HomeMy WebLinkAbout03 CUP 04-008, DR 04-008, SCE 0
ITEM #3
Report to the
Planning Commission
(fj
DATE:
AUGUST 22, 2005
SUBJECT:
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 04-008, DESIGN REVIEW 04-008,
AND SIGN CODE EXCEPTION 05-001
APPLICANT!
PROPERTY
OWNER:
PADMINI WEERKKODY
1792 SAN JUAN STREET
TUSTIN, CA 92780
LOCATION:
1792 SAN JUAN STREET
ZONING:
SUBURBAN RESIDENTIAL (R4)
ENVIRONMENTAL
STATUS: A NEGATIVE DECLARATION WAS PREPARED PURSUANT TO
ARTICLE 6 OF THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
ACT (CEQA) AND CONCLUDED THAT, AS CONDITIONED, NO
SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS WOULD RESULT FROM THE
PROJECT.
REQUEST:
TO CONVERT AN EXISTING SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE TO A
COMMERCIAL PRESCHOOL FOR UP TO 49 CHILDREN WITH
FIVE (5) INSTRUCTORS AND TO INSTALL AN ON-BUILDING
SIGN.
RECOMMENDATION
That the Planning Commission:
1.
Adopt Resolution No. 3979 adopting the Final Negative Declaration and making
certain findings relating to Conditional Use Permit 04-008, Design Review 04-008,
And Sign Code Exception 05-001, As Required By The California Environmental
Quality Act; and
2.
Adopt Resolution No. 3980 approving Conditional Use Permit (CUP 04-008), Design
Review (DR 04-008), and Sign Code Exception (SCE 05-001) for the conversion of
an existing single family dwelling into a preschool for up to 49 children with five (5)
instructors and to allow an on-building sign for the use.
Planning Commission Report
CUP 04-008, DR 04-008, and SCE 05-001
Page 2
BACKGROUND
This item was continued from the July 25, 2005 and August 8, 2005 Planning Commission
meetings.
The property contains an existing 2,228 square foot single-family dwelling on a 16,900
square foot (130 by 130 feet) lot located at 1792 San Juan Street in the Suburban
Residential (R4) Zoning District and the High Density Residential (15-25 dwelling
units/acre) General Plan Designation.
The California Department of Social Services will ensure that the preschool includes
adequate square feet for interior and exterior space per child, an appropriate
instructor/child ratio, and an approved care curriculum. Prior to state licensing,
preschool/daycare uses in the R4 Zoning District require a conditional use permit pursuant
to the criteria outlined in Tustin City Code (TCC) Section 9288b4.
On July 24, 1995, the Planning Commission approved CUP 95-006, DR 95-021, and Sign
Code Exception (SCE) 95-005 to allow a preschool and day care facility at 1792 San Juan
Street with a maximum enrollment of 48 children. The previously approved project is
similar in use, design, and architecture to the proposed project. The use was never
initiated and the permit expired on January 24, 1997.
The applicant operates the First School of Montessori at 13806 Red Hill Avenue which
would close to operate on the subject site.
Site and Surroundinq Properties (Attachment A),
A Church abuts the south and east property lines of the site. An apartment complex is to
the west and a tract of single family residences are located across San Juan Street to the
north. Marjorie Veeh Elementary School and C.E. Uti Intermediate School, respectively,
are located on San Juan Street to the west and east. The Brookside Apartment Complex
is located within a 500 foot proximity to the west.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
CUP 04-008, DR 04-008, and Sign Code Exception 05-001 are requests to:
. Convert an existing single family dwelling into a preschool where there will be up
to 49 children and five (5) instructors throughout the course of any weekday;
. Add 221 square feet to the structure;
. Provide a parking lot with 12 parking spaces;
. Provide a 4,142 square feet outdoor playground;
. Provide additional on-site landscaping;
. Add street trees in the adjacent public right-of-way; and,
. Provide a 32 square foot monument sign to serve the use (modified to a 20
square foot wall sign.) (Attachment B - Project Plans)
Planning Commission Report
CUP 04-008, DR 04-008, and SCE 05-001
Page 3
The school is proposed to operate from 7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. Monday through Friday,
closed on Saturday and Sunday. Full and half day schedules would be offered with a
full day being from 9:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m. and the half day option being from 9:00 a.m.
to 12:00 p.m. or from 12:00 p.m. to 3:00 p.m. Both full and half day options offer
extended care hours from 7:00 to 9:00 a.m. and from 3:00 to 6:00 p.m.
The applicant provided a week of log sheets demonstrating the drop off and pick up
times of each of the 55 children attending her present preschool. Staff compiled the
average drop off times for the week and found that the most of the children are dropped
off between 8:00 and 9:45 a.m. with the main influx occurring at 9:00 a.m. when an
average of 11 children were dropped off. A chart of incoming children is as follows:
Average Number of Incoming Clients Per 15 Minute Interval
8
12
10
6
4
2
0
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
"'~ ",'1' qj~ qj'P ~~ ~'P ,,('j"T ,,¿?" ".;,"T ".!,?" "i."T ",/7,,~ ,,'1' r..¿.~ r..¿.'P "3~ "3'1' .¡.~ .¡.'P (,;5~ (,;5'1' I(j~ I(j'? "'~ ",'1'
The data provided by the applicant shows that there are three main time frames when
children are picked up at her existing school. An average of five (5) children are picked
up during these times which include noon, 3:00 to 3:30 p.m., and 5:00 to 6:00 p.m. A
chart of outgoing children follows on the next page.
Planning Commission Report
CUP 04-008, DR 04-008, and SCE 05-001
Page 4
Average Number of Departing Clients Per 15 Minute Interval
6
5
4
3
2
a
!<:>!<:>!<:>c::.!<:>c::.!<:>I:::ox,c::.!<:>c::.!<:>c::.x,c::.!<:>I:::o!<:>c::.-C\()!<:>c::.!<:>c::.
,,"J> "o,? ~~ <¡j'? ~'f> ç¿,'ß 1:::o"J> C'j'? ,'i> ,'? ,,~ "o'ß ,,"J> ,'? "o'i> "°'P "!J'f> 'Jj'? ~"J> .;.'? ~'i> ~'ß ~'f> ~'? ....'f> "o,?
" " " " ".. ".. -....
I EI Average I
Proposed Preschool Buildinq
The structure is currently setback 30 feet from the San Juan Street public right-of-way, 52
feet from the rear property line, 40 feet from the west property line, and 27 feet from the
east property line. A children's restroom is proposed to be added to the southerly
elevation and a portion of the interior lobby added to the northerly elevation. With the
additions, the total lot coverage would be 14.4 percent. The structure with additions would
continue to be 16 feet high. The building setbacks, parcel coverage, height, and
projections comply with the requirements of the Tustin City Code (TCC) as evidenced in
Attachment C (Land Use Fact Sheet).
The building is not proposed to undergo extensive exterior remodeling for the project.
Minor remodeling to the ranch style residence is proposed to include repainted white
stucco walls, asphalt shingles, and divided-lite windows. The two exterior additions are
proposed to consist of building materials that will match the existing building. A new
wrought iron fence is proposed to be placed along the east side of the northerly elevation.
Although identified on the north elevation plans, the wrought iron fence is not depicted on
the site plan. Condition 4.5 would require the applicant to identify the location of the
wrought iron fence on the site plan when plans are formally submitted into plan check.
The interior of the building will be converted from single family use to a preschool use with
an 811 square foot classroom and a 907 square foot classroom.
Planning Commission Report
CUP 04-008, DR 04-008, and SCE 05-001
Page 5
Noise
A 4,142 square foot playground area is designated in the northeasterly corner of the
property. As required by TCC Section 9228b4.(i), the playground would be enclosed by
six (6) foot eight (8) inch concrete block walls on the westerly, northerly, and easterly
boundaries. The preschool building and a six (6) foot eight (8) inch high wood fence would
enclose the playground on the southerly boundary. The easterly property line/playground
boundary which abuts a property developed with apartments would contain a dense mix of
18 inch box trees, 5 gallon plants, and 5 gallon shrubs as specified on the landscape plan.
Noise levels from children's play activity in the outdoor playground area would be less
than significant because (1) playground activity noise will be shielded by a six foot, eight
inch concrete block wall that will be constructed around the playground area, (2)
playground activity will occur during day time hours, and (3) playground activity would
be limited to 12 children outdoors at any given time. While these project design and
operational features would reduce any potential noise impacts to a level of
insignificance, staff has recommended standard condition 7.3 as a precautionary
measure. This measure requires the applicant to implement additional sound
attenuation in the unlikely event that the project would generate noise levels that exceed
the interior and exterior noise levels established by Section 4614 of the Tustin City
Code.
Noise from increased vehicle traffic resulting from the project would also be less than
significant. According to the Illinois Department of Transportation, noise is measured on
a logarithmic scale and two (2) sources of equal noise added together result in an
increase of 3 dBA. The Department further indicates that a 3 dBA change in noise
levels is not typically perceived by persons with average hearing. Therefore, doubling
traffic volumes will increase the noise level by 3 dBA. Since the project would not
double the volume traffic on San Juan Street, any traffic noise created would be
imperceptible and absorbed within the ambient noise created by existing vehicle traffic
on the street and could not be detected by persons with reasonable auditory perception.
Parkinq/Circulation
The parking lot consists of 6,204 square feet of asphalt which accommodates 11
standard and one disabled parking spaces. TCC Section 9228b4 requires one (1)
parking space for each staff member plus one (1) loading (parking) space for each eight
(8) children. Given that the applicant is proposing to utilize five (5) instructors for 49
children, a total of 11.13 parking spaces are required. Therefore, the 12 parking spaces
provided meet the requirements of the TCC.
Given the current drop off and pick up pattern of the applicant's existing preschool that
cares for 55 children, staff believes that the proposed preschool for 49 children would
contain adequate on-site parking spaces to allow guardians to drop off and pick up
Planning Commission Report
CUP 04-008, DR 04-008, and SCE 05-001
Page 6
children without traffic complications or lack of on-site parking spaces. Conditions have
been added to the project to assist in preventing parking or traffic problems as follows:
. Condition 6.1 would require parking to occur in marked spaces and not a drop off
area.
. Condition 6.2 would limit the preschool to a maximum of 49 pre-school children
during the span of any day.
. Condition 6.5 would prohibit parking in adjacent lots, would require parents to
park in on-site parking spaces and, would prohibit line-up or parking along the
curb on San Juan Street except for special events such as plays and
graduations. Guardians would be required to sign a statement agreeing to these
parking stipulations.
. Condition 6.6 would contain a provision to allow the Community Development
Director to require a staff member to be available in the parking lot area to usher
children to and from guardian's parked vehicles if parking for the preschool has
become a problem. The condition would also enable the Director to require
further staggered class hours, or require a reduction in the number of students.
As determined by the City of Tustin Public Works Department, Traffic Division, the
project has the potential to add 210 net daily trip ends, approximately a nine (9) percent
increase in daily traffic volume to San Juan Street in the vicinity of the project site. The
physical vehicle per day (VPD) capacity for a two-lane undivided road is approximately
15, 000 VPD. San Juan Street is considered a residential collector road and has a
"desirable" capacity of approximately 6,000 VPD. Based on recent traffic counts, the
existing daily traffic on San Juan Street is 2,348 VPD, which is well within the physical
and desirable capacities. The added 210 project related daily trip ends split into two (2)
directions on San Juan so the impacts to any particular segment of San Juan Street is
not the full 210, but likely 50 to 65 percent of that total. Even with the addition of the full
210 VPD,the total VPD for this segment of San Juan Street would be 2,558. Therefore,
the added project related traffic will not cause the maximum daily roadway capacity to
be exceeded.
The peak a.m. hours for the segment of San Juan Street are between 7:00 and 8:00
a.m. and between 2:00 and 3:00 p.m. with respective volumes of 348 and 274 trips.
The traffic model for a preschool estimates that 39 and 42 daily trips would be added
during the a.m. and p.m. peak hours, respectively. However, the Traffic Division has
concluded that the peak hour trip increases would have a less than significant traffic
impact on local roadways and intersections.
Landscapinq
The project consists of 6,904 square feet of landscaping (40.8 percent of the site). The 0
entire southeast portion of the property facing the street consists of landscaping. As much
Planning Commission Report
CUP 04-008, DR 04-008, and SCE 05-001
Page 7
as possible, the landscaping screens the parking lot, provides landscaping in the parking
lot, provides perimeter property landscaping, and establishes the playground at the
northeast corner of the property. Three (3) street trees would be provided in the public
right-of-way. As indicated in the submitted landscape plan (Attachment B), the applicant
is proposing three (3) types of planting materials throughout the property in the
aforementioned landscape areas in the types and quantities as follows:
Name Size Quantity
Star Jasmine 5 Gallon 200
Lilly of the Nile 5 Gallon 40
London Plant Tree 18" Box Tree 10
Siqnaqe
A 32 square foot monument sign was originally requested for the proposed pre-school
site. However, after the initial study was made available for public review, staff conducted
additional research that concluded that, other than a monument sign for an elementary
school which does not require City approval, there are no other permitted monument
signs on the segment of San Juan Street between Browning and Red Hill Avenues.
Therefore, staff informed the applicant that they currently cannot support a monument
sign for the preschool. Subsequently, the applicant has agreed to modify the sign
proposal to request Sign Code Exception (SCE 05-001) for an on-building sign for the
preschool.
There are no provisions in the Tustin Sign Code to allow for an institutional/business sign
in the R4 Zoning District. Therefore, the Planning Commission may consider the
requested Sign Code Exception per TCC Section 9405c. Pursuant to Condition 4.6, the
proposed on-building sign would be limited to 20 square feet in size, which is consistent
with the on-building sign for the adjacent church. Review of the sign location and design
would be subject to approval by the Community Development Director during the plan
check process. The required findings to support the Sign Code Exemption are indicated
in the Analysis section of the report below.
PUBLIC COMMENTS
A legal notice of the public hearing was published in the Tustin News on June 30, 2005
(Attachment D). On June 29,2005, copies of the public hearing notice were mailed to all
property owners within 300 feet of the project property. The property was also posted
with information regarding the public hearing. A summary of public concerns received
regarding the project is provided below. Copies of correspondence received from the
public and detailed staff responses to concerns indicated are provided as an attachment
to the proposed Final Negative Declaration which is attached to proposed Resolution
3979.
The main concern received regarding the project pertains to traffic. Most responding
parties are concerned that San Juan Street currently has a high level of traffic and the
Planning Commission Report
CUP 04-008, DR 04-008, and SCE 05-001
Page 8
project could cause additional traffic which would increase risks for accidents, jam traffic
on San Juan Street which will prevent neighborhood vehicles from entering or exiting
Farmington Road, and create additional on-street parking leaving none for neighborhood
residents. Some respondents have indicated that any additional traffic in the
neighborhood will contribute to noise levels.
Most respondents have indicated that the proposed preschool is a commercial use and
would not be compatible in the neighborhood between the church and high density
residential complex which is located across San Juan Street from the single family
residential tract in which they reside and/or are representing.
Some respondents have indicated that the aesthetics of the project will not fit in with the
neighborhood because existing trees will be removed to accommodate a parking lot for
the use and that a sign would eliminate any residential appearance of the property.
CEQA
In accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), staff prepared an
initial study to determine whether the project would have any potentially significant
environmental effects attached to Resolution 3979 which is provided as (Attachment E)
As documented in the Initial Study and the Responses to Comments, which were
prepared in conjunction with the Final Negative Declaration, the project would have either
no impact or a less than significant impact on the environment. The lack of environmental
impacts generally reflects the relatively small scale nature of the project (the conversion
and minor expansion of an approximately 2,000 square foot residence to accommodate a
preschool use) and the mix and intensity of the various land uses surrounding the project
site.
As discussed above, several neighbors who reside across the street from the project site
have expressed concerns over project impacts relating to primarily traffic and parking,
and to some extent aesthetic, land use, and noise. However, as documented in the
Response to Comments section of the Final Negative Declaration, Staff believes that
these environmental concerns have been adequately addressed by project design
features, such as the architecture, landscaping, block wall buffer, and operational
restrictions. In addition, standard conditions will be incorporated into the project, which
further ensure that any potential environmental effects will be less than significant.
To further clarify and amplify the conclusions of the Initial Study, staff has prepared formal
responses to each of the individual comments received on the Initial Study and Negative
Declaration determination. These responses provide additional information to explain the
conclusions of the initial study as it relates to specific concerns raised in the various
letters that staff received. As explained in the Final Negative Declaration, the Initial Study
and Negative Declaration were not revised and recirculated pursuant to Section 15073.5
of CEQA because no substantial revisions were required to the document.
Planning Commission Report
CUP 04-008, DR 04-008, and SCE 05-001
Page 9
Resolution No. 3979 adopting a Final Negative Declaration for the project has been
prepared for Planning Commission consideration. (Attachment E)
ANAL YSIS
In determining whether to approve CUP 04-008 and DR 04-008 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 can be supported by the following findings:
1)
That operation of a daycare/preschool at 1792 San Juan Street, as conditioned, will
not be detrimental to the health, safety, morals, comfort, or general welfare of the
persons residing or working in the neighborhood of such proposed use, nor be
injurious or detrimental to the property and improvements in the neighborhood of
the subject property, or to the general welfare of the City of Tustin, as evidenced by
the following findings:
a) The proposal is consistent with the Suburban Residential (R4) Zoning District
standards in that daycare and preschool uses are allowed with a conditional use
permit.
b) The uses are appropriate under the General Plan Land Use Element High
Density Residential (15-25 dwelling units/acre) Designation in that the preschool
functions as a community service need especially given the immediate proximity
of high density apartment complexes.
c) The project site and design are physically suitable to accommodate the
operation of the preschool in that Tustin City Code Section 9288b4. includes
development standards for preschool uses which have been satisfied by
information on the submitted development plans including: minimum building
site size, minimum lot width, setbacks, and parking.
d) As determined by the Public Works Engineering Division, the net increase in
traffic at the project site during the weekday a.m. or p.m. peak hours is not
anticipated to generate significant traffic impacts, and there is sufficient roadway
capacity on San Juan Street to accommodate the proposed project.
e) Playground activity noise will be shielded by a 6 foot 8 inch concrete block wall
that exists at five (5) feet tall but will be extended around the playground area.
In addition, playground activity would be limited to 12 children at any given
time and outdoor play will be limited to daytime hours.
Planning Commission Report
CUP 04-008, DR 04-008, and SCE 05-001
Page 1 0
f) A block wall separates the preschool from a church to the west and an
apartment complex to the east. The project would be compatible with
adjacent uses in that the Church's worship hours occur at times that do not
coincide with the preschool hours. The adjoining apartment complex to the
east and a single-family residential tract on the north side of San Juan Street
is buffered from the proposed use by a perimeter tract wall. The preschool
building maintains setbacks on the property well in excess of the minimum
setbacks required.
g) Increased pedestrian activity to the site as a result of the project will be
accommodated in that the applicant and/or property owner would be required
to provide sidewalk and drive aprons along Sycamore Avenue in front of the
project property that are constructed to meet current Federal Americans with
Disabilities Act (ADA) requirements.
h) Pursuant to Section 9272(c) of the Tustin City Code, the Planning
Commission finds that the location, size, architectural features, and general
appearance of the proposal will not impair the orderly and harmonious
development of the area, the present or future development therein, or the
occupancy as a whole. In making such findings, the Planning Commission
finds that the mass and appearance of the project will not impair the orderly
and harmonious development of the area, the present or future development
therein, or the occupancy as a whole and has considered at least the
following items:
1. Height, bulk, and area of buildings: The existing on-site building and the
proposed minor additions would maintain a height, bulk, and area below
what the Tustin City Code (TCC) could allow for the property as evidenced
in Attachment C (Land Use Fact Sheet). The site would be developed to a
lesser intensity than exists in the surrounding neighborhood which
consists of a Church and some multi-family housing buildings.
2. Setbacks and site planning: The existing on-site building and the
proposed minor additions would maintain setbacks in excess of those
required by the TCC as evidenced in Attachment C. The site planning is
appropriate for a preschool use requiring an outdoor play area, on-site
parking to support the use, and a sufficient amount of street front
landscaping to maintain a residential appearance for the site.
3. Exterior materials and colors: The proposed building additions will match
the building's existing materials including white stucco walls, asphalt
shingles, and divided-lite windows. The materials are appropriate for a
preschool building to blend in appearance with residential uses in the
neighborhood.
Planning Commission Report
CUP 04-008, DR 04-008, and SCE 05-001
Page 11
4. Type and pitch of roofs: The hip roof of the existing structure and
proposed additions will be appropriate for the structure in that it will enable
it to blend in with neighborhood residential uses by appearing as a
residential structure.
5. Size and spacing of windows, doors, and other openings: The windows
and doors are appropriate for the use and allow the building to maintain a
residential appearance.
6. Landscaping, parking area design and traffic circulation: As indicated in
Attachment C, the project provides more landscaping and parking than is
required by the TCC. The project design accommodates a preschool
building, playground, and parking/child drop-off area. The parking area
contains adequate turn around area at the rear of the property for on-site
circulation.
7. Location, height and standards of exterior illumination: Pursuant to
Condition 2.1, Planning Division staff shall review detailed plans during
plan check to ensure that the proposed lighting meets on-site security
needs, prevents off-site glare, and to ensure that the light poles are not
excessively high.
8. Location and appearance of equipment located outside of an enclosed
structure: No equipment is proposed to be located outside of an
enclosure.
9. Location and method of refuse storage: As indicated on the submitted site
plan, all refuse and recycling materials are stored in bins located in an on-
site enclosure. The location of the enclosure accommodates waste hauler
pick up on-site without need for hauling vehicles to back onto San Juan
Street
10. Physical relationship of proposed structures to existing structures in the
neighborhood: The finding is the same as indicated in number 2 above.
11.Appearance and design relationship of proposed structures to existing
structures and possible future structures in the neighborhood and public
thoroughfares: No new structures are proposed for the project site.
12. Proposed signing: The proposed on-building sign is appropriate for the
site as indicated in the below findings for the sign code exception.
i) In determining whether to approve SCE 05-001 the Planning Commission must
find the following:
Planning Commission Report
CUP 04-008, DR 04-008, and SCE 05-001
Page 12
4.
5.
1.
Sign size and placement restrictions of the sign code shall be as
closely followed as practicable. However, the Suburban Residential
Zoning District has no sign provisions. A preschool use in a
commercial district could be entitled to a monument sign up to 32
square feet in area and an on-building sign up to 75 square feet in
area. However, since the proposal is located within a Residential
District, the applicant has proposed an on-building sign that would
only be 20 square feet in area which is similar in size to an existing
on-building sign for an adjacent church and meets the intent of the
sign code.
2.
The intent and purpose of the sign regulations of the land use zone in
which the sign is to be located shall be followed as closely as
practicable in that the TCC has no provisions for commercial signs in
the Suburban Residential District. However, single family residential
tracts are allowed identification monument or wall signs up to 32
square feet in size and six (6) feet in height. Multi-family housing
projects such as the adjacent apartment complex are allowed to have
one (1) monument sign up to 15 square feet in size and six (6) feet
tall for every project entrance. Therefore, the applicant's proposed 20
square foot on-building sign is within the size of signs customary to
the Suburban Residential Zoning District.
3.
There are special circumstances unique to the property to justify the
exception in that the property will consist of a conditionally permitted
non-residential preschool use. The preschool is not allowed to have
a sign in the Suburban Residential Zoning District but would ordinarily
be permitted to have a monument sign if the preschool were located
in a commercial district. Furthermore, the size and amount of signs
allowed without a conditional use permit for residential uses exceed
the size of the one (1) on-building sign for the preschool.
Granting the exception will not have a negative impact on the
surrounding properties in that the size, type, and height of the sign
will be consistent with the sign serving adjacent church and will be
lesser in area than signs serving the nearby elementary school.
The sign application promotes the public, health, safety, welfare, and
aesthetics of the community and that the granting of the exception
meets findings and the intent of the sign code in that the sign would
serve to identify the use of the property, would not exceed the intent
of the sign code with regard to sign size, height, or location, and
would be consistent with the size and type of on building sign that
currently exists for the adjacent church.
Planning Commission Report
CUP 04-008, DR 04-008, and SCE 05-001
Page 13
~G;:á4-
rtlieb
Associate Planner
Dana g~~ ~
Assistant Director
Attachments:
A.
B.
C.
D.
E.
Location Map
Submitted Plans
Land Use Fact Sheet
Public Hearing Notice
Resolution Nos. 3979 and 3980
S:\CddIPCREPORTI2005\CUP 04-008 and DR O4-008.doc
ATTACHMENT A
LOCATION MAP
ATTACHMENT B
SUBMITTED PLANS
G@;90
~ ~!& f)" .
hã~ d !
i m ~~. ~
i"~~ ~~! ~
¡ ~!~ ~il ¡
~ ~,~ ft
;jI¡i' f..P¡ I
",d;ij ,
ì\ "'I '
~'! Ii '
¡Ii Iii
,i! IIi
:¡¡ II!
'.!1 101
I:¡ II.
I ~,-
Q
me
'1004
~ ;~\
"
Z
(~~~
------------.----.--
~ ~ U~ '
~ ~ {¡< Q
~~" ~r~ Q
~"~)1 ~~~ ,g
~h~ ~{¡!¡¡ ~
~~ ,~-";~ '
me!!!" ~¿e -
~h~ ~2.~ nil'.
~~m~ ,~
(',';;li:i~ ... ,;I, ,v,
'"~ö "-,I)'
8¡¡~~~:;~ä
~8:'"" "",~
'~ ~8~,'-'
~ ,~,.'ö
,t.< ~'"
ö,i~ä
%:n
8[1
:1~
~
~5 ¡
i" ¡
~~ '
'~
~
, Ie
~¡J
z
I
,ie'
ik~
,~¡
i~
",
"ö 0 0 cl
~~~ ~~~
,. ¥~ '~,
"¡S"'\!;~
b~ ~~!i
\) ,. 8, ~
. i\\ . ,~
II! ,. IJ ,.
¡¡ ~ ~
m~~~;.~-~i ii' .lllU~.".~¡.."i~.-,',1
~ ~ I" at) ~~' "',
rn ~, ;> ,pi ..~'¿-),
¡;rn~' ,.~~~)1¡z¡
¡¡~~ ,i!",\t~11"¡
.~( l~i\\~;,!(",.">!¡
~~ i~3fj:~I~!'
~, i ~ Ì'~ ~()! ,i
22 I tG~ r~' .i
~~ i ,~ '-~ ~~,
t' '¡. ~ "I';'
- i> ~ ~ ~J
.~ î ~;I
Ie
,~
I
I I
l' II
-..-- _LI...-
'-
c
» .z,.
z ~il ~
~d',: ~
en ~~~"
;-i ! ¡
,~,
¡h'
:i~
:'~,
¡ ~
II
iF-I
~~il ( .
,~ð Ii
ï~ ì~ '
~' ~b& ¡
¡ ~~ '
, ~
~ö¡;
~¡i
',¡:'~
"'ffi~~
~ ~~~ ~
~, ~rn e
~~iJ ;
¡j~~~ r
!~~W
~7'~~
~n¡~
~ ~tj~
h~
fL
~ '-'
11,
~
(:mm
!(f)
I~~
~~
~-II, ~ ~i.,u;r--:"
" : ~! '!i""
, ,
_:...,,-L.-J_~__L--
<
"~
./
. J
\< .
.w\
tÐ~ \
.:
Ii
¡
\
'I.' ¿~
,. ~t
J _J:"',u.'
<\1... \~
~~mr'm'l.m;m'~~]'í' m,'........"""
~ 5 i" .,
f t ," ,. i
." .Li.A;.;- t.~-,.}--
""'O$O"T, 'VI~
, ,.. ----,-- ..-.,..-----' ,
I
1"".'
>~
A'
~~
" ,^\l:
.. :~t.'~Q~111
!! /, 'r:,:~ \t:,'~
. i~ \~\,>. .,... .,....<~¡\. ///
, ..~.J~....., ....~;¡~~!!!~i~::
Pl13Q.OO
'<
I,
, ¡
"
"
1"
..
~~
lí
'.
~:
.A
a~
I'
..,_..,--,-,..'
Hi áf' ¡¡" Oi\\.","l1,".'."¡i~I\.;iÚ.'~,.'."~~.~í.....~~,..¡~.'~~*,.~..t,~~>.' .'. ¡ ~~~T1 I~ ~ R pt § ~ U ~
i, ~'M'~~ ~""'¡;~ ~ ~z "~4~~~;§",ì.r~h¡;~~~~~Œ; ~¡ i. ~.I~, ',U.' ~.'.' .. ,¡ ¡'ii, ~:¡', ~,i~."
~, ~ ¡ç~ ~ ..~, '~.~"~,."t~fP~..~:~~.J.,"'".~,. OJ &~I" ~ g ~ 8 ¡ ~ I
' Ii ~~I",~",g':.;"!"¡~Æ~U~h;"~".',,~..I~"~~,q, '1"~II,Oo'"
~~, ~ t~ ..>~~~.~.~"g,'~~"~T>"'~ ..: " .. ~t" ~ ,"
~ ~3 ~~~, ~~ ~ ..~! m;,;m~~~~im~i;~~'~¡ "~i ,'9 ~~ < I I~
~ ~~ 6 ~ 11 ~..~~.:gJ~~.'<~~:.',~'~.'~,'m~~~.J~I(x,.::1 I' "~ æ . I I
~ b~ ~~3 ~~ ~ i I ~~1~~imm~~m(~~11 § ¡ \.~. ~ ï]:-" I; : ¡ ~ ~I¡f¡..,".:¡~.~j ~.~,..;I
" ~m_L~~_~~J~_~~~~'mo('J. i ~I~~ I ~I ~ ~ ~I~ ~ ! ",:1
; ~-:ì-~HtH)"'2 Ht 1m g~~ ~~~~ llgl ~i ~ I il'lil H r~;
~~~ ~~lli ~~g ~~~~ ~ i I~I 1 i It ~ ~ ~ .
i!!:'I:"'~I!,,I,.lli¡!I!I,:i!11"""".':"loz,h,',x'",,'<,'",.i".'.;}"CZ.:')';2'~.'_.."'~~~rn.I\~l~~~¿<1¡<;~~I~~ ,,;~,. '~I 0"'
, ~~, ~ ð~9. ~,:.'~~ ~£~o I:;, " III.'! 'I' I I~i, ~I! ~.: [
-. rn~ ""0 9~~~ i I
i,j¡ ! l!! l i ! iii Ii !I!II 'I!!! "!!j U' ,"[: ' : j: ~ i I
',',~~n,.~,. i~~ ~~ ~w øu 'Ôrn
i~ ~n'i",r ~.~ ~~~~ ~ I'i ,.l'.._iJ,.,:.¡
i ' i~~ Π/,; 3 1m II ",.., _L/
í~HARLIE TZENG & ASSOCIATES ì
Structural & Arc, hltectural I
l ""'W1L$Ii"""A:> """"""
____mm..:~<-j:':- J
nFf.__mm__...___-- .
MRS. PADMINI WEERKKODY
1ST & 2ND FLOOR ADDITION FOR
MOTESSORI SCHOOL
1792 SAN JUAN ST.
TUSTIN. CA 92680 TEL: (714)832-2327
ì
I
J
-----.....-..--..--
/" "'-"H.
r """"" l
! ~~~;~ ~
I ¡ ~d~ ~
~ 0 ~ ì ~ r
! 6 ~ j ,J
I ~' H
I ' ,"
i j ~ i
I h:
I P
I
I
i
I
!
i
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
!
I
I
I
I
i
I
I
I
!
/' "'.
(~,Z'
",
I:J 'II!!
!,"/"j'i
! I!
i"',~,...II.',.¡":
11
"
~ ~
;' UI
" -t
C)
"II
¡
UI
-t
"II
I'"'
0
0
:II
'V
Þ
z
w
(t
q'
3'
f
i
I
I
I
i
i I
, I
II ~~
HHn~1
> 'ðl~' i
~r:¡'H~!
~Lï
~p
h~
~ ~
r
m
" G)
m
~ Z
I! 0
<
"
ç~
H
Ij"
~~
~~
1,
5
~
1,<;1"",~
~J
~
~,j
:':,5'
fi
¡¡Xii]
'",
\;
~"
d
~~
, l
\.
"3
"'~
00
OC
"g
, !
X, '
" !,
f ,
:> '
/'
\J
6
$j
4;)..
j
10'
"
~
"
..
'"
..
~
~
r>
Ii
~g
;~
"
"'01'..{o"
1;~3
~~~
gs",
;:;~;:
~cl;.
~g-
"'0
0'"
6~
ø
1;83
m~o
£~~
g~.,
;;ij¡~
¡"" ,
-<i:il';
~g
0",
6~
$
)-
14'-~i'
18'-6'
~~
/
.A
,M,
I
I
_.j
..'----- 'm"_____--'-""---"_m.._____-"....
'."'.,..--,,-.-...
1ST & 2ND FLOOR ADDITION FOR
MOTESSORI SCHOOL
1792 SAN JUAN ST,
TUSTIN, CA 92680
.............""""....
.OS""""",<"""
18.,2"""""""""""""
CHARLIE TZENG & ASSOCIATES
Structural & Architectural
ATTACHMENT C
LAND USE FACT SHEET
LAND USE APPLICATION FACT SHEET
1. LAND USE APPLICATION NUMBER(S): CUP 04-008, DR 04-008. SCE 05-001
2. LOCATION: SOUTH SIDE OF SAN JUAN STREET BETWEEN RED HILL AND BROWNING AVENUES
3. ADDRESS:
1792 SAN JUAN STREET
4. LOT: 29 OF BLOCK 12
TRACT: IRVINE SUBDIVISION
APN(S): 500-032-03
6. PREVIOUS OR CONCURRENT APPLICATION RELATING TO THIS PROPERTY:
CUP 95-006 AND DR 95-021 FOR A PRESCHOOL USE (NOT INITIATED AND EXPIRED)
7. SURROUNDING LAND USES:
NORTH: CHURCH PARKING LOT SOUTH: SAN JUAN STREET/SFD TRACT
EAST: APARTMENTS
WEST: CHURCH
8. SURROUNDING ZONING DESIGNATION: NORTH: R1
9. SURROUNDING GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION:
SOUTH: R4
EAST:R4
WEST: R4
NORTH: HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL
EAST: HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL
SOUTH: LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL
WEST: HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL
10. SITE LAND USE:
A. EXISTING: SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING
B. PROPOSED: PRESCHOOL/CHILD CARE FACIL TY FOR UP TO 49 CHILDREN
C. EXISTING GENERAL PLAN DESIGNNATION: RESIDENTIAL PROPOSED GP: SAME
D. EXISTING ZONING: RESIDENTIAL PROPOSED ZONING: SAME
DEVELOPMENT FACTS:
11. LOT AREA: 16.900 S.F.
.388 ACRES
12. BUILDING LOT COVERAGE: MAX. PERMITTED: NONE SPECIFIED
PROPOSED: 14.4%
13. SITE LANDSCAPING:
REQUIRED: NONE SPECIFIED PER CODE BUT SUBJECT TO THE CITY GUIDELINES FOR LANDSCAPING
AND PARKING LOT DESIGN
PROPOSED: 6,904 SQUARE FEET OR 40.8 PERCENT OF THE SITE
14. OPEN SPACE:
REQUIRED: AS APPROVED IN SUBMITTED PLANS
PROPOSED: AS APPROVED IN SUBMITTED PLANS
15. PARKING: REQUIRED: 11.125
PROPOSED: 12
16. BUILDING HEIGHT:
30 FEET MAXIMUM PER CODE 16 FEET PROPOSED
17. BUILDING SETBACKS:
REQUIRED
PROPOSED
FRONT:
SIDE:
REAR:
20 FEET
5 FEET
25 FEET
30 FEET
16 AND 40 FEET
52 FEET
18. OTHER UNIQUE CONDITIONS ASSOCIATED TO THE PROPERTY (I.E. SPECIAL STUDY ZONES,
EASEMENTS, ETC.): NONE
S:\Cdd\Chad\CUP\Land Use Application Fact Sheet\CUP 04-008 DR 04-008.doc
ATTACHMENT D
PUBLI C HEARING N OTI CE
AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION
STATE OF CALIFORNIA, )
) ss.
County of Orange )
I am a citizen of the United States and a resident
of the County aforesaid; I am over the age of
eighteen years, and not a party to or interested
in the above entitled matter. I am the principal
clerk of The Tustin News, a newspaper that
has been adjudged to be a newspaper of general
circulation by the Superior Court of the County
of Orange, State of California, on August 24,
1928, Case No. A-601 in and for the City of
Tustin, County of Orange, State of California;
that the notice, of which the annexed is a true
printed copy, has been published in each regular
and entire issue of said newspaper and not in any
supplement thereof on the following dates, to
wit:
June 30, 2005
"I certify (or declare) under the penalty of
perjury under the laws of the State of California
that the foregoing is true and correct":
Executed at Santa Ana, Orange County,
California, on
Date: June 30, 2005
The Tustin News
625 N. Grand Ave.
Santa Ana, CA 92701
(714) 796-7000 ext. 2209
PROOF OF PUBLICATION
Proof of Publication of
CITY OF TUSTIN
OFFICIAL NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING, INTENT '
TO ADOPT NEGATIVE DECLARATION, AND
PUBLIC REVIEW PERIOD
Notice is h~reby given that the Planning Comm. ission of the
City ofTustln, California, will conduct a public hearing on
July 25, 2005, at 7:00 p.m., in the Council Chambers, 300
Centennial Way, Tustin, Califomiato consider the following:
CondItIonal Use Permit (CUP 04.008).
De.lgn Review (DR O4.ooa), and
SIgn Code Exception (SCE 05.001)
A request by Padmini Weerkkody toconvert an existing sin-
gle family residence to a commercial preschool for up to 49
children with five (5) instructors. The project is located at
1792 San Juan Street. . .
The Community Deveiopment Department has prepared an
Initial Study for the above project in accordance wilh the
City of Tustin's procedures regarding implementation of the
Calilornia Environmental Quality Act and on the basis of that
study hereby finds:
That there is no substantial evidence that the project may
have a significant effect on the environment. Therefore, the
preparation of an Environmental Impact Report is not
required.
A Draft Negative Dectaration will be available for review at
the Community Development Department, City of Tustin.
The public is invited to comment on the appropriateness of
this Negative Declaration during a twenty (20) day review pe-
riod between June 3D, 2005, and July 19, 2005. Upon re-
view by the Community Development Director, this review
period may be extended If deemed necessary.
PUBLIC REVIEW PERIOD ENDS AT NOON
ON oIULY18, 100II
Please send comments to Chad Ortlieb, ..Associate Planner,
at City of Tustin, CommunitvDevelopment Department, 300
Centennial Way, Tustin,Callfomia;927BO, Information rela-
tive to this ilem is on file in the Community Development De-
partment and is available for public inspection at City Hall.
Anyone Interested in the information above may call the
Community Development Department at (714) 573-3127.
If you challenge the subject ilém in court, you may be limil-
ed to ralsin J only those issues you or someone else raised
at the public hearing déscrlbed in this notice, or in written
correspondence deliverèd to the City of Tustin at, or prior
to, the public hearing,
If you require special accommodations for the Planning
Còmmission and City Council meetings, please contact the
City Clerk's office at (714) 573-3025,
Pamela Stoker
City Clerk
Publish: Tustin News, June 30, 2005
6711790 .
14.192
ATTACHMENT E
RESOLUTION NOS. 3979 AND 3980
RESOLUTION NO. 3979
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA ADOPTING THE FINAL NEGATIVE
DECLARATION AND MAKING CERTAIN FINDINGS RELATING TO
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 04-008, DESIGN REVIEW 04-008, AND
SIGN CODE EXCEPTION 05-001, AS REQUIRED BY THE
CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT.
The Planning Commission of the City of Tustin does hereby resolve as follows:
I.
II.
The Planning Commission finds and determines as follows:
A.
That Conditional Use Permit 04-008, Design Review 04-008, and Sign
Code Exception 05-001 authorizing the conversion of a single family
residence to a preschool is a "Project" pursuant to the terms of the
California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA");
B.
That an Initial Study was prepared and concluded that there is no
substantial evidence that the project or any of its aspects may cause a
significant effect on the environment; and therefore a Negative
Declaration was prepared for the project;
C.
That a Notice of Intent to Adopt a Negative Declaration was published
and the Negative Declaration and Initial Study were made available for a
20 day public review and comment period in compliance with Sections
15072 and 15105 of the State CEQA Guidelines;
D.
That several comments were received on the Negative Declaration and a
Final Negative Declaration was prepared to formally respond to said
comments, but was not recirculated pursuant to Section 15073.5 of
CEQA because the additional information provided in the Final Negative
Declaration clarified and amplified the conclusions of the Negative
Declaration;
E.
The Planning Commission of the City of Tustin has considered Initial
Study and Negative Declaration, the Final Negative Declaration,
evidence presented by the Community Development Director and
comments received during the public review process at the August 22,
2005, meeting.
A.
A Final Negative Declaration, which includes the Initial Study and the
Responses to Comments, attached hereto as Exhibit A, has been
completed in compliance with CEQA and the State CEQA Guidelines.
The Planning Commission finds that, on the basis of the record before it
(including the initial study and any comments received), there is no
substantial evidence that the project will have a significant effect on the
environment and that the proposed Final Negative Declaration reflects
Resolution No. 3979
Page 2
the City's independent judgment.
B.
The Planning Commission hereby adopts the Final Negative Declaration
for the purpose of approving Conditional Use Permit 04-008, Design
Review 04-008, and Sign Code Exception 05-001.
C.
The record of proceedings upon which this decision is based is located
at City Hall, 300 Centennial Way, Tustin, California, Attention: Director of
Community Development.
III.
The Planning Commission finds that the project involves no potential for any
adverse effect, either individually or cumulatively, on wildlife resources as
defined in Section 711.2 of the Fish and Game Code.
PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Tustin Planning Commission,
held on the 22nd day of August, 2005.
JOHN NIELSEN
Chairperson
ELIZABETH A. BINSACK
Planning Commission Secretary
Resolution No. 3979
Page 3
STATE OF CALIFORNIA)
COUNTY OF ORANGE)
CITY OF TUSTIN)
I, ELIZABETH A. BINSACK, the undersigned, hereby certify that I am the Planning
Commission Secretary of the City of Tustin, California; that Resolution No. 3979 was
duly passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the Tustin Planning Commission,
held on the 22nd day of August, 2005.
ELIZABETH A. BINSACK
Planning Commission Secretary
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
300 Centennial Way, Tustin, CA 92780
(714) 573-3100
INITIAL STUDY
A.
BACKGROUND
Project Title:
Conditional Use Permit (CUP 04-008) and Design Review (DR 04-008)
Lead Agency:
City of Tustin
300 Centennial Way
Tustin, California 92780
Lead Agency Contact Person: Chad Ortlieb
Phone: (714) 573-3127
Project Location:
1792 San Juan Street
Project Sponsor's Name and Address:
Padmini Weerkkody
1792 San Juan Street
Tustin, CA 92780
General Plan Designation:
High Density Residential
Zoning Designation:
Suburban Residential (R4)
Project Description:
A request to convert an existing single family residence to a commercial
preschool for up to 49 children.
Surrounding Uses:
North: San Juan Street/single family
South: Church parking lot
East: Church
West: Multi-family housing complex
Other public agencies whose approval is required:
~
D
D
D
Orange County Fire Authority
Orange County Health Care Agency
South Coast Air Quality Management
District
Other
D
D
D
City of Irvine
City of Santa Ana
Orange County
EMA
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.
D Aesthetics
D Air Quality
D Cultural Resources
D Hazards & Hazardous Materials
D Land Use/Planning
D Noise
D Public Services
D Transportation/Traffic
D Mandatory Findings of Significance
D Agriculture Resources
D Biological Resources
D Geology/Soils
D Hydrology/Water Quality
D Mineral Resources
D Population/Housing
D Recreation
D Utilities/Service Systems
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.
D 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 revisions in the project have been made by or agreed to by
the project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
D I find that the proposed project MA Y have a significant effect on the environment, and an
ENVIRONMENTAL IMP ACT REPORT is required.
D I find that although the proposed project MA Y have a "potentially significant impact" or "potentially
significant unless mitigated impact" 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 in the attached sheets. An
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to
be addressed.
D I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, because all
potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR OR NEGATIVE
DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to
that earlier EIR OR NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are
imposed upon the proposed project, and no further documentation is required.
Preparer:
Chad Ortlieb
Title
Associate Planner
Date ¿..3::J .tJS-
E lzabeth A. Binsack, Community Development Director
D. EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Directions
1)
A brief explanation is required for all answers except "No Impact" answers that are adequately supported by the
information sources a lead agency cites in the parentheses following each question. A "No Impact" answer is
adequately supported if the referenced information sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects
like the one involved (e.g., the project falls outside a fault rupture zone). A "No Impact" answer should be
explained where it is based on project-specific factors and general standards (e.g., the project will not expose
sensitive receptors to pollutants, based on a project-specific screening analysis).
2)
All answers must take into account the whole action involved, including off-site, on-site, cumulative project level,
indirect, direct, construction, and operational impacts.
3)
Once the lead agency has determined that a particular physical impact may occur, then the checklist answers must
indicate whether the impact is potentially significant, less than significant with mitigation, or less than significant.
"Potentially Significant Impact" is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect may be significant. If
there are one or more "Potentially Significant Impact" entries when the determination is made, an EIR is required.
4)
"Negative Declaration: Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated" applies where the incorporation of
mitigation measures has reduced an effect from "Potentially Significant Impact" to a "Less than Significant
Impact." The lead agency must describe the mitigation measures, and briefly explain how they reduce the effect
to a less than significant level (mitigation measures from Section XVII, "Earlier Analyses," may be cross-
referenced).
5)
Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, an effect has
been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section 15063 (c) (3)(D). In this case, a brief
discussion should identify the following:
a)
b)
Earlier Analysis Used. Identify and state where they are available for review.
Impacts Adequately Addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of
and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether
such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis.
Mitigation Measures. For effects that are "Less than Significant with Mitigation Measures Incorporated,"
describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the
extent to which they address site-specific conditions for the project.
c)
6)
Lead agencies are encouraged to incorporate into the checklist references to information sources for potential
impacts (e.g., general plans, zoning ordinances). Reference to a previously prepared or outside document should,
where appropriate, include a reference to the page or pages where the statement is substantiated.
7)
Supporting Information Sources: A source list should be attached, and other sources used or individuals
contacted should be cited in the discussion.
8)
This is only a suggested form, and lead agencies are free to use different formats; however, lead agencies
normally address the questions from this checklist that are relevant to a project's environmental effects in
whatever format is selected.
9)
The explanation of each issue should identify:
a) the significance criteria or threshold, if any, used to evaluate each question; and,
b) the mitigation measure identified, if any, to reduce the impact to less than significance.
EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Less Than
Significant
Potentially With Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant
I. AESTHETICS - Would the project: Impact Incorporation Impact No Impact
a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? D D D ~
b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not
limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings
within a state scenic highway? 0 0 0 ~
c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or
quality of the site and its surroundings? 0 0 0 ~
d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which
would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? D D ~ D
II. AGRICULTURE RESOURCES: In determining
whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant
environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the
California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment
Model (1997) prepared by the California Dept. of
Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts
on agriculture and farmland. Would the project:
a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland
of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps
prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring
Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-
agricultural use? 0 0 0 ~
b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a
Williamson Act contract? 0 0 0 ~
c) Involve other changes in the existing environment which,
due to the location or nature, could result in conversion of
Farmland, to non-agricultural use? 0 0 0 ~
III. AIR QUALITY: Where available, the significance
criteria established by the applicable air quality management
or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the
following determinations. Would the project:
a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable
air quality plan? 0 0 ~ 0
b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially
to an existing or projected air quality violation? 0 D ~ 0
c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any
criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-
attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air
quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed
quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? 0 0 ~ 0
d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant
concentrations? 0 0 I2J 0
e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number
of people? 0 0 0 I2J
Less Than
Significant
Potentially With Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant
IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES: - Would the project: Impact Incorporation Impact No Impact
a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or
through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a
candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or
regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California
Department ofFish and Game or U.S, Fish and Wildlife
Service? D D D ~
b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat
or other sensitive natural community identified in local or
regional plans, policies, regulations or by the California
Department ofFish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service? D D D ~
c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected
wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act
(including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.)
through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or
other means? D D D ~
d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native
resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with
established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or
impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? D D D ~
e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting
biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or
ordinance? D D D ~
f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat
Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or
other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation
plan? D D D ~
V. CULTURAL RESOURCES: - Would the project:
a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of
a historical resource as defined in § 15064.5? D D D ~
b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of
an archaeological resource pursuant to § 15064.5? D D D ~
c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological
resource or site or unique geologic feature? D D D ~
d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred
outside of formal cemeteries? D D D ~
VI. GEOLOGY AND SOILS: - Would the project:
a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial
adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death
involving:
Less Than
Significant
Potentially With Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant
i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the Impact Incorporation Impact No Impact
most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map
issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other
substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of
Mines and Geology Special Publication 42. D D D ~
ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? D D ~ D
iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? D D ~ D
iv) Landslides? D D D ~
b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? D D ~ D
c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or
that would become unstable as a result of the project, and
potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading,
subsidence, liquefaction or collapse? D D ~ D
d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B
of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial
risks to life or property? D D ~ D
e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of
septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems where
sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water? D D 0 ~
VII. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS:
Would the project:
a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the
environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of
hazardous materials? D D D ~
b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the
environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and
accident conditions involving the release of hazardous
materials into the environment? D D D ~
c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely
hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter
mile of an existing or proposed school? D D D ~
d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of
hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government
Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a
significant hazard to the public or the environment? 0 D D ~
e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or,
where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a
public airport or public use airport, would the project result in
a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project
area? 0 0 0 ~
t) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip,
would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing
or working in the project area? 0 0 0 ~
Less Than
Significant
Potentially With Less Than
g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an Significant Mitigation Significant
adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation Impact Incorporation Impact No Impact
plan?
0 0 0 ~
h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss,
injury or death involving wildland fires, including where
wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences
are intermixed with wildlands?
0 0 0 ~
VIII. HYDROLOGY AND WATER OUALITY: - Would
the project:
a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge
requirements?
0 0 ~ 0
b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere
substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would
be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local
groundwater table level (e.g., the production rate of pre-
existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not
support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits
have been granted)?
0 0 0 ~
c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site
or area, including through the alteration of the course of a
stream or river, in a manner which would result in substantial
erosion or siltation on- or off-site?
0 0 ~ 0
d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site
or area, including through the alteration of the course of a
stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of
surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on-
or off-site?
0 0 ~ 0
e) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the
capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems
or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff?
0 0 ~ 0
t) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality?
0 0 ~ 0
g) Place housing within a lOG-year flood hazard area as
mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood
Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map?
0 0 0 ~
h) Place within a lOG-year flood hazard area structures
which would impede or redirect flood flows?
0 0 0 ~
i) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss,
injury or death involving flooding as a result ofthe failure of a
levee or dam?
0 0 0 ~
j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow?
0 0 0 ~
k) Potentially impact stormwater runoff from construction
activities?
0 0 ~ 0
Less Than
Significant
Potentially With Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant
Impact Incorporation Impact No Impact
I) Potentially impact stonnwater runofffi-om post-
construction activities? 0 0 ~ 0
m) Result in a potential for discharge of stonnwater
pollutants from areas of material storage, vehicle or equipment
fueling, vehicle or equipment maintenance (including
washing), waste handling, hazardous materials handling or
storage, delivery areas, loading docks or other outdoor work
areas? 0 0 ~ 0
n) Result in a potential for discharge of stonnwater to affect
the beneficial uses ofthe receiving waters? 0 0 ~ 0
0) Create the potential for significant changes in the flow
velocity or volume of stonnwater runoff to cause
environmental harm? 0 0 ~ 0
p) Create significant increases in erosion of the project site
or surrounding areas? 0 0 ~ 0
IX. LAND USE AND PLANNING - Would the project:
a) Physically divide an established community? 0 0 0 ~
b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or
regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project
(including, but not limited to the general plan, specific plan,
local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the
purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? 0 0 0 ~
c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or
natural community conservation plan? 0 0 0 ~
X. MINERAL RESOURCES - Would the project:
a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral
resource that would be of value to the region and the residents
of the state? 0 0 0 ~
b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally-important
mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general
plan, specific plan or other land use plan? 0 0 0 ~
XI. NOISE -
Would the project result in:
a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in
excess of standards established in the local general plan or
noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? 0 0 ~ 0
b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive
groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels? 0 0 ~ 0
Less Than
Significant
Potentially With Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant
c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels Impact Incorporation Impact No Impact
in the project vicinity above levels existing without the
project? D D ~ D
d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient
noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing
without the project? D D ~ D
e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or,
where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a
public airport or public use airport, would the project expose
people residing or working in the project area to excessive
noise levels? D D D ~
t) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip,
would the project expose people residing or working in the
project area to excess noise levels? D D D ~
XII. POPULATION AND HOUSING - Would the project:
a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either
directly (for example, by proposing new homes and
businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of
roads or other inftastructure)? D D D ~
b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing,
necessitating the construction of replacement housing
elsewhere? D D ~ D
c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the
construction of replacement housing elsewhere? D D ~ D
XIII. PUBLIC SERVICES
a) Would the project result in substantial adverse physical
impacts associated with the provision of new or physically
altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically
altered governmental facilities, the construction of which
could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to
maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other
performance objectives for any of the public services:
Fire protection? D D D ~
Police protection? D D D ~
Schools? D D D ~
Parks? D D D ~
Other public facilities? D D D ~
Less Than
Significant
XIV. RECREATION - Potentially With Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant
a) Would the project increase the use of existing Impact Incorporation Impact No Impact
neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational
facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the
facility would occur or be accelerated?
D D D ~
b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require
the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which
might have an adverse physical effect on the environment?
D D ~ D
XV. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC - Would the project:
a) Cause an increase in traffic which is substantial in relation
to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system
(i.e. result in a substantial increase in either the number of
vehicle trips, the volume to capacity ratio on roads, or
congestion at intersections)?
D D ~ D
b) Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of
service standard established by the county congestion
management agency for designated roads or highways?
D D D ~
c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either
an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results
in substantial safety risks?
D D D ~
d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g.
sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses
(e.g., farm equipment)?
D D D ~
e) Result in inadequate emergency access?
D D D ~
t) Result in inadequate parking capacity?
D D 0 ~
g) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs
supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts,
bicycle racks)?
D D D ~
XVI. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS -
Would the project:
a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the
applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board?
D D D ~
b) Require or result in the construction of new water or
wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing
facilities, the construction of which could cause significant
environmental effects?
D D D ~
c) Require or result in the construction of new storm water
drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the
construction of which could cause significant environmental
effects?
D D D ~
Less Than
Significant
Potentially With Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant
Impact Incorporation Impact No Impact
d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the
project ITom existing entitlements and resources, or are new or
expanded entitlements needed? 0 0 0 ~
e) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment
provider which serves or may serve the project that it has
adequate capacity to serve the project's projected demand in
addition to the provider's existing commitments? 0 0 0 ~
t) Be served by a landfill with sufficient pennitted capacity
to accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs? 0 0 D ~
g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and
regulations related to solid waste? 0 0 0 ~
h) Would the project include a new or retrofitted storm water
treatment control Best Management Practice (BMP), (e.g.
water quality treatment basin, constructed treatment wetlands),
the operation of which could result in significant
environmental effects (e.g. increased vectors and odors)? D 0 D ~
XVII. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE
a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality
of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or
wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop
below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or
animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of
a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important
examples ofthe major periods of California history or
prehistory? 0 0 0 ~
b) Does the project have impacts that are individually
limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively
considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project
are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects
of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the
effects of probable future projects)? 0 0 0 ~
c) Does the project have environmental effects which will
cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either
directly or indirectly? 0 0 0 ~
ATTACHMENT A
EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 04-008 AND DESIGN REVIEW 04-008
1792 SAN JUAN STREET
BACKGROUND
On July 24, 1995, the Planning Commission approved Resolution 3370 thereby permitting Conditional
Use Permit (CUP 95-006) and Design Review (DR 95-021) for a preschool and day care facility with a
maximum of 48 children. The use was never initiated and the permit expired. The previously
approved project is similar to the proposed project. A Categorical Exemption under Section 15303
(Class 3) of the California Environmental Quality act was process for the project at that time.
The subject applications for CUP 04-008 and DR 04-008 propose to convert an existing single family
dwelling into a preschool for up to 49 children, add 221 square foot to the structure, provide a parking
lot with 12 parking spaces, provide a 4,142 square foot outdoor playground, and provide a monument
sign to serve the use. The school is proposed to operate from 8:30 a.m. to 3:00 p.m. with staggered
child drop-off time for the dual option class schedule. Class option one has hours of 8:30 a.m. to
12:00 p.m. Class option two has hours of 12:00 p.m. to 3:00 p.m.
AESTHETICS
Item d - Less Than Sianificant Impact:
Parking lot and sight lighting will be required pursuant to the City's Security Ordinance. As would
be confirmed through the plan check and field inspection process, all exterior lighting on the
property would be required to be constructed to prevent off-site glare.
Sources: Submitted Plans
Tustin City Code
Mitigation Measures/Monitoring Required: None Required
Items a. b. and c - No Impact:
The subject property is not located on a scenic vista, does not have any scenic resources, does
not contain a historic structure, and is not located adjacent to a State scenic highway.
Mitigation Measures/Monitoring Required: None Required.
Sources: Tustin General Plan
Tustin City Code
City of Tustin Cultural Resource Survey Report
Field Inspection
AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES
Items a. b. c - No Impact:
The property is currently improved with a single family dwelling. No agricultural resources exist
on-site.
Mitigation Measures/Monitoring Required: None Required
Sources: Tustin General Plan
Field Inspection
Submitted Plans
Tustin City Code
AIR QUALITY
Items a. b. c and d - Less Than Sianificant Impact:
The project will temporarily increase the amount of short-term emissions to the area due to
grading of the property and construction activities. The project is below the thresholds of
significance established by Tables 6-2 and 6-3 of the Air Quality Management District's CEQA Air
Quality Handbook. The Air Quality Management District's CEQA Air Quality Handbook is
intended to provide professional guidance for analyzing and mitigating air quality impacts of
projects when preparing environmental documents. As identified in the handbook, the
construction of a day care up to 975,000 square feet in size and the operation of up to 26,000
square feet of a day care or is not considered a significant impact. Construction of the parking lot
and playground area, addition of 221 square feet to the existing building, and the operation of a
2,449 square foot daycare/preschool with up to 49 children on 16,900 square feet of land is less
than the threshold of significance in the handbook; therefore, no impact is anticipated. Less than
significant short-term emissions associated with grading, construction, and operation of the
proposed project will comply with the regulations of the South Coast Air Quality Management
District and the City of Tustin Grading Manual, which includes requirements for dust control. The
subject property is not a part of a larger future development scheme in the area, the number of
children for the use will be fixed, and the use is relocating from 13802 Red Hill Avenue in the City
of Tustin; therefore, the project will not be a precursor to cumulative impacts.
As such, the proposed project will not conflict with or obstruct implementation of any applicable air
quality plan, contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation, result in a
cumulatively considerable increase of any criteria pollutant as applicable by Federal or ambient air
quality standard, nor will it expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations, or
create objectionable odor affecting a substantial number of people.
Mitigation Measures/Monitoring Required: None Required
Sources: South Coast Air Quality Management District Rules & Regulations
City of Tustin Grading Manual
Project Application
Field Inspection
Item e - No Impact:
As identified by Tables 6-2 and 6-3 of the Air Quality Management District's CEQA Air Quality
Handbook, the project does not violate any air quality standards and is not a substantial
contributor to existing or projected air quality violations. The short and long term emissions
created by construction and trip generation would not create detectable odors to any persons of
ordinary olfactory senses,
Sources: South Coast Air Quality Management District Rules & Regulations
Project Application
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
Items a to f - No Impact:
The property is currently developed with a single family dwelling. The site is surrounded by San
Juan Street, a Church, and a multi-family apartment. Most of the existing trees on the property
will remain. Therefore, the property has not had opportunity to become inhabited by any sensitive
or special status species of plants or animals. Given that this is a change of use to an existing
urban structure in an urban environment, it is not anticipated that there will be impacts on animal
populations, diversity of species, or migratory patterns. The project will include the planting of
new trees and landscape materials, which will be provided in accordance with the Tustin
Landscape and Irrigation guidelines. The project area is not identified as a federal, state, or local
protected wetland and no standing water or riparian or wetland species are apparent on the
property. No impacts to any unique, rare, or endangered species of plant or animal life identified in
local or regional plans, policies or regulations by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service will occur as a result of this proposed project.
Mitigation Measures/Monitoring Required: None Required
Sources: Field Inspection
Submitted Plans
Tustin City Code
CULTURAL RESOURCES
Items a - d - No Impact:
There are no historical resources on-site. No archaeological, paleontological, or human remains
are known to exist on the improved property.
Mitigation Measures/Monitoring Required: None
Sources: Tustin Historical Resources Survey Report
Submitted Plans
Tustin City Code
Tustin General Plan
GEOLOGY & SOILS
Items a-H. a-iii. a-iv. b. c. & d - Less Than SiQnificant Impact:
The proposed buildings are located within an area that may subject people or structures to strong
seismic ground shaking and seismic-related ground failure including liquefaction. A soils report is
required to be submitted prior to grading and building permit issuance per the 2001 Uniform
Building Code to demonstrate compliance with Chapter 18, which requires proper excavation and
fills for buildings, structures, foundations, and retaining structures, and appropriate construction
techniques to ensure seismic stability of structures. A water quality management plan will be
required to ensure that drainage is retained on-site during and after construction or does not
increase historical flow; therefore, soil erosion should not be significant.
Mitigation Measures/Monitoring Required: None Required
Sources: Tustin General Plan
Tustin City Code
2001 Uniform Building Code
Submitted Plans
Items a-i. a-iv. & a-e - No Impact:
The project site is not located within an area on the Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map.
The project is not located in a hillside area; therefore, landslides are not possible. Since all new
buildings in the City are required to connect to the existing sewer system, the use of septic tanks
or alternative wastewater disposal systems will not be necessary.
Sources:
Tustin General Plan
Tustin City Code
2001 Uniform Building Code
Project Application
Field Evaluation
HAZARDS & HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
Items a to h - No Impact:
The project would not result in exposure to hazardous substances other than the possibility of
materials typically associated with household hazardous wastes which could properly be disposed
of at approved County drop-off locations. Because the use is for a pre-school and the keeping or
use of any hazardous materials would be closely regulated. The project is not anticipated to need
or emit hazardous materials which could create a hazard on-site or to the surrounding community.
The site is not listed as a hazardous materials site, is not located on any potential impact zones
identified for John Wayne Airport, and there are no private airstrips nearby. The project has been
reviewed by the Tustin Police Department who determined that the project will not interfere with any
evacuation plans. The project has been reviewed by the Orange County Fire Authority and no
comments were received indicating that the project would interfere with any evacuation plans. All
grading and construction is subject to compliance with all applicable Uniform Building and Fire
Codes. The project is not in a wildland fire interface area. As such, the project is not anticipated
to result in any significant hazards.
Mitigation Measures/Monitoring Required: None Required.
Sources: Uniform Building and Fire Codes
Submitted Plans
Tustin General Plan
Airport Environs land Use Plan
HYDROLOGY & WATER UALITY
Items a. c. d. e. f. k. I. m. n. o. & P - Less Than Sianificant Impact:
There will be new construction which has the potential to impact stormwater runoff from
construction and post-construction activities. There is also the potential for discharge of
stormwater to affect the beneficial uses of the receiving waters, increase flow velocity and volume
of storm water runoff, exceed the capacity of an existing private storm drain, degrade water
quality, and create erosion. However, the project is required to comply with the City's Water
Quality Ordinance and a NPDES permit (Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board
(RWQCB) Order R8-2002-0010), thus reducing any potential impacts to a level of insignificance.
The regulations of the NPDES permit, Water Quality Ordinance, and project conditions of approval
will minimize the ability of the project to cause water pollution by regulating point sources that
discharge pollutants into local waters. The drainage pattern of the area will not be altered in that,
to comply with the City's grading ordinance, the project will be designed to accept historical
drainage to the site and; therefore, will not significantly increase the rate and/or amount of surface
runoff. A significant amount of stormwater received on-site will percolate into the soil where
landscaping such as the playground area is provided and remaining stormwater will be conveyed
through a fossil filter prior to entering a City stormdrain. City stromwater infrastructure is able to
accommodate additional water from the project. The applicant must provide a drainage and
hydrology report to the City and demonstrate that the private stormwater drainage system will be
able to able to handle the capacity of any wastewater directed into the system.
Best Management Practices are required to be implemented for construction activity and would
deter water from flowing off-site. Any water that would leave the site would be filtered prior to
entering a City storm drain. Best Management Practices will also be implemented to ensure that,
once the project is constructed, wastewater will be filtered prior to entering the storm drain.
As such, the project will not violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements
or degrade water quality in the area.
Mitigation Measures:
None Required.
Sources: Field Verification
Submitted Plans
Tustin City Code
California Seismic Hazard Zone Map, Tustin Quadrangle, January 17, 2001
Items b, a. h, i, & i-No Impact:
The project will not substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere with groundwater
recharge resulting in a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table
level. Rather, landscape irrigation practices and soil percolation of stormwater onto landscaped
areas would be more likely to contribute to groundwater supplies.
The project site is not located within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on Federal
Emergency Management Agency Flood Insurance Rate Map Number 06059C0282H, nor is the
project located within a 100-year flood hazard area and the project will not will impede or redirect
flood impede or redirect flood flows. The project site will not expose people or structures to a
significant risk of loss, injury, or death as a result of the failure of a levee or dam, or by inundation
by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow.
Mitigation Measures:
None Required.
Sources: Field Verification
Submitted Plans
Tustin City Code
Federal Insurance Rate Map
LAND USE PLANNING
Items a, b & c - No Impact:
The subject property is designated High Density Residential by the General Plan Land Use Map
and Suburban Residential (R4) by the zoning map. With an approved Conditional Use Permit, the
proposed project will be consistent with the applicable land use and zoning regulations. The
proposed project will not divide an established community since it is an existing building located
between a Church and existing multi-family dwellings in an urbanized area. San Juan Elementary
and C.E. Utt Intermediate School also exist on the street within a 1,000 square foot radius of the
project. The proposed project is not located in a conservation plan or natural community
conservation plan area.
Mitigation Measures:
None Required.
Sources: Submitted Plans
Tustin City Code
Tustin General Plan
Tustin Zoning Map
MINERAL RESOURCES
Items a & b - No Impact
The proposed project will occur on a currently developed site. Construction on the site will not
result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource and is not located in a mineral
resource recovery site.
Mitigation Measures/Monitoring Required: None Required
Sources: Submitted Plans
Tustin City Code
Tustin General Plan
NOISE
Items a. b. c & d- Less Than Sianificant Impact
Construction:
The project includes the conversion of an existing single family dwelling into a preschool, the
addition of 221 square feet to the structure, grading for a parking lot, and outdoor playground.
Although, the grading and construction of the site may result in typical temporary construction
noise impacts, the Tustin Noise Ordinance only allows construction activities to occur during the
daytime on Monday through Saturday to eliminate construction noise during the nighttime hours.
Neither construction activity nor the proposed project will not create excessive ground vibrations,
nor will it create a permanent increase in the existing ambient noise levels beyond the established
standards.
Day Care/Preschool Use:
Noise created by traffic to the project will not exceed the noise created by existing traffic on San
Juan Street. Therefore, no additional traffic noise will be created by the project. Noise levels from.
children's play activity in the outdoor playground area should be within the noise levels
permissible by the Tustin City Code (TCC) due to the use of 6 foot 8 inch concrete block walls
around the site and project conditions that limit the business hours and the hours of outdoor play
to the time required by the Department of Social Services. Project conditions also allow the
Community Development Director to impose additional sound mitigating conditions on the project
if merited.
Mitigation Measures/Monitoring Required: None Required
Sources: Submitted Plans
Tustin City Code
Tustin General Plan
Items e & f - No Impact:
The project is not located in close proximity to any airports. Standard building techniques will
provide sufficient indoor insulation to prevent children and employees from being exposed to air
traffic noise.
Mitigation Measures/Monitoring Required: None Required
Sources: Submitted Plans
Tustin City Code
Tustin General Plan
POPULATION & HOUSING
Items band c - Less than SiQnificant Impact:
The project will involve the removal of one single family dwelling from the City's housing stock
which can easily be absorbed within the existing City housing stock and the stock planned for
construction on Tustin Legacy.
Sources: Submitted Plans
Tustin City Code
Tustin General Plan
Item a - No Impact:
No substantial population growth in the area would result. Rather, use of the existing on-site
structure as a single family home would be discontinued. The project will not induce substantial
population growth wherein new streets or new public services will need to be created.
Mitigation Measures/Monitoring Required: None
Sources: Submitted Plans
Tustin City Code
Tustin General Plan
PUBLIC SERVICES
Item a - No Impact:
The proposed project is in an existing urbanized area where fire and police protection are
currently provided and can accommodate the day care/preschool use. The use would not have an
impact on school district facilities within the Tustin Unified School District in that the use is a
preschool. The use is not anticipated to generate additional parkland needs in that all outdoor
activities for the use will occur on-site.
Mitigation Measures/Monitoring Required: None
Sources: Submitted Plans
Tustin City Code
Tustin General Plan
RECREATION
Item b - Less than Siqnificant Impact:
The project does include any recreational playground facility to support the day care/preschool
use which, if not properly designed could have an adverse physical effect (noise) on the
environment. However, as discussed in the noise section of the initial study, noise impacts should
be less than significant.
Item a - No Impact:
The project is not anticipated to need or use City parkland facilities.
Mitigation Measures/Monitoring Required: None Required
Sources: Submitted Plans
Tustin City Code
Tustin General Plan
TRANSPORT A TION/TRAFFIC
Item a - Less than Siqnificant Impact:
As determined by the City of Tustin Public Works Department, Traffic Division, the project has the
potential to add 210 net daily trip ends, approximately a nine (9) percent increase in traffic volume,
to San Juan Street in the vicinity of the project site. However, the Traffic Division has concluded
that San Juan Street would have sufficient capacity to accommodate the proposed project
especially given that the school is proposed to operate from 8:30 a.m. to 3:00 p.m. with staggered
child drop-off time for the dual option class schedule. Class option one has hours of 8:30 a.m. to
12:00 p.m. Class option two has hours of 12:00 p.m. to 3:00 p.m.
Sources: Submitted Application/Plans
Public Works Department, Traffic Division analysis
Tustin General Plan
Items b - a - No Impact:
The proposed project does not exceed, either individually or cumulatively, the level of service
established for the immediate vicinity of San Juan Street in that as confirmed by the Public Works
Department, Traffic Division, there is sufficient capacity on San Juan Street to accommodate the
proposed and existing uses. In the vicinity of the project, there is no vacant land and no new or
intensified uses are in review or are anticipated in the near future. Two (2) schools, a single family
. residential housing tract, a church, and multi-family housing units are well established uses along
the street. The existing uses on the street are considered to be close to the maximum
development thresholds established by the General Plan Land Use Element, yet the acceptable
level of service for San Juan Street would not be exceeded even with the proposed project. The
proposed project will not cause changes to air traffic patterns or cause any changes to the public
right-of-way that could cause road hazards. The proposed project would not prevent emergency
vehicle access to the site as determined during the plan review process by the Orange County
Fire Authority and the Tustin Police Department. The project includes sufficient parking on-site to
comply with the current parking requirements of the Tustin City Code for the proposed use. As
such, no impacts to parking are anticipated. The project does not conflict with adopted policies,
plans, or programs supporting alternative transportation such as bus turnouts or bicycle racks in that
bus turnouts exist on nearby streets and no aspect of the project prevents alternative transportation
from being implemented.
Mitigation Measures/Monitoring Required: None Required.
Sources: Submitted Plans
Tustin City Code
Public Works Department, Traffic Division analysis
Tustin General Plan
UTILITIES & SERVICE SYSTEMS
Items a - Q - No Impact:
The proposed project will not exceed requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control
Board because the project will absorb a significant portion of stormwater in landscape areas on-site
and excess stormwater will be routed through fossil filters prior to being deposited into the existing
sewer and storm drain systems and thus will not require construction of a new storm water drainage
facility or solid waste facility. Existing water service and wastewater treatment facilities should be
sufficient to support the project. The project will utilize the City's existing trash hauler contract, thus
not requiring a new trash hauler. Waste refuse from the project will be required to comply with the
City's recycling ordinance with requires the project to maintain a plan to divert recyclable materials.
Therefore, excessive solid waste will be diverted from landfill.
Mitigation Measures/Monitoring Required: None Required.
Sources: Submitted Plans
Tustin City Code
Tustin General Plan
MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE
Items a. b & c - No Impact:
As described under each topic, the project grading, construction, and operation are not anticipated
to result in any significant impacts. The project does not have the potential to degrade the quality
of the environment nor achieve short-term environmental goals to the disadvantage of the long-
term. The project does not have impacts that are individually limited but cumulatively
considerable or that will cause substantial adverse impacts on human beings. No mitigation
measures are required for the project.
Sources: Submitted Plans
Tustin City Code
Tustin General Plan
S:\Cdd\Chad\CUP\Environmental\CUP 04-008 INITIAL STUDY.doc
FINAL NEGATIVE DECLARATION
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT (CUP 04-008), DESIGN REVIEW (DR-04-008),
AND SIGN CODE EXCEPTION (05-001)
SAN JUAN STREET PRESCHOOL CONVERSION
I.
INTRODUCTION
The City of Tustin has prepared this Final Negative Declaration in conjunction
with the previously prepared Negative Declaration and Initial Study that was
made available for a 30-day public review and comment period on June 30,
2005. The Negative Declaration and Initial Study addressed the potential
environmental impacts of the proposed conversion of a single family residence at
1792 San Juan Street into a preschool for up to forty-nine (49) children with five
(5) instructors. The City has prepared this Final Negative Declaration to formally
respond to several comment letters that were received on the Negative
Declaration and Initial Study that was made available for public review and
comment. Each of the comment letters are published verbatim in this document
and individual comments raised in each letter are bracketed and numbered. The
related responses are identified with the corresponding number and are included
in the following pages.
The Final Negative Declaration is intended to clarify and amplify the conclusions
of the Negative Declaration and Initial Study. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines
§15073.5(c)(2), recirculation is not required because no substantial revisions are
required to the Negative Declaration and Initial Study. According to the CEQA
Guidelines, a "substantial revision" is required where (1) a new, avoidable
significant effect is identified, and mitigation measures or project revisions must
be added in order to reduce that effect to a level of insignificance, and (2) the
lead agency finds that the mitigation measures or project revisions originally
included in the Negative Declaration will not reduce potentially significant impacts
to les than significance, and new mitigation measures or project revisions must
be required. On the other hand, the addition of new information that clarifies,
amplifies, or makes insignificant modifications to the negative declaration does
not require recirculation.
In this case, the City has provided additional information in its responses to
comments to clarify or amplify the conclusions of the Initial Study and Negative
Declaration relating to the aesthetics, traffic, land use, noise, and other
environmental concerns expressed in the various comment letters. However,
none of the comments demonstrate any new avoidable significant impact relative
to these environmental resource areas that requires any mitigation measures or
project revisions. As documented in more detail below, City staff has carefully
reviewed the proposed preschool conversion and the project has been designed
in manner (e.g. architectural, landscaping, site layout, etc.) that ensures that the
conversion would have a less than significant impact on the environment. Staff
has also recommended certain standard conditions of approval that are typical of
all new development projects that further ensure that impacts will be less than
significant. No new avoidable significant impacts have been identified in these
comments and no project revisions, new mitigation measures or new conditions
are required to address these concerns.
II.
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
COMMENT RECEIVED ON NEGATIVE
DECLARATION
RESPONSE TO COMMENT
Jul 19 05 02:25p
R. Ho~
1-80&491-8428
p.2
Carla K. Ryh4~ Esq.
1000 Towrrsgllle RODJI, Sixth Floor
Oxnard, CA 93036
Phone: BOYJ8B-8386
Fax: 80YJ88.7786
July 18,2005
YÏa Facsimile (714/573-3113)
Mr. Chad Ortlieb
City of Tustin
Commwúty Development Department
300 CenteDnial Way
Tustin, CA 92780
Conditional Use Permit (CUP 04-008\ and Desien Review (DR 04-008) fo_(J!
DrOoosed 49-student uresehool at 1792_San J1!!!11_5treet
Re:
J)e3( Mr. Orilieb:
First, I want to 1bank you for your very prompt and very courteous response to my
inquiry regaroÎng this proposed project I look forward to receiving the staff report (via
PDF, since I am in Ventura County) on July 22.
Intrnd~
Second, by way ofbackgxound, I am a !and use lawyer and Chair of the Real Estate
Department at Nordman, Cormany Hair & Compton ("NCHC"), with over 23 years of
legal experien<:e. I graduated from Tustin High in 1976, graduated summa eum Iaude
ftom Pepperdine University in 1979, and received my Juris Doctor from the University
of California at Los Angeles (UCLA) in 1982. I sinœ worked for Exxon Corporation in
Houston and Manhattan, Cox Castle & Nicholson in Century City, Jackson Demarco &
Peckenp81lgb in Westlake Village, and now NCHC.
~
However. I 11m writing this letter on bebaIf of my mother-in-law, Mrs. Mildred Holt, who
for more that 3S years has owned the residence at 13712 F8J!IIington Road. To put that in
perspective, she lives one house down ftom the intersection of San Juan Road and
Farmington Road, essentially across the street A map of the relative locations is attached
as ExJúbit A.
COMMENT RECEIVED ON NEGATIVE DECLARATION
Jul 19 05 02:26p
1-805491-M28
p.3
R. Ho~
C 1-1
C 1-1
Wben she and her now-deœased husband pm:chased their home, there was nothing there
but the existing residence on the proposed project site and 8 few large estates SUJIOWlded
by orchards along tOO south side of San Juan Street, and row cops on the west side of
Browning Avenue. Since then, she has experienced - without complaint to date - the
deve1opment of the apartments on San Juan Street directly at the terminus of the
intersection with Farmington Road, the development of1he Mormon Church immediately
west of that, the development of the multi-family housing complex. west of the proposed
project site, and the residential development west of Browning Avenue. All such has
enormously increased the impacts on her neighborhood. (lncident.a1ly, I grew up at 1901
Bryan Avenue and can peISOnally vouch for the decrease in the quality of life for the
original Tustin residents.)
Also, I would like to note that, because my mother-in-Iaw's house is held in a living trust
(of which my husband and I are beneficiaries). she did not receive personal notice of
these proceedings. Rather, she learned of this proposal from a neighbor, I appreciate that
the City sent the minimum legal notice to the title owners of property within the 300-foot
radius of the propo~ project site. However, as a matter of policy, I would reconnnend
your notices bemaiJed to not oDly the ti1le owner but also the oceupant of the property,
and also, since that radius extended only four homes down the Farmington RDad block, it
would have been prudent to extend notice beyond the minimum 11IdÏus. Therefore, please
accept this letter as fonnaI request for notice of specific notice of all proceedings
regarding this proposed ~ect be sent to both of us:
Mrs. Mildred. D, Holt
13 712 F armin gto n Road
Tustin California, 92780
Ms. Carla Ryhal1
3021 Palo Verde CoW'!
Santa Rosa Valley. CA 93012
Fax: 805/988-7786
e-mail: cryhal@nchc.com
GeDC!"aI CommCl!ts
C 1-2
As the mother of six children and grandmother of fourteen grandclrlldren, my mother-in-
law is certainly sympathetic to preschools. Incidentally, my daughter attended a Ventura
COWlty Montessori for five years, so we are very supportive of the school. However, we
understand that the project proposal is to relocate the existing Montessoñ pre-scbool &om
the shOpping center at Red Hill & Sanjuan (13802 Red Hill Avenue) -- a location that
bas been acceptable to the community for years, whereas such a commercial use is
incompatible in the middle of a residenliaJneighborhood.
C 1-2
J Since I live in Ventura County, I would probably not oblain maUNI notice timely, so r would appreciate
any future notices being sent to me either by fax or e-mail, as you were so kind to do with the JniliaJ
Study/Negative DeclareIion.
RESPONSE TO COMMENT
The City mailed notice of the project to property owners within
a 300 foot radius of the project site. The City also published
notice of the public hearing in the Tustin News, posted notice
of the hearing at the site, and posted the agenda outside of
City Hall. Subsequent to receiving Ms. Ryhal's letter, City staff
has provided noticing to both her and Mrs. Mildred D. Holt, as
requested.
The preschool use would be compatible with other surrounding
land uses on San Juan Street The project site is located on the
south side of San Juan Street between a Church and a large
apartment complex. Although the north side of San Juan
Street contains a residential tract, it also contains Marjorie
Veeh Elementary School and C.E. Utt Intermediate School.
The State of California often allows Small Family Child Care
Homes providing care to no more than 8 children in residential
neighborhoods without regard to zoning restrictions. The state
also permits Large Family Child Care Homes in residential
neighborhoods that provide care to no more than 14 children.
C 1-3
C 1-4
C 1-5
C 1-6
C 1-7
C 1-8
C 1-9
COMMENT RECEIVED ON NEGATIVE DECLARATION
Jul 19 05 02:27p
1-<305-491-8428
p.4
R. Holt
C 1-3
Attachment A to the Initial Study is prefàced with an explanation that the proposed
project was approved under a Categorical Exemption in 1995 but was never use-initiated.
As I'm SUTe 1he City appreciates. the CEQA standards have changed numerous times in
the last 10 years. And the neighborhood and environment has changed considerably in
the last 10 years. Therefore the preface to the Initial Study Exhibit A is totally irrele>'811t,
and the fact that this proposed project had been previously approved should be
completely disregarded, The City must consider this project anew on its merits.
The project description is less than clear to me. The Initial Study indicates that the
proposal is for a daycaæJpreschool for 49 children. It also indicates that there will be two
school sessions: session one fi'om 8:30 -12:00 and session two from 12 - 3:00, But it
does not reveal whether there will be 24-1/2 or 49 children in eachoftbose sessions;
based upon the 1r8ffic discussion. it looks like the Jøtter, The Initial Study also is not
direct about the number of employees that are anticipated at the business.
C 1-4
SJlbstantive Comments RelWdin~ the Initial Studv and Ne~ative Declaration
The City's Initial Study ami proposed Negative Declaration states that location of a 49-
student - plus staff - ¡nescbool in the middle of an aJready-imp..:1ed residential
neighborhood will have no impact or less-than-significant impacts. We think those
conclusions are totally unsupportable for the reasons set forth below.
As you well know. if a "fair argument" can be made that a project may result in a
significant adverse impact on the environment, 1111 environmental impact report is
required. Also, as you know, the standard is not to compare a proposed project to the
General PIan or to the current Zoning - which is what your Initial Study and Negative
DeclaratiOl1 llpJlears to be based upon; rather, a proposed project must be compared to the
existing conditions,
Also, the Initial Study relies upon "project conditions" that are nol available to the public
prior to the closure of the comment period on the Initial StudylNegative Declaration. 2
C 1-5
Aesthetics
Section I(e) of the Initial Study concludes that the proposed project win have no impact
On degrading the existing visual character or quality of the site and its SlDTOlUldings.
This project site is essentia1Jy the last "green" parcel in the neighborllood. It is over one-
third acre with a small house and otherwise .covered with trees. Especially given the loss
of all other open space along San Juan Street, this property is the last visual relief.
The proposed project will increase the structure size by 221 square feet to a total of2,449
square feet, pave a 12-car parting lot (the dimensions ofwbich are oot described in the
Initial Study), install a 4,142 square foot playground. Plus, it appears that the current
C 1-6
1 Noise. pogo 7 of Attachment A to tho Initial Study.
RESPONSE TO COMMENT
The City recognized that the original approval occurred ten
years ago and therefore did not rely upon the prior CEQA
determination. Instead, the City eval uated the proposed
conversion of the residence to a preschool as a "new" project
and prepared an initial study to study the environmental effects
of the conversion. The information in the staff report and initial
study regarding the prior CEQA determ ination and permit is
included solely as background information and is generally
provided to the decision-making bodies when previous
entitlements have been granted on a particular property.
Preschool enrollment would be limited to 49 children and five
(5) instructors through the course of the day. There would not
be two sessions with 49 children attending each session. The
traffic study appropriately analyzed the potential impacts of a
preschool with a maximum enrollment of 49 students which
corresponded with 210 daily trips, In light of the existing traffic
trips on San Juan Street and its carrying capacity, the City
traffic engineer determined that the project's trip contribution
would have a less than significant impact on traffic and
circulation, Moreover, as documented in the staff report,
based on traffic logs for the applicant's existing school, these
trips will be staggered throughout the day and will not all occur
at the same time.
The City carefully considered the whether the project would
have a significant impact on the environment in light of the
existing physical conditions, including the proximity of the site
to other uses that generate similar impacts. As documented in
the initial study, the project site plan, agenda report, and the
detailed responses below, the project will have either no
impact or a less than significant impact on the existing
environment.
The City is aware of the "fair argument" standard and the need
to evaluate the project's impacts on the existing environment
or the existing physical conditions on and around the project
site. Based on the small scale nature of the proposed
conversion and the compatibility of the proposed use with the
overall mix of other land uses in the area, the initial study
concluded that there is no "fair argument" that this project
would have a potentially significant impact on the environment.
COMMENT RECEIVED ON NEGATIVE DECLARATION
C 1-7
C 1-8
C 1-9
RESPONSE TO COMMENT
As discussed in the Initial Study, the project would have a less
than significant noise impact because (1) playground activity
noise will be shielded by a six foot, eight inch concrete block
wall that will be constructed around the playground area, (2)
playground activity will be limited to day time hours, and (3)
playground activity would be limited to 12 children at any given
time. While these project design and operational features
would reduce any potential noise impacts to a level of
insignificance, staff has recommended standard condition 7.3
as precautionary measure. This measure requires the
applicant to implement additional sound attenuation in the
unlikely event that the project would generate noise levels that
exceed the interior and exterior noise levels established for the
surrounding uses by Tustin City Code Section 4614.
The property is currently developed with a single family
residence and provides no more visual relief than do other
properties on the street that exhibit the same front yard
setback. A school on the street maintains an expanse of open
play field facing the street. Most of the existing trees on the
property will be preserved in association with the project. In
addition, the project includes extensive landscaping that will
reduce any potential aesthetic impact from the removal of any
existing landscaping to a level of insignificant. Specifically, the
project proposes 6,904 square feet of landscaping (40.8 percent
of the site) including the addition of 240 five (5) gallon plants and
ten (10) 18 inch box trees.
The project includes a 221 square foot addition to an existing
2,228 square foot house. This addition amounts to a nominal
or less than ten (10) percent increase in the size of the
structure. The preschool building would maintain setbacks
well in excess of the minimum setbacks required. The existing
on-site building and the proposed minor additions would
maintain a height, bulk, and area below what the Tustin City
Code (TCC) could allow for the property. The site would be
developed to a lesser intensity than exists in the surrounding
neighborhood which consists of a Church and some multi-
family housing buildings, The total paved area of the property
would be 6,204 square feet or 36.7 percent, which is
comparable to what many single family residential properties
maintain and less than what churches and multi family
RESPONSE TO COMMENT
residential properties usually contain. The total landscape
area for the project is 6,904 square feet or 40.8 percent. More
planting would exist on-site if the project is approved than
currently exists. The playground for the property will serve as
part of the landscape area, The walls around the property
currently exist and would be extended to six (6) feet eight (8)
inches high, which would be permitted for any property in the
City. Staff has withdrawn support of the monument sign
originally proposed and the applicant has revised the proposal
to include an on-building sign which is conditioned to be no
larger than 20 square feet in area, The proposed on-building
sign is comparable to the sign displayed by the adjacent
church,
Jul 19 05 02:27p
R. Holt
1-80&-491-8428
p5
C 1-10
resideru:e would be sum>unded by a 6'S" block wall,' in addition to a monument sign on
San Juan Street.
C 1-10
Even though the Jnjtial Study Slates that "most of the existing trees on the property will
remain'" By my estimate, at least one-third of the project site will be converted trom
grove land to hardscape. The number of trees that will be removed should be oonsidered.
The lnitial Study does not discuss the visibility of the usually tall playground equipment,
which ""ill be a significant visuaJ iø>pact to the neighborhood.
C1-11
C 1-12
The Initial Study does not discuss a large commercial sign on a residential street. which
will be a signillcant visual impøct \0 the neighborhood.
C 1-11
To the residents on Farmington Road this proposed project most certainly ",in be a
significant aesthetic; impact to the neighborhood, and one that cannot be mitigated to less-
than-significance.
Land Use Plannin2
C 1-13
The Initial Study concludes that the proposed project will have no impact on Land Use
Planning. The Initial Study also concludes that the proposed project "will not divide an
established community since it is an eJristing building located between a Church and
existing multi-family dwellings in an urbanized area.'"
C 1-12
On the contrary, San Juan Road between Red Hill Avenue and Browning Road is
becoming a dividing line. On 1he North side orson Juan Road are older, expensive, large
lot, single-f8ØÛ!y residences. plus two schools built to 1I<:COII1111Ðdate that de,.elopment.
On the South side of San Juan Road are two higlHlensity residential complexes, and the
Monnon Church. Thus får. despite the absence of a transition ZoDc, the two dispamte
zones have worked relatively well. But interjecting an essentially commercial use right
smack dab in the middle is not good land planning.
C 1-13
C 1-14
The proposed project is not a small in-borne day care center, it would be a commercial
enletprise that would change "lite residential character of "lite street.
Noise
The lnitial Study states tbat "Doise created by traffic 10 the project win not exceed 1he
noise created by "lite existing traffic on San Juan Street." The Initial Study also states that
the children's play noise will be mitigated by a block wall.
I don't think my mot/ær-in-law would mind hearing children playing. But how does the
addition of this commercial use not inc:reasc ("exceed') the traffic noise on San Juan
, NoM. paSO 7 of A_eo, A to tho Initial Study.
. BiologioaJ R- page 3 of Attachmoot A to 111. ioWa! $Wdy.
I 'Pogo 6, A_en! A, Inftia! Study.
RESPONSE TO COMMENT
The subject property is currently developed with a single family
dwelling and is not considered grove land, Only two (2) to
three (3) trees of nominal height would be removed to
accommodate the project. However, the project proposes
6,904 square feet of landscaping (40.8 percent of the site)
including the addition of 240 five (5) gallon plants and the
addition of ten (10) 18 inch box trees. See response C 1-8.
The playground equipment would be between five (5) and six
(6) feet tall, which is lower than the height of the wall/fence
proposed for the property. Therefore, the playground
equipment will be shielded from the surrounding land uses,
See response C 1-9, which clarifies the potential visual
impacts of the proposed signage,
The Initial Study appropriately concluded that the project would
have a less significant land use impact or "divide an
established community." The site planning is appropriate for a
preschool use requiring an outdoor play area, on-site parking
to support the use, and a sufficient amount of street front
landscaping to maintain a residential appearance for the site.
The additions will match existing materials with white stucco
walls, asphalt shingles, and divided-lite windows. The
materials are appropriate for a preschool building to blend in
appearance with residential uses in the neighborhood, The hip
roof, windows, and doors of the existing structure and
proposed additions will assist in presenting a residential
structure appearance. Detailed plans would be reviewed
during plan check to ensure that any proposed on-site lighting
meets on-site security needs, and prevents off-site glare. No
new structures are proposed for the project site and all refuse
and recycling materials are stored in bins located in an on-site
enclosure. See also responses C 1-8 to C 1-12.
C1-15
C 1-16
C 1-17
C 1-18
C 1-19
C 1-20
C 1-21
C 1-22
COMMENT RECEIVED ON NEGATIVE DECLARATION
Jul 19 05. 02:28p
1-805-491-8428
p.6
R. Holt
C 1-14
Street? The addition of traffic WILL increase the noise on San Juan SfIeet around 8:30
a.m. (drop off for class option 1), noon (pick up for class option I and drop off for class
option 2), and 3 p.m. (pick up for class option 2), This is a cumulative impact, in light of
the traffic noise generated by CE. UtI lntecmediate School immediately to the northwest
of the project site and the traffic noise generated by the San Juan (now called "Mmjorie
Veeh") EJe:mentary School to the northeast oftbe project site.
Public Serv:i~s
The Initial Study s1ateS that "the use is not anticipated to generate additional parkland
needs in that all outdoor activilies for the use will occur on site."" I trust that this project
will pay the City's Quimby Act fees for commercial development.
C 1-15
TnmswrtatioolTraffic
The City's Initial Study sbltes that the proposed project will add approximately 21 0 "net
daily trip ends." The Initial Study ackno..iedges that the "existing uses on the street are
considered to be close to the maximum development thresholds."
That suggests that 49 students will attend cacl1 of the morning and the afternoon sessions,
for a total of 98 students, Thus, there will be 49 parents dropping off at 8:30 a.m., 98
parents picking up and dropping off at 12:00 DOOD, and 49 perents picking up at 3:00 p.m.
And that there will be 7 employees entering before 8:30 a.m. and exiting shortly after
3:00p.m,
While 210 trips on San Juan Rood may, overall, be within the "S1Jfficient capacity" of San
Juan Street, the Initial Study does not address the proposed project's impacts during the
a.rn. peak hours and p.m. peak hours. The peak bours considered should not be
commuter hours, but school hours.
C 1-16
As the City's InitiaJ Study aptly points out, the proposed project site isloeated between
San Juan (Marjorie Veeh) Elementary School and C.E. Utt Intennediate School and the
Mormon Church. Also, though oot mention in the lnitiaJ Study, Tustin High School is
also located off of San Juan Road, east of Red Hill Road.
C 1-17
On the other hand, the cummt location of dx: Montessori School ~ primary access off
of Red Hill Avenue, contributing virtually no traffic onto San Juan Rood.
The Initial Study concludes that the proposed project includes "sufficient parting on site
to comply with the cum:nt parldng requirements of the Tustin City Code for the proposed
use." It appears that the analysis is based only upon the approximately 7 employees, not
upon the 49 parents who will be dropping off their children at 8:30 a.m., the 98 parents
who will be picking up and dropping off their kids at noon, and the 49 parents who will
be picking up their children at 3:00 p.rn.
C 1-18
, Public Services. Pili. 9 or Atlacl1mmt A to Initial Study.
C 1-19
RESPONSE TO COMMENT
The project is proposed in an appropriate location and would
not physically divide the community in that San Juan Street
between Red Hill and Browning Avenues currently consists of
an eclectic mix of uses including two (2) schools, a church,
retail commercial businesses, high density multi-family
residences, and a tract of single family residences. The
project would retain a residential appearance as indicated in C
1-13.
According to the Illinois Department of Transportation, noise is
measured on a logarithmic scale and two (2) sources of equal
noise added together result in an increase of 3 dBA. The
Department further indicates that a 3 dBA change in noise
levels is not typically perceived by persons with average
hearing. Therefore, doubling traffic volumes will increase the
noise level by 3 dBA. Since the project would at no time
double traffic on San Juan Street, any traffic noise created
would be absorbed within the existing noise created by
existing vehicle traffic on the street and could not be detected
by persons with reasonable auditory perception.
Pursuant to Tustin City Code Section 9331 d, parkland fees for
land dedication are only required by the City when land is
subdivided for a residential tract.
The initial study indicates that even though the block is almost
entirely developed to the maximum density allowed by the
General Plan and City Code, an acceptable level of service for
San Juan Street would result for vehicular traffic, even with the
proposed preschool.
See response C 1-4, Additionally, the applicant has provided
the City with data, which is included in the staff report, that
shows that guardians drop off children at staggered times
throughout the school day rather than all at once.
The initial study was based on a trip generation report prepared
by the Public Works Traffic Engineering Division who concluded
COMMENT RECEIVED ON NEGATIVE DECLARATION
Jul 19 0502:28p
1-805-491-8428
p.7
R. Holl
C 1-23
As a result of all of !he developments, the 1rafIic on San Juan Street and on-street parking
on Fannington has increased dramaticalJy, For ínstance, when our fiunily has a holiday
or birthday party at Grandma's, it is almost impossible to find a place to park, most street
parking having been taken by occupants oftbe apartment complex.
CO(lç)JISim¡
C 1-24
We do not believe that the proposed project qualifies for a Negative Declaration, but
requires an Environmental Impact Report Even so, we do not believe that a conditional
use pemút for a commercial use is appropriate in tIùs location.
We appreciate the opportunity to review and comment on your Initial Study, Please feel
ftc:e to contact us at the ahove number should you have any questions or commeots.
C 1-20
Sincerely,
c¡; (ffir f4 ~ ~ æ{
Carla K, Ryhal, Esq.
On behalf of Mildred D. Holt
C 1-21
C 1-22
RESPONSE TO COMMENT
that a daycare, the most similar use published in Trip
Generation by the Institute of Transportation Engineering, has
the potential to generate and addition 39 a ,m. peak hour and 42
p.m. peak hour trip ends. However, the Engineering Division
determined that, including the increased a.m. and p.m. peak
hour trip ends, San Juan Street has sufficient capacity to
accommodate the proposed project. The Engineering Division
has also indicated that the intersections near the project site
also have significant capacity to accommodate any additional
trips generated by the project. See response C 1-4.
Tustin High School and its parking lot and drive entrances face
onto EI Camino Real. The sports fields for the high school face
San Juan Street but not on the same block as the proposed
project; therefore, the location of the school is not provided in
the initial study, However, any vehicle trips to Tustin High
School via San Juan Street were counted in the project traffic
analysis conducted by the City's traffic engineers, which
determined that the project traffic impacts would be less than
significant.
The City understands that the current Montessori school
contributes little traffic to San Juan Street. It is not clear from
the comment how traffic generated by the existing school is
relevant to the analysis of the proposed project's traffic
impacts,
Tustin City Code (TCC) Section 9228b4 requires one (1)
parking space for each staff member plus one (1) loading
(parking) space for each eight (8) child ren. Given that the
applicant is proposing to utilize five (5) instructors for 49
children, a total of 11.13 parking spaces are required.
Therefore, the 12 parking spaces provided exceed the
requirements of the TCC. The applicant provided a week of
log in sheets demonstrating the drop off and pick up times of
each of the 55 children attending her present preschool. Staff
compiled the average drop off times for each child during the
week in 15 minute intervals and found that, with the exception
of 9:00 a.m.; no more than 6 children would be likely to be
dropped off or picked up during any same interval. See
Response C 1-4, C 1-18, and C 1-19,
COMMENT RECEIVED ON NEGATIVE DECLARATION
Jul 19 05. 02:28p R. Holt
Map of 1792 San Juan SI Tustin, CA by MapQuest
--. MA.PQVJ£S~
1-80&491-8428
p.8
n'l!'" u"
C 1-23
:,.........",,~)..,:
.. 1792 San Juan St Tustin, CA 92780-5205, US
C 1-24
.,
" ~'>
:'~ ~o
-:<'~.":>".~.'~' "". '
" >"<,-"1'.
","", ~...
"-< 'ÌJ.
"<C, ~,
.. 2OÐS NtI,o"-...m, "'" . .;,
'*'
<if
'4
/#~....
~<f-~
",4i #
* ",t'
~'\,
+
~ ~,
/ ~
";,.~~ _,oe=::=::?,\oom
":.~ Oft
. :Jt\::~:'¡.
/~
IlL- ¡ .$
~ f
PIofll'" N'f'IITEQ
l~~"!,~~J ~J'!!led Use Subject. to Uœ~.p.wg }t
This map Is Infonna-.al only. No ",p",..ntatkm Is mad. 0' w.monty given .. to ItS conI_. User assumes all
I1sk of use. MapQuest and Its suppl""" assume no responsibdlty for any loss 0' delay resulting from such use.
http://www,mapquest.comlmapslmap.adp?country=US&addtohislory = &fonntype=address&s.. , 7/19 ¡OS
RESPONSE TO COMMENT
During several field inspections, staff observed several available
street parking spaces. For vehicles that were observed parked
on San Juan Street, it could not be determined what use
vehicles were parked for. Also, as discussed in Response C 1-
22, the project includes adequate off street parking that is
consistent with the City's parking requirement. Therefore, no
spillover parking impacts are anticipated,
See Response C 1-3.
COMMENT RECEIVED ON NEGATIVE DECLARATION
C 1-25
July 14, 2005
Mr. Chad Ortlieb
CityofTustin
300 Centennial Way
Tustin, CA 92780
C 1-26
Dear Mr Ortlieb,
C 1-25
1 have resided at 13701 Farmington Road in Tustin for over 20 years. During this time, I
have had a child go through Matjorie Veeh and Uti schools. I have seen both schools go
through large growth as Veeh now has several more class rooms(portable) than was
originally intended when the school was built. The situation is also the same at Uti
school. I'm sure that this was not the intended enrollment when both of these schools
were built.
C 1-26
This has led to extreme congestion up and down San Juan both in the mornings and also
at various times in the afternoon. There are days when it is nearly impossible to pull out
of Fannington on to San Juan because of the backup of traffic heading toward Redhill. In
addition, traffic heading toward Browning makes a U-turn at the intersection of
Fannington and San Juan since they cannot make a left turn into Veeh school due to the
congestion.
C 1-27
C 1-27
What makes the congestion even worse is the parking on San Juan from the apartments at
the corner. 1 have had or have witnessed several near collisions because you cannot see
oncoming traffic when pulling out of Fannington. Believe me, it has been a miracle that
a child has not been seriously injured or even worse crossing the streets in this area.
C 1-28
You have indicated that the preschool will have later hours and I do not believe this. I
have observed the dropping off of children in the morning at their present school and it
takes place at the same times as the public schools,
C 1-29
Their present location has sufficient parking for pick up and delivery of children. So why
infiltrate a neighborhood that already has congestion problems and was intended to be a
residential areà with a scheme to make congestion even worse.
C 1-28
C 1-30
This area was intended for homes----not a private school. Please do not let this happen, Is
the risk of a child being injured worth the benefit that this individual gets /fom pocketing
money from an operation that should be in a commercially zoned area?
~~~
Richard Stevens
13701 Farmington Road
Tustin, CA 92780
RESPONSE TO COMMENT
This comment does not present any significant environmental
issues as it relates to the proposed project. Tustin Unified
School District properties are not regulated by the City of Tustin,
but by the State of California, The City suggests that the
commenter contact the TUSD to obtain information on current or
permitted capacity at each of these schools.
The Initial Study's analysis of traffic impacts considered traffic
that is currently generated by the existing schools and other
land uses on San Juan Road, As explained in the Initial Study,
this project would add 210 daily traffic trips to San Juan Street,
which amounts to a nine (9) percent increase in traffic trips.
These trips would also be staggered throughout the day instead
of occurring all at once during the busiest traffic time or the
am/pm peak periods, See Response C 1-17, C 1-18, C 1-19,
and C 1-22.
The project provides adequate on site parking consistent with
the Tustin City Code and therefore will not exacerbate any pre-
existing parking or line of sight problem that is pre-existing in
this area. In addition, Condition 3.6 requires the applicant to
install a minimum of twenty feet (20') of red curb on both
sides of the proposed driveway and to the property line on the
east side of the proposed driveway, The red curb would
prevent guardians from parking in those areas in front of the
school and encourage on-site parking. Sufficient on-site
parking spaces are provided on-site as required by the Tustin
City Code.
Based on Trip Generation published by the Institute of
Transportation Engineers, the Public Works Department has
determined that San Juan Street has sufficient capacity to
accommodate the vehicle trips for the proposed pre-school,
even when peak a.m. and p,m. peak hour generation is
considered.
COMMENT RECEIVED ON NEGATIVE DECLARATION
C 1-29
C 1-30
RESPONSE TO COMMENT
The City's Public Work's department assessed the potential
traffic impacts of this project and concluded that the project
would have a less than significant impact on traffic circulation,
See Responses C 1-17 through C 1-22 for clarification of the
project's potential traffic impacts,
Pursuant to Tustin City Code (TCe) Section 9288b4
Preschool/daycare uses are allowed in the subject Suburban
Residential zoning district with a conditional use permit.
Ultimately, the City's decision-making bodies will decide whether
to approve or deny the proposed conversion. The possibility of
the use has existed since December 4, 1967, when the City
Council Passed Ordinance 372 to conditionally allow
nursery/preschool uses in the zoning district.
COMMENT RECEIVED ON NEGATIVE DECLARATION
AMOS CHAPA AND FARMINGTON RESIDENTS
....................,...,..............................,.........,...."..,..............................................,.,........,.....,....,.
July 5, 2005
RECEIVED
JUL 1 9 2005
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
BY
Chad Ortlieb
Associate Planner
Community Development Dept
300 Centennial Way
Tustin CA 92780
Dear Associate Planner,
C 1-31
This letter serves to protest the opening of a Day Care at 1792 San Juan Street by myself
and the following residents that sign this petition. We feel opening a Day Care on San
Juan along this already oongested street from the school traffic and parking along both
streets from the Apartments will create more traffic problems. Currently making a tum
from Farmington onto San Juan in the moming and afternoons is a hazard with people
making illegal turns at Farmington after dropping off and picking up children at the
adjacent elementary school.
Although ail residents on Farmington are not affected with the possibility of injury to their
children, I myself am ooncemed with my three year old daughter and six year old grand-
daughter. I personally have witnessed near accidents from people making Illegal tums on
Farmington.
Adding a Day Care on San Juan would only add congestion to this intersection that is
already busy and further the possibility of an accident occurring. I am sure that within the
city of Tustin there are plenty of other possible sites that are available for a day care to
set up. Forty-nine students would add a lot more traffic on a street that is already
congested with no real place to park.
C 1-32
We the residents of Farmington petition the City of Tustin to find a more suitable site that
would not jeopardize our children and feilow residents.
~GYeft.
~~os Chl\pa (f} /J" .,¡'.-/,'
'- /~ðjJ..u, /37 ¡/~k ,[;z . 7/,W
-m. ",.f'h1- ~ f!J. U~ 7/7/0'>
fl'l/- . '6 /lIM.:; tJ ~ . 7/8 J ()~
~;;¡¡;:..~.. ~J. ;í~:~~./
IW:;~~ 7/~({/~
C 1-31
C 1-32
RESPONSE TO COMMENT
See Response C 1-17 through C 1-23, C 1-27 and C 1-28 for
clarification of the project's less than significant traffic and parking
impacts,. In addition, the Public Works Department has reviewed
the proposed drop off and pick up plan and site access and
determined that the site would not have a significant traffic safety
impact.
The City does not engage in site location for businesses or
developers, See Response C 1-30.
I-
Z
w
:ãE
:ãE
0
(,)
0
I-
W
en
z
0
0..
en
w
e:::
-'
./
z
0
~
e:::
e:(
..J
(,)
W
0
W
>
l-
e:(
C)
w
z
z
0
0
w
>
w
(,)
w
0::
I-
Z
w
:ãE
:ãE
0
(,)
\.1) ~ IJ\ \,-, \.tì [ h
Ù \,) f\ <J <J \ "\
'--- \~ \J \ "'- VI ~ L
~. "\. \ <:) ":. 1\j
1«1 ~ ~ ~ --; ~ It) ~~
. "\.. ì- r- 1'<"""9 VI h-...;
;-1 .' ~~~-:~.
J ~ . r-. I:::c- ~
2. t~' 1, .r
" ' ~
~ ~ ........
2 ' .. . ::¡c
t. d U ~
d ) ,- I
~~ 'Q ~i
--::: '~' ~ ~. ~ ~
~ I. ,~
~ - Œ
COMMENT RECEIVED ON NEGATIVE DECLARATION
RESPONSE TO COMMENT
Farmington Petition Signers
1792 San Juan Street Negative Declaration
ADDRESS
DATE SIGNED
NAME OF RESIDENTS
13731 Farmi ton Tustin CA -5
13712 Farmi on, Tustin CA -6
13671 Farmi on, Tustin CA -7
13661 Farmin ton, Tustin CA -8
13711 Farm; on, Tustin CA' -8
13711 Farmin ton Tustin CA' -8
13701 Farmin ton, Tustin CA -8
13701 Farmin ton, Tustin CA -8
13691Farmin ton, Tustin CA -9
13692 Farmin ton, Tustin CA -9
13672 Farmin ton, Tustin CA -10
13672 Farmin ton, Tustin CA -10
13732 Farmin ton, Tustin Ca -10
13731 Farmin ton. Tustin CA -15
--. 13731 Farmin ton, Tustin CA -15
13641 Farmin ton, Tustin CA -18
COMMENT RECEIVED ON NEGATIVE DECLARATION
Barbara Hawkins
1 ¡ 41 ¡\ndrews
Tustin, CA 92780
July :,0, ;!O05
Chad Ortileb
As$(}Gj~;te Plnnner
Cmnmuníly Development Dept
300 Centennial V'Jav
Tustin GA 92180
Dear Assoc,ate Planner.
C 1-33
I and my hu$band would like to protest the opening of a Care af 1792 San Juan
Street. The fol1ow,,'O neighbors thaf glgn tl,lg petition are concerned with t'1e op
of tn,s day care San Juan Sf,eet Ig already congested with all the school traffic from
Mjd(J¡ø school and Ihe elementary school on this blôck alone. To add In that there Is the
traffic from all the apartments located on this block There IS already overflow frame
parking on Fa'mlnglol1. Exiting the neighbo'hood during schooi ;,ourB ¡9 difficulf and
dargemus especially with people making illegal turns on Farmington I persona!ly have
witnessed near accidents.
C 1-34
C 1-35
It is hard to understand why this school should
other potential locations that wouid not affect a
add to tho possibility of ar accldert on the comer
care with 49 students would add a iot more
neçessary with so many other locations
in this area where there are so many
pening here could further
and San Juan A
intersection that is
Slnce,eiy,
Barbam Hawkins
Name
Address
1.
,.,
4. (1"'\
'::r
["CVi
I')
]'J
"
/
C(
C 1-33
C 1-34
C 1-35
(.í
)\ç
Çf~¡",)
c.i¡ ,?>-'7
..
RESPONSE TO COMMENT
See Response C 1-17, C 1-19, C 1-22, and C 1-28,
See Response C 1-27.
See Response C 1-30 and C 1-32.
,-
RESOLUTION NO. 3980
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA APPROVING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 04-
008, DESIGN REVIEW 04-008, AND SIGN CODE EXCEPTION 05-001
FOR THE CONVERSION OF AN EXISTING SINGLE FAMILY
DWELLING INTO A PRESCHOOL FOR UP TO 49 CHILDREN WITH
FIVE (5) INSTRUCTORS, THE ADDITION OF 221 SQUARE FEET TO
THE STRUCTURE, A PARKING LOT WITH 12 PARKING SPACES, A
4,142 SQUARE FOOT OUTDOOR PLAYGROUND, ADDITIONAL ON-
SITE LANDSCAPING, LANDSCAPING IN THE ADJACENT PUBLIC
RIGHT-OF-WAY, AND AN ON-BUILDING SIGN TO SERVE THE USE
AT 1792 SAN JUAN STREET
The Planning Commission of the City of Tustin does hereby resolve as follows:
I.
The Planning Commission finds and determines as follows:
A. The proposed use is allowed within the Suburban Residential (R4)
Zoning District with a conditional use permit.
B. That a proper application for Conditional Use Permit (CUP 04-008),
Design Review (DR 04-008), and Sign Code Exception (SCE 05-001)
was submitted by Padmini Weerkkody requesting to convert an
existing single family dwelling into a preschool for up to 49 children
with five (5) instructors, add 221 square feet to the structure, provide a
parking lot with 12 parking spaces, provide a 4,142 square foot outdoor
playground, provide additional on-site landscaping, add landscaping in
the adjacent public right-of-way, and provide an on building sign to
serve the use at 1792 San Juan Street.
C. That operation of a daycare/preschool at 1792 San Juan Street, as
conditioned, will not be detrimental to the health, safety, morals, comfort,
or general welfare of the persons residing or working in the neighborhood
of such proposed use, nor be injurious or detrimental to the property and
improvements in the neighborhood of the subject property, or to the
general welfare of the City of Tustin, as evidenced by the following
findings:
a) The uses are appropriate under the General Plan Land Use Element
High Density Residential (15-25 dwelling units/acre) Designation in
that the preschool functions as a community service need especially
given the immediate proximity of high density apartment complexes.
b) The project site and design is physically suitable to accommodate the
operation of the preschool in that Tustin City Code Section 9288b4.
includes development standards for preschool uses which have been
satisfied by information on the submitted development plans
Resolution No. 3980
CUP 04-008, DR 04-008, SCE 05-001
Page 2
including: minimum building site size, minimum lot width, setbacks,
and parking.
c) As determined by the Public Works Engineering Division, the net
increase in traffic at the project site during the weekday a.m. or p.m.
peak hours is not anticipated to generate significant traffic impacts,
and there is sufficient roadway capacity on San Juan Street to
accommodate the proposed project.
d) Playground activity noise will be shielded by a 6 foot 8 inch concrete
block wall that exists at five (5) feet tall but will be extended around
the playground area. In addition, playground activity would be
limited to 12 children at any given time and outdoor play will be
limited to daytime hours.
e) A block wall separates the preschool from a church to the west and
an apartment complex to the east. The project would be compatible
with adjacent uses in that the Church's worship hours occur at
times that do not coincide with the preschool hours. The adjoining
apartment complex to the east and a single-family residential tract
on the north side of San Juan Street is buffered from the proposed
use by a perimeter tract wall. The preschool building maintains
setbacks on the property well in excess of the minimum setbacks
required.
f) Increased pedestrian activity to the site as a result of the project will
be accommodated in that the applicant and/or property owner
would be required to provide sidewalk and drive aprons along
Sycamore Avenue in front of the project property that are constructed
to meet current Federal Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA)
requirements.
D. Pursuant to Section 9272(c) of the Tustin City Code, the Planning
Commission finds that the location, size, architectural features, and
general appearance of the proposal will not impair the orderly and
harmonious development of the area, the present or future
development therein, or the occupancy as a whole. In making such
findings, the Planning Commission finds that the mass and appearance
of the project will not impair the orderly and harmonious development of
the area, the present or future development therein, or the occupancy
as a whole and has considered at least the following items:
1. Height, bulk, and area of buildings: The existing on-site building
and the proposed minor additions would maintain a height, bulk,
and area below what the Tustin City Code (TCC) could allow for the
property as evidenced in Attachment C (Land Use Fact Sheet).
The site would be developed to a lesser intensity than exists in the
surrounding neighborhood which consists of a Church and some
Resolution No. 3980
CUP 04-008, DR 04-008, SCE 05-001
Page 3
surrounding neighborhood which consists of a Church and some
multi-family housing buildings.
2. Setbacks and site planning: The existing on-site building and the
proposed minor additions would maintain setbacks in excess of
those required by the TCC as evidenced in Attachment C. The site
planning is appropriate for a preschool use requiring an outdoor
play area, on-site parking to support the use, and a sufficient
amount of street front landscaping to maintain a residential
appearance for the site.
3. Exterior materials and colors: The proposed building additions will
match the building's existing materials including white stucco walls,
asphalt shingles, and divided-lite windows. The materials are
appropriate for a preschool building to blend in appearance with
residential uses in the neighborhood.
4. Type and pitch of roofs: The hip roof of the existing structure and
proposed additions will be appropriate for the structure in that it will
enable it to blend in with neighborhood residential uses by
appearing as a residential structure.
5. Size and spacing of windows, doors, and other openings: The
windows and doors are appropriate for the use and allow the
building to maintain a residential appearance.
6. Landscaping, parking area design and traffic circulation: As
indicated in Attachment C, the project provides more landscaping
and parking than is required by the TCC. The project design
accommodates a preschool building, playground, and parking/child
drop-off area. The parking area contains adequate turn around
area at the rear of the property for on-site circulation.
7. Location, height and standards of exterior illumination: Pursuant to
Condition 2.1, Planning Division staff shall review detailed plans
during plan check to ensure that the proposed lighting meets on-
site security needs, prevents off-site glare, and to ensure that the
light poles are not excessively high.
8. Location and appearance of equipment located outside of an
enclosed structure: No equipment is proposed to be located
outside of an enclosure.
9. Location and method of refuse storage: As indicated on the
submitted site plan, all refuse and recycling materials are stored in
bins located in an on-site enclosure. The location of the enclosure
accommodates waste hauler pick up on-site without need for
hauling vehicles to back onto San Juan Street.
Resolution No. 3980
CUP 04-008, DR 04-008, SCE 05-001
Page 4
10. Physical relationship of proposed structures to existing structures in
the neighborhood: The finding is the same as indicated in number
2 above.
11. Appearance and design relationship of proposed structures to
existing structures and possible future structures in the
neighborhood and public thoroughfares: No new structures are
proposed for the project site.
12. Proposed signing: The proposed on-building sign is appropriate for
the site as indicated in the below findings for the sign code
exception.
E. In determining whether to approve SCE 05-001 the Planning
Commission makes the following findings:
1. Sign size and placement restrictions of the sign code shall be as
closely followed as practicable. However, the Suburban Residential
Zoning District has no sign provisions. A preschool use in a
commercial district could be entitled to a monument sign up to 32
square feet in area and an on-building sign up to 75 square feet in
area. However, the proposed on-building sign would only be 20
square feet in area which is similar in size to an existing on-building
sign for an adjacent church and meets the intent of the sign code.
2. The intent and purpose of the sign regulations of the land use zone in
which the sign is to be located shall be followed as closely as
practicable in that the TCC has no provisions for commercial signs in
the Suburban Residential District. However, single family residential
tracts are allowed identification monument or wall signs up to 32
square feet in size and six (6) feet in height. Multi-family housing
projects such as the adjacent apartment complex are allowed to have
one (1) monument sign up to 15 square feet in size and six (6) feet
tall for every project entrance. Therefore, the applicant's proposed 20
square foot on-building sign is within the size of signs customary to
the Suburban Residential Zoning District.
3. There are special circumstances unique to the property to justify the
exception in that the property will consist of a conditionally permitted
non-residential preschool use. The preschool is not allowed to have
a sign in the Suburban Residential Zoning District but would ordinarily
be permitted to have a monument sign if the preschool were located
in a commercial district. Furthermore, the size and amount of signs
allowed without a conditional use permit for residential uses exceed
the size of the one (1) on-building sign for the preschool.
4. Granting the exception will not have a negative impact on the
surrounding properties in that the size, type, and height of the sign
will be consistent with the sign serving adjacent church and will be
lesser in area than signs serving the nearby elementary school.
5. The sign application promotes the public, health, safety, welfare, and
Resolution No, 3980
CUP 04-008, DR 04-008, SCE 05-001
Page 5
aesthetics of the community and that the granting of the exception
meets findings and the intent of the sign code in that the sign would
serve to identify the use of the property, would not exceed the intent
of the sign code with regard to sian size, heiaht. or location, and
would be consistent with the size and type of on building sign that
currently exists for the adjacent church.
F. As conditioned, the project would promote orderly development to
preserve the public health, safety, and general welfare and provide for
proper use of land and adequate traffic circulation, utilities, and other
services;
G. The site is physically suitable for the type of development proposed in
that the project is accessible through the City's current street system
and could be supported with existing transportation and public
facilities;
H. That the Planning Commission has considered the Final Negative
Declaration, including the Initial Study and Negative Declaration that
was made available for public review, and all other oral and written
public comments received prior to or at the public hearing prior to
approving the project and has adopted Resolution No. 3979 approving
the Final Negative Declaration and finding that, in light of the whole
record before it, all potential environmental impacts of the project
would be less than significant.
I. That a public hearing was duly called, noticed, and held for said project
on August 22,2005, by the Planning Commission;
II. The Planning Commission hereby approves Conditional Use Permit (CUP
04-008), Design Review (DR 04-008), and Sign Code Exception (SCE 05-
001) for the conversion of an existing single family dwelling into a
preschool for up to 49 children with five (5) instructors, the addition of 221
square feet to the structure, a parking lot with 12 parking spaces, a 4,142
square foot outdoor playground, additional on-site landscaping,
landscaping in the adjacent public right-of-way, and a monument sign to
serve the use at 1792 San Juan Street, subject to the conditions contained
in Exhibit A attached hereto.
Resolution No. 3980
CUP 04-008, DR 04-008, SCE 05-001
Page 6
PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Tustin Planning
Commission held on the 22nd day of August, 2005.
JOHN NIELSEN
Chairperson
ELIZABETH A. BINSACK
Planning Commission Secretary
STATE OF CALIFORNIA)
COUNTY OF ORANGE)
CITY OF TUSTIN )
I, ELIZABETH A. BINSACK, the undersigned, hereby certify that I am the
Planning Commission Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of
Tustin, California; that Resolution No. 3980 duly passed and adopted at a regular
meeting of the Tustin Planning Commission, held on the 22nd day of August,
2005.
ELIZABETH A. BINSACK
Planning Commission Secretary
EXHIBIT A
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 04-008, DESIGN REVIEW 04-008, AND SIGN
CODE EXCEPTION 05-001
RESOLUTION NO. 3980
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
GENERAL
(1)
1.1
(1)
1.2
(1)
1.3
The proposed project shall substantially conform to the submitted
plans for the project date stamped August 22, 2005, on file with the
Community Development Department, except as herein modified, or
as modified by the Director of Community Development in
accordance with maintaining the intent of 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 East Tustin Specific Plan and Tustin City
Code and other applicable codes.
Approval of Conditional Use Permit 04-008, Design Review 04-008,
and Sign Code Exception 05-001 is contingent upon the applicant
returning to the Community Development Department a notarized
"Agreement to Conditions Imposed" form and the property owner
signing and recording with the County Clerk-Recorder a notarized
"Notice of Discretionary Permit Approval and Conditions of Approval"
form. The forms shall be established by the Director of Community
Development, and evidence of recordation shall be provided to the
Community Development Department.
As a condition of approval of Conditional Use Permit 04-008, Design
Review 04-008, and Sign Code Exception 05-001, the applicant shall
agree, at its sole cost and expense, to defend, indemnify, and hold
harmless the City, its officers, employees, agents, and consultants,
from any claim, action, or proceeding brought by a third-party against
the City, its officers, agents, and employees, which seeks to attack,
set aside, challenge, void, or annul an approval of the City Council,
the Planning Commission, or any other decision-making body,
including staff, concerning this project. The City agrees to promptly
notify the applicant of any such claim or action filed against the City
and to fully cooperate in the defense of any such action. The City
may, at its sole cost and expense, elect to participate in defense of
any such action under this condition.
SOURCE CODES:
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
STANDARD CONDITION (5)
CEQA MITIGATION (6)
UNIFORM BUILDING CODES (7)
DESIGN REVIEW ***
RESPONSIBLE AGENCY REQUIREMENT
LANDSCAPING GUIDELINES
PC/CC POLICY
EXCEPTION
Exhibit A
Resolution No. 3980
Page 2
(1)
(1 )
(1 )
(1)
1.4
1.5
1.6
1.7
The subject project approvals shall become null and void if grading
or building permits are not received within twelve (12) months of
the date of this Exhibit. Time extensions may be granted if a
written request is. received by the Community Development
Department within thirty (30) days prior to expiration.
Any violation of any of the conditions imposed is subject to the
payment of a civil penalty of $100.00 for each violation, or such other
amounts as the City Council may establish by ordinance or
resolution, and for each day the violation exists, subject to the
applicable notice, hearing, and appeal process as established by
City Council ordinance.
The applicant shall be responsible for costs associated with any
necessary code enforcement action, including attorney fees, subject
to the applicable notice, hearing, and appeal process as established
by the City Council by ordinance.
Unless otherwise specified, the conditions contained in this
resolution shall be complied with as specified or prior to issuance of
building permits, subject to review and approval by the Community
Development Department.
PLAN SUBMITTAL
(3)
2.1
At the time of building permit application, the plans shall comply with
the 2001 California Building Code (CBC), 2001 California
Mechanical Code (CMC), 2001 California Plumbing Codes (CPC),
2001 California Electrical Code (CEC), California Title 24
Accessibility Regulations, Title 24 Energy Regulations, City
Ordinances, and State and Federal laws and regulations.
Building plan check submittal shall include the following:
.
Seven (7) sets of construction plans, including drawings for
mechanical, plumbing and electrical.
Structural calculations, two (2) copies.
Title 24 energy calculations, two (2) copies.
Elevations that include all proposed dimensions, materials,
colors, finishes, and partial outlines of adjacent buildings on
site and off site where applicable.
The location of any utility vents or other equipment shall be
provided on the roof plan.
.
.
.
.
Exhibit A
Resolution No. 3980
Page 3
(3) 2.2
(3) 2.3
(3) 2.4
(3) 2.5
(3)
2.6
(3)
2.7
(3)
2.8
.
Details of all proposed lighting fixtures and a photometric study
showing the location and anticipated pattern of light distribution
of all proposed fixtures. All new light fixtures shall be
consistent with the architecture of the building. All exterior
lighting shall be designed and arranged as not to direct light or
glare onto adjacent properties, including the adjacent streets.
Wall mounted fixtures shall be directed at a 90 degree angle
directly toward the ground. All lighting shall be developed to
provide a minimum of one (1) foot-candle of light coverage, in
accordance with the City's Security Ordinance.
A note shall be provided on the plans that "All parking areas
shall be illuminated with a minimum of one (1) foot-candle of
light, and lighting shall not produce light, glare, or have a
negative impact on adjacent properties."
Note on plans that no field changes shall be made without
prior approval from the Building Official and architect or
engineer of record.
.
.
The building shall be equipped with an automatic fire sprinkler
system per Tustin City Code section 81 03(f)6.
Prior to issuance of Certificate of Occupancy, all exit doors shall be
quipped with a State Fire Marshal approved panic hardware.
The plans approved for building permit must show that all exit doors
are accessible to disabled persons.
Prior to building permit issuance, the project plans must show
compliance with Chapter 3, Chapter 10, and the minimum egress
requirements in Table 10A of the 2001 California Building Code.
Prior to building permit issuance, the project plans must show that
plumbing fixture units comply with the 2001 California Plumbing
Code Chapter four (4), Table 4-1 as per type of group occupancy, or
as approved by the Building Official. The project plans must also
show that Table 1115B-1 of the 2001 CBC is utilized for suggested
dimensions for children's Restrooms.
Prior to building permit issuance, the plans must show that openings
in exterior walls are five (5) or more feet from property lines per the
2001 California Building Code (Table 5A).
Prior to building permit issuance, the plans must show that exterior
walls are made from one-hour fire resistive construction materials
Exhibit A
Resolution No, 3980
Page 4
(3)
(3)
(3)
(3)
where exterior walls are less than twenty (20) feet from property
lines, and that building openings are protected where walls are less
than ten (10) feet from the property lines. [2001 CBC (Table 5-A )].
2.9
Prior to building permit issuance, the plans must show that all new
glass doors and windows, in or adjacent to doors, are tempered per
2001 California Building Code Section 2406.4.
2.10 Prior to building permit issuance, the plans must show that vehicle
parking, primary entrance to the building, primary paths of travel,
sanitary facilities, drinking fountain, and public telephones are
accessible to persons with disabilities.
2.11
Prior to building permit issuance, the plans must show that parking
for disabled persons is provided with an additional five (5) foot
loading area with striping and ramp; disabled persons shall be able
to park and access the building without passing behind another car.
At least one (1) accessible space shall be van accessible served by
a minimum 96 inch wide loading area.
2.12 Prior to building permit issuance the project plans must show that
there are two (2) exits from rooms containing Day Care/Preschool
Class Rooms with occupant load of 7 or more. (Table 10A, 2001
CBC)
(3)
2.13 Prior to building permit issuance, the plans must include an area
analysis for all buildings, and show compliance with allowable floor
areas based on 2001 California Building Code Chapter 5, Table 5-B.
(5)
2.14 Prior to issuance of any permits, the applicant shall submit for
approval by the Community Development and Public Works
Departments, a Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP)
specifically identifying Best Management Practices (BMPs) that will
be used on site to control predictable pollutant run-off. This WQMP
shall identify the: structural and non-structural measures specified
detailing implementation of BMPs whenever they are applicable to
the project; the assignment of long-term maintenance responsibilities
(specifying the developer, parcel owner, maintenance association,
lessee, etc.); and, reference to the location(s) of structural BMPs.
(5)
2.15 Prior to submittal of a Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP), the
applicant shall submit a deposit of $2700.00 for the estimated cost of
review of the WQMP to the Building Division. The actual costs shall
be deducted from the deposit, and the applicant shall be responsible
for any additional review cost that exceeded the deposit prior to
Exhibit A
Resolution No. 3980
Page 5
(5)
issuance of grading permits. Any unused portion of the deposit shall
be refunded to the applicant.
2.16 Prior to issuance of any permits, the property owner(s) shall record a
declaration of restrictions with the County Clerk Recorder. This
declaration binds current and future owner(s) of the property
regarding implementation and maintenance of the structural and non
structural BMPs as specified in the approved WQMP. This form can
be obtained from the Community Development Department
(5)
2.17
(5)
2.18
(5) 2.19
(5) 2.20
(5) 2.21
(5)
The Community Development and Public Works Department shall
determine whether any change in use requires an amendment to an
approved Water Quality Management Plan.
Prior to building permit issuance, the plans must include a note
indicating that a six (6) foot high chain link fence shall be installed
around the site prior to building construction stages. A nylon fabric
or mesh shall be attached to the temporary construction fencing.
Gated entrances shall be permitted along the perimeter of the site
for construction vehicles.
Pursuant to the City of Tustin's Security Ordinance and the Uniform
Fire Code, street numbers shall be displayed in a prominent location
on the street side of the building prior to issuance of a Certificate of
Occupancy. The numerals shall be no less than six (6) inches in
height and shall be of contrasting color to the background to which
they are attached and illuminated during hours of darkness.
Prior to building permit issuance, the plans must show dimensions
for all drive aisles, back up areas, and each parking stall.
No outdoor storage shall be permitted except as approved by the
Tustin Community Development Director.
A trash bin with surrounding enclosure shall be located on the
property and maintained to avoid health issues for neighboring uses.
Said enclosure shall be screened by a solid decorative wall
consistent with the adjacent building's material and finish and be of a
minimum height of six (6) feet. The location and screening of the
enclosure is as indicated on the approved plans.
2.22 During construction the applicant shall comply with all City policies
regarding short term construction emissions, including periodic
watering of the site and prohibiting grading during second stage
smog alerts and when wind velocities exceed 15 miles per hour.
Exhibit A
Resolution No, 3980
Page 6
(5)
2.23 If the project valuation is $50,000 or greater, the applicant shall
submit for approval by the City of Tustin, Construction &
Demolition (C&D) debris collection, disposal, and diversion
information on the city prescribed forms prior to issuance of
demolition, precise/ rough grading, or a building permit.
At least 50 percent of the construction debris shall be diverted from
landfill to the recycling plants. A security deposit in amount of $50
per ton (not to exceed $5,000 per project) for C&D security deposit
will be collected prior to issuance the permit. Prior to final
inspection, applicant is shall submit to the City of Tustin
documents (i.e. receipt from vendor) showing actual weight or
volume of each material of C&D diverted to the recycling center.
For any questions or concerns, please contact Joe Meyers at (714)
573-3173. (City Ordinance 1281)
ENGINEERING
(5)
(5)
3.2
(5)
3.3
3.1
Prior to the issuance of any permits, the project proponent must
provide a separate 24" x 36" street improvement plan, as prepared
by a California Registered Civil Engineer, for all construction within
the public right-of-way. Construction and/or replacement of any
missing, removed, or damaged public improvements will be
required adjacent to this development at the project proponents
cost. Said plan shall include, but not be limited to the following:
a) Curb and Gutter
b) Sidewalk
c) Construct Tree Wells
d) Remove Existing Drive Aprons
e) Construction of a New 27 Foot Wide Commercial Drive Apron
per City standard.
f) Any Required Underground Utility Connections
In addition, a 24" x 36" reproducible construction area traffic
control plan, as prepared by a California Registered Traffic
Engineer or Civil Engineer experienced in this type of plan
preparation will be required.
At plan check, the project plans must show that existing sewer and
domestic water are utilized whenever possible.
Any damage done to existing street improvements and utilities
during construction shall be repaired before issuance of a
Certificate of Occupancy.
Exhibit A
Resolution No, 3980
Page 7
(5)
(5)
(5)
(5)
(5)
(5)
3.7
3.8
3.9
3.4
Prior to any work in the public right-of-way, an Encroachment
Permit shall be obtained and applicable fees paid to the Public
Works Department.
3.5
Prior to the issuance of any building permits, the plans must show
that Current Federal Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA)
requirements are met at the drive apron and pedestrian walkways.
3.6
To provide sight distance for ingress and egress at the driveway,
the project proponent shall install a minimum of twenty feet (20') of
red curb on the both sides of the proposed driveway and to the
property line on the east side of the proposed driveway. At note
showing the red curb must be indicated on the project plans prior
to building permit issuance.
In addition to the normal full size plan submittal process, all final
development plans including, but not limited to: tract maps, parcel
maps, right-of-way maps, records of survey, public works
improvements, private infrastructure improvements, final grading
plans, and site plans are also required to be submitted to the
Public Works Department/Engineering Division in computer aided
design and drafting (CADD) format. The standard file format is
AutoCAD Release 2004 having the extension DWG. Likewise,
layering and linetype conventions are AutoCAD-based (latest
version available upon request from the Engineering Division). In
order to interchangeably utilize the data contained in the
infrastructure mapping system, CADD drawings must be in
AutoCAD "DWG" format (Le., produced using AutoCAD or
AutoCAD compatible CADD software). The most current version
of AutoCAD is Release 2004. Drawings created in AutoCAD
Release 2000 are compatible and acceptable.
The CADD files shall be submitted to the City at the time the plans
are. approved and updated CADD files reflecting "as built"
conditions shall be submitted once all construction has been
completed.
This development shall comply with all applicable provisions of the
City of Tustin Water Quality Ordinance and all Federal, State and
Regional Water Quality Control Board rules and regulations.
The project proponent is required to comply with Section 4327 of
the Tustin City Code which details the requirements for developing
and implementing a Waste Management Plan.
Exhibit A
Resolution No. 3980
Page 8
(5)
(5)
(5)
a.
The applicant, property owner and/or tenant(s) are required
to participate in the City's recycling program.
Prior to issuance of a building permit, a solid waste
recycling plan identifying planned source separation and
recycling programs shall be submitted and approved by the
City of Tustin Public Works Department.
b.
3.10 Prior to the issuance of a building permit, improvement plans must
be reviewed and approved by the Orange County Fire Authority for
fire protection purposes. The adequacy and reliability of water
system design and the distribution of fire hydrants will be
evaluated. The plans will need to show that the water distribution
system and appurtenances conform to the applicable laws and
adopted regulations enforced by the Orange County Health
Department.
3.11
Release/approval from the East Orange County Water District
shall be obtained prior to receiving water service. Backflow
prevention devices must be installed in accordance with applicable
standards and codes and shall be installed within an easement of
suitable size to allow for unobstructed access, inspection, testing,
and maintenance. The developer shall submit a water permit
application to the East Orange County Water District and is
responsible for all applicable and water connection fees.
3.12 During the plan check process the location of fire hydrants must be
approved by the City of Tustin and the Orange County Fire
Authority.
(5)
3.13 Prior to building permit issuance, a hydraulic analysis of the
proposed water systems ability to meet OCFA fire flow demands
and requirements shall be performed and certified by the project
proponent.
(5)
3.14 The developer is responsible for all costs related to the relocation
of existing fire hydrants and the installation of new fire hydrants if
any.
(5)
3.15 The developer is responsible for all costs related to the
abandonment, at the water main, of all existing potable water and
fire service connections if any.
(5)
3.16 The developer shall be responsible for all costs related to the
installation of new potable and fire related water services.
Exhibit A
Resolution No. 3980
Page 9
(5)
3.17 Approval from Water Services Division is required for permitting or
construction of any new service connections, abandonment or
relocation of existing services, or improvements that will affect
City's water facilities. Water system improvements plan shall be
designed by a licensed Civil Engineer in accordance with the
requirements and standards of the City of Tustin Department of
Public Works or American Water Work Association. Title block per
Engineering Services Division's conditions is available from
Engineering at (714) 573-3164. Any easements for construction of
City's facilities within private property shall be recorded. Submittals
of improvement plan and design specification digital (PDF) files in
entirety to Water Services Engineer are needed. These items are
mandatory requirements prior to sign-off by the Water Services
Manager.
(5)
3.18 Prior to building permit issuance the project plans must
demonstrate a turning radius for refuse and recycling vehicle
movement on-site.
SITE DESIGN
(5)
(5)
(5)
(5)
(5)
(5)
4.1
The additional block walls that the project plans indicate will be
constructed on-site shall be of colors and materials that match
existing on-site walls and walls immediately adjacent to the site.
4.2
Prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy, the additions the
existing building shall be of the same building materials and colors,
including roof materials, as the existing building.
4.3
Parking lot lighting shall not exceed 12 feet in height.
4.4
Prior to building permit issuance, the location of all transformers,
circuit boxes, and Orange County Fire Authority flow detection
check valves serving the property shall be indicated on the plans
and must be placed as far back on the property and screened as
much as possible.
4.5
Prior to building permit issuance the site plan must show the
location of the wrought iron fence identified on the north elevation
drawing.
4.6
The property is limited to one (1) on-building sign to support the
preschool use. The sign shall not exceed 20 square feet in area.
Exhibit A
Resolution No, 3980
Page 10
LANDSCAPING
(1 )
(1 )
(1 )
5.1
5.2
5.3
Complete landscape and irrigation plans that comply with the City
of Tustin Landscape and Irrigation Guidelines shall be submitted at
plan check. The irrigation plan shall show the location and control
of backflow prevention devices at the meter, pipe size, sprinkler
type, spacing, and coverage details for all equipment.
All plant materials shall be installed in a healthy and vigorous
condition, typical to the species, and shall be maintained in a neat
and healthy condition. Maintenance includes, but is not limited to,
trimming, mowing, weeding, removal of litter, fertilizing, regular
watering, and replacement of dead or diseased dying plants. All
trees and landscaping within the site and the perimeter of the site
shall be maintained in a healthy and vigorous condition. Unhealthy
or dead trees shall be replaced within seventy-two (72) hours upon
notification by the City.
The landscape materials shall not conflict with the visual clearance
requirements of any existing or new driveway approaches.
USE RESTRICTIONS
(5)
(5)
(5)
(5)
(5)
6.1
6.2
6.3
6.4
Prior to building permit issuance the "Drop Off Area" indicated on
the plans must be deleted to provide added aisle width for on-site
circulation and to accommodate guardians who will need to park to
sign their children in/out of the school. Parking and drop off
activities must occur in marked spaces and may not occur in a
drop off area.
The preschool is limited to a maximum of 49 pre-school age
children as defined by the Department of Social Services during
the span of any day.
The preschool operator shall comply with all applicable licensing
requirements of the State Department of Social Services.
The permitted hours of operation are from 7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m.
Monday through Friday, closed on Saturday and Sunday. Any
modification to the hours of operation shall be approved by the
Community Development Director.
6.5
The guardians and preschool operator shall abide by the following
restrictions:
Exhibit A
Resolution No. 3980
Page 11
(5)
(5)
(5)
NOISE
(1 )
(1 )
6.6
6.7
6.8
7.1
7.2
.
No parking in adjacent lots;
Parents who need to leave the car must park in on-site
parking spaces; and,
No line-up or parking along the curb on San Juan Street is
permitted except for special events such as plays and
graduations.
.
.
The preschool operator shall provide the City with a statement that
must be signed by each guarding upon enrollment which indicates
the above parking and circulation restrictions.
In the event that the Community Development Director determines
that parking for the preschool has become a problem the following
corrective options may be required:
. A staff member would need to be made available in the
parking lot area to usher children to and from guardian's
parked vehicles;
. The class schedule would need to be staggered into
additional sessions; or,
. The number of students would need to be reduced.
The owners/tenant shall be responsible for the daily maintenance
and upkeep of the facility, 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. All graffiti shall be removed within 72 hours
of a complaint being transmitted by the City to the property
owner/tenant. Failure to maintain said structure and adjacent
amenities will be grounds for City enforcement of its Property
Maintenance Ordinance, including nuisance abatement.
All food and drink consumption associated with the preschool
curriculum shall occur inside the building.
All construction operations, including engine warm-up and deliveries
of materials and equipment, shall be subject to the provisions of the
Tustin Noise Ordinance and shall take place only between the hours
of 7:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, and between
9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. on Saturday, unless otherwise determined
by the Building Official.
Construction hours shall be clearly posted on the project site to the
satisfaction of the Building Official.
Exhibit A
Resolution No. 3980
Page 12
(5)
(5)
FIRE
(5)
(5)
(5)
7.3
7.4
8.1
8.2
8.3
The property owner and/or preschool operator shall comply with
the interior and exterior noise standards for residential properties,
as set forth in Tustin City Code Section 4614. Based on the
preschool's day time operating hours and the proposed concrete
block wall, noise levels from playground activities are expected to
be less than significant and below the City's noise standards.
However, if subsequent code enforcement reveals that playground
activities exceed the noise standards of the Tustin City Code, the
Community Development Director shall require the property owner
to limit the duration of playground activity and/or install sound
attenuating devices on the walls surrounding the playground, such
as quilted fiberglass noise absorbers, acoustical foam absorbers,
or convoluted foam sheets at the property to achieve noise levels
that are below noise standards. The property owner shall bear all
associated costs for the installation of sound attenuating devices.
No amplified sound devices are permitted outside of the building.
Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall obtain
approval of the Fire Chief for all fire protection access roads to
within 150 feet of all portions of the exterior of the structure. The
site plan shall indicate the locations of all fire hydrants located
nearest the property line Please contact the OCFA at (714) 573-
6100 or visit the OCFA website to obtain a copy of the "Guidelines
for Emergency Access."
Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall submit
architectural plans for the review and approval of the Fire Chief if
required per the "Orange County Fire Authority Plan Submittal
Criteria Form." Please contact the OCFA at (714) 573-6100 for a
copy of the Site/Architectural Notes to be placed on the plans prior
to submittal.
Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall submit
plans for any required automatic fire sprinkler system in any
structure to the Fire Chief for review and approval, if applicable.
(Fire sprinklers are required if the square footage of the structure
equals or exceeds 6,000 square feet. Please contact the OCFA at
(714) 573-6100 to request a copy of the "Orange County Fire
Authority Notes for New NFPA 13 Commercial Sprinkler Systems."
Exhibit A
Resolution No. 3980
Page 13
(5)
8.4
(5)
8.5
FEES
(1 )
9.1
(1 )
9.2
Prior to the issuance of a certificate of use and occupancy, any
required fire sprinkler system shall be operational in a manner
meeting the approval of the Fire Chief.
Prior to the issuance of a building permit, plans for a fire alarm
system shall be submitted to the Fire Chief for review and
approval. Please contact the OCFA at (714) 573-6100 or visit the
OCFA website to obtain a copy of the "Guideline for New and
Existing Fire Alarm Systems." The system shall be operational
prior to the issuance of a certificate of use and occupancy.
Prior to issuance of any building permits, payment shall be made
of all applicable fees, including, but not limited to, the following.
Payment shall be required based upon those rates in effect at the
time of payment and are subject to change.
A.
Building and grading plan check and permit fees shall be paid
to the Community Development Department based on the
most current schedule.
B.
Private improvement plan check and permit fees shall be paid
to the Community Development Department.
C.
Payment of the Major Thoroughfare and Bridge Fees to the
Tustin Public Works Department is required at the time a
building permit is issued.
D.
Transportation System Improvement Program Fees shall be
paid to the Community Development Department.
E.
OCFA plan check and inspection fees shall be paid to the
Community Development Department based upon the most
current schedule.
F.
School facilities fee to the Tustin Unified School District shall
be paid to the District in accordance with any agreement
reached and executed between the District and the applicant.
G.
Payment of the Orange County Sanitation District No.7
Sewer Connection Fees is required at the time a building
permit.
Within forty-eight (48) hours of approval of the subject project, the
applicant shall deliver to the Community Development Department,
Exhibit A
Resolution No. 3980
Page 14
a cashier's check payable to the COUNTY CLERK in the amount
of forty-three dollars ($43.00) to enable the City to file the
appropriate environmental documentation for the project. If within
such forty-eight (48) hour period the 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.