc: Tract No. 15568, Sedona) as recommended by the Public Works `Department/ Engineering Division. ITEM NO. 2 10. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION AGENDA— MARCH 8, (CUP 98-029) 1999 APPEALED BY All actions of the Planning Commission become final SALTARELLI unless appealed by the City Council' or member of the public. Recommendation: Ratify the Planning Commission Action Agenda of March 8, 1999. ADOPTED 11. RESOLUTION NO. 99-4 - A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY RESOLUTION COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA, NO. 99-4 AMENDING THE CLASSIFICATION PLAN TO ADD A PRINCIPAL PLANNER POSITION AND TO APPROVE NEW CLASS SPECIFICATIONS FOR THE POSITION Recommendation: Adopt Resolution No. 99-4 to amend the Classification Plan to create the Principal Planner classification and approve the new class specifications as recommended by the Community Development Department. APPROVED 12. REQUEST FOR LEAVE OF ABSENCE — ARTHUR LARRY DAVIS AND ROMAN LOPEZ Recommendation by Personnel Services: Authorize a . leave of absence *to Maintenance Leadworker, A. Larry Davis, until December 1, 1999, and to Custodian, Roman Lopez, until September 1, 1999, for medical reasons due to non-industrial disability until each is fully released by his doctor to return to work. If there is an opening available in the position of Maintenance Leadworker for Mr. Davis when he is able to return to work, he may be appointed to fill the opening. If no opening exists when Mr. Davis is-released to return to work by his doctor, he will be placed on a re- f employment list ' for one year and be eligible for Action Agenda --City Council March 15, 1999—Page 3 reinstatement when an opening occurs. Currently, Mr. Lopez's position is being filled on a temporary basis. REGULAR BUSINESS ( ITEMS 13 THROUGH 16 ) APPOINTED 13. PLANNING COMMISSION VACANCY TONY KAWASHIMA Due to the resignation of Paul Jones, there is a vacancy UNTIL 7/19/99 on the Planning Commission and the City Council needs (3-2 MD, JP OP) to appoint a replacement. Recommendation: Pleasure of the City Council ADOPTED 14. ORDINANCE NO. 1212 —ZONE CHANGE 99-001 ORDINANCE (APPLICANT: MR. ELMER TIEDJE, TUSTIN-VILLAGE NO. 3212 COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION) Ordinance No. 1212 had first reading by title only and. introduction at the March 1, 1999 City-Council meeting. .Recommendation by the City Clerk's Office: 1. Have second reading by title only of Ordinance No. 1212. 2. With a roll call vote,,adopt the following Ordinance No. 1212: ORDINANCE NO. 1212 AN ORDINANCE OF THE . CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING ZONE. CHANGE 99-001, CHANGING THE ZONING DISTRICT FROM UNCLASSIFIED (U) TO PLANNED DEVELOPMENT (PD) ON AN 8,923 SQUARE FOOT ABANDONED PARCEL OF CALTRANS RIGHT-OF-WAY ADJACENT TO PROPERTY LOCATED AT 15500 TUSTIN VILLAGE WAY RECEIVED 15. CENSUS 2000 UPDATE AND FILED S For the past several months, the Community Development Department has been working closely with the U.S. Census Bureau in preparation for Census.2000 and this report will update the City Council on'the most recent activities relating to the census. Action Agenda —City Council March 15, 1999— Page 4 Recommendation: Receive and file subject report as recommended by the Community Development Department. APPROVED STAFF 16. STIPULATION REGARDING PROVISION OF CABLE ON RECOMMENDATION - LINE INFORMATION SERVICES BY MEDIA ONE MediaOne has a franchise to 'install, construct and operate ,a cable television system in the City of Tustin.' MediaOne is proposing to install facilities-in the public right-of-way that will both improve cable television service and will also permit subscribers to have internet access. Recommendation: Approve execution of subject -Stipulation with such modifications as ,a0proved by the City Attorney as recommended by the City Attorney. NONE PUBLIC INPUT OTHER BUSINESS / COMMITTEE REPORTS DOYLE: EXPRESSED DISAPPROVAL WITH STATE LEGISLATORS RECEIVING A SIGNIFICANT PAY INCREASE AND OTHER BENEFITS RESULTING IN THE HIGHEST PAID STATE LEGISLATORS IN THE NATION AND REQUESTED RESIDENTS CONTACT, THEIR, REPRESENTATIVES AND VOICE OBJECTION • CHASTISED TUSTIN CHAMBER OF COMMERCE FOR HOLDING THE MAN AND WOMAN OF THE YEAR INSTALLATION DINNER AT A RESTAURANT IN THE CITY OF ORANGE REPORTED ON ETRPA'S PROPOSED BALLOT MEASURE WHICH WOULD REQUIRE 2/3 -VOTER APPROVAL FOR FUTURE JAIL SITES; LANDFILLS AND CIVILIAN AIRPORTS WISHED THORNY A HAPPY BIRTHDAY COMMENDED STAFF FOR RAPID GROWTH AND APPEARANCE OF NEWLY PLANTED TREES. ON "A". STREET . 2 Action Agenda—City Council March 15, 1999—Page 5 WORLEY: COMMENTED ON LOS ANGELES TIMES ARTICLE REGARDING MOMENTUM BY ACTIVISTS. TO RESTORE POWER TO LOCAL GOVERNMENTS THAT WAS ELIMINATED WITH PASSAGE OF PROPOSITION 13. NOTED THAT A LETTER HAD BEEN RECEIVED-FRO`M -A" FAMILY RESIDING ADJACENT TO- HERITAGE PARK COMPLAINING OF PARK USAGE BY OUTSIDERS. SHE RESPONDED • THAT HEAVY USE 'OF' PARKS WAS WELCOMED BY THE COUNCIL AND THOSE PURCHASING HOMES ADJACENT TO PARKS SHOULD, EXPECT USAGE BY EVERYONE IN THE CITY INTRODUCED AND CONGRATULATED NEWLY APPOINTED PLANNING COMMISSIONER TONY KAWASHIMA. COMMISSIONER KAWASHIMA THANKED COUNCIL FOR THE HONOR AND EXPRESSED EAGERNESS TO SERVE THE COMMUNITY REPORTED THAT 'MARGARETE THOMPSON - EXPRESSED APPRECIATION FOR THE GET WELL WISHES SHE RECEIVED DURING . 'HER RECENT ILLNESS POTTS: REPORTED HE HADDISCUSSIONS WITH RESIDENTS OF TUSTIN MEADOWS, - PEPPERTREE AND LAURELWOOD DEVELOPMENTS, REGARDING INCREASING WALL . HEIGHT `TO MITIGATE TRAIN NOISE, NORTHBOUND ' NEWPORT AVENUE, CONGESTION, TWO POLES ON -PANKEY PROPERTY, AND CABLE ROCK CAMOUFLAGE, AND REQUESTED STAFF-FOLLOW-UP REPORTED ONNALEE' ELLIOTT HAD COMPLIMENTED, THE CITY-ON THEIR TREE TRIMMING SERVICE SALTARELLI: REPORTED ON HIS ATTENDANCE AT SUCCESSFUL ARBOR DAY EVENT AND,COMMENDED CITY- STAFF AND TUSTIN' HIGH SCHOOL STUDENTS FOR THEIR COOPERATIVE EFFORT TO PLANT TREES ALONG TUSTIN RANCH ROAD AS 'PART OF THE CELEBRATION ANNOUNCED CLOSED SESSION - The City Council shall convene in closed session pursuant to Government Code Section 54957.6 to confer with Nick Nichols,, the City's labor. negotiator, regarding labor negotiations with the Tustin- Action Agenda—City Council March 15, 1999— Page 6 } Police Officers Association and Tustin Police Officers Association Management Unit; and pursuant to Government Code Section 54957 to confer regarding Public Employee Evaluation: City Manager. 7:38 P.M. ADJOURNMENT - The next regular meeting of the City Council is scheduled for Monday, April 5, 1999, at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chamber at 300 Centennial Way. Action Agenda —City Council March 15, 1999—Page 7 ACTION AGENDA REGULAR MEETING OF THE TUSTIN COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY' MARCH 1.5; 1999 7:38 P.M. CALL TO ORDER ALL PRESENT ROLL CALL REGULARBUSINESS ( ITEMS 1 THROUGH 2 ) APPROVED 1. APPROVAL OF MINUTES — MARCH .1, 1999 REGULAR MEETING' Recommendation: Approve the Redevelopment Agency_ Minutes of March 1, 1999. APPROVED ' 2. APPROVAL OF DEMANDS Recommendation: Approve Demands in the amount of $47,168.17. OTHER BUSINESS THOMAS: REPORTED HE WOULD BE ABSENT FROM THE APRIL 5 MEETING- TO ATTEND HIS GRANDMOTHER-IN-LAW'S 100TH BIRTHDAY CELEBRATION DOYLE: EXPRESSED PLEASURE THAT THE EL CAMINO REAL AND SIXTH STREET DEMOLITION PROJECT WAS PROCEEDING, ON SCHEDULE POTTS: REPORTED WITH PLEASURE- THAT THE TUSTIN HIGH SCHOOL BASKETBALL COURTS WOULD BE REFURBISHED AND OPEN TO THE PUBLIC THIS SUMMER - WORLEY: REPORTED THAT SHE, THE- CITY MANAGER AND ASSISTANT CITY. MANAGER WOULD TRAVEL TO. WASHINGTON D.C. ON WEDNESDAY FOR TWO DAYS OF BASE CLOSURE MEETINGS NONE CLOSED SESSION None 7:40 P.M. ADJOURNMENT - The next regular meeting of the Redevelopment Agency is' scheduled for Monday, April 5, 1999, at 7:00 p.m.' in the Council!` Chamber at 300 Centennial Way. ki Action Agenda—Redevelopment Agency March 15, 1999--Page 1