HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC RES 2300 1
3
5
6
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
23
24
25
26
27
28
RESOLUTION NO. 2300
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY
OF TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING .CERTIFICATION OF
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (EIR) 85-2, PLUS
COMMENTS AND RESPONSES, AS FINAL EIR 85-2
The Planning Commission of the city of Tustin does hereby resolve as
fol 1 ows-
I. The Planning Commission finds and determines as follows-
Ae
That an Environmental Impact Report would be required due to
potential effects identified in an initial questionnaire done
for the General Plan Amendment, Zone Change, and Specific Plan
for the East Tustin area.
B. That a Draft Environmental Impact Report for the proposed
project has been .prepared by Michael Brandman Associates, for
the city of Tustin.
C. That distribution of the Draft EIR was made to interested public
and private agencies wi th a solicitation of comments and
evaluation.
D. That a public hearing was duly called, noticed and held on the
Draft EIR.
E. That the public review period for the draft EIR ended on January
31, 1986 and that comments received by the public, Commission,
staff and other agencies have been addressed to this date.
F. That the subject Draft EIR is a program EIR and subject to the
following provisions as shown in the California Environmental
Quality Act. That subsequent activities shall be examined in
the light of the program EIR to determine whether an additional
environmental document must be prepared. The city shall use an
initial questionnaire to document the evaluation of subsequent
activities to determine whether the environmental effects of the
program are covered in the EIR.
G®
That the Draft EIR was prepared In compliance with the
California Environmental Quality Act, State Guidelines, and the
policies of the city of Tustin.
He
That the City Council of the city of Tustin shall be, as
described in CEQA, the body responsible for the certification of
EIR 85-2 as a final EIR.
I®
That the Draft EIR was distributed to the Planning Commission
and that they reviewed this document, received public testimony
and considered comments on Draft EIR and responses thereto in
their review of the subject actions involving the East Tustin
area.
· .o
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
23
25
26
27
.-~
28
Resolution No. 2300
page t~o
II.
It is therefore resolved ~chat the Draft EIR 85-2, the comments and
responses thereto are recommended to the City Council for their
consideration and certification as a final EIR for the actions
involving the East Tustin area.
PASSED AND ADOPTED ~t a reg l~,/mee~tng of the~Tusttn Planning Commission
held on the 10th day of February, 1986
o
RATIONALE FOR
PLANNING COMMIBSION RECOMMENDATION
FOR CITY COUNCIL CONSIDERATION OF
EAST TUSTIN SPECIFIC PLAN EIR (85-9.)
The environmental documentation process for the East Tustin Specific Plan began in
June 1983, with the initiation of the early planning studies and Preparation of the
environmental baseline description for the project area. Alternative plans developed
for the project area were evaluated for potential impacts using the environmental
baseline document in 1984 and 1985.
In May 1985, a Notice of Preparation (NOP) was prepared and mailed to responsible
public agencies, the State Clearinghouse, local affected agencies and interested
community organizations. The NOP was distributed again in November 1985 to allow
for additional comments and/or updating comments on the earlier NOP. The NOP
provided a description of the proposed East Tustin Specific Plan, general
identification of possible environmental impacts and requested that comments
eonc~erning issues that should be addressed in the draft EIR be submitted to the city
by December ]., 1985.
On December 18, 1985, the draft EIR and draft East Tustin Specific Plan were made
available for a 45-day public review period, which ended on January 31, 1986. The
draft EIP~ identified the following potential impacts and recommended mitigation
measures for the ETSP:
,.o
4.~
· ,,,,=~
b~O
0 0
O,s:
0
1147
,, ,
SUMMARY OF PROJECT ALTERNATIVI~
Alternative 6.1, "No Project" would prevent any development from occurring
onsite and would effectively preserve the existing a~rieultural and open space
land uses at the site for a limited number of years. The continued use of the
site for agricultural open space uses is not a viable long-term use of the site,
nor it is considered with the existing general plan which designates the site for
urban uses. In that all environmental impacts would be avoided under this
alternative, is is clearly considered to be an environmentally superior option to
the proposed project. This alternative was rejected, however, because it fails
to provide for the objective established for the project, and is contrary to the
goals, objectives and provisions of the Tustin General Plan which desisnate the
project site for urban development.
Alternative 6.2, Existing General Plan would allow the project site to be
developed under the existing general plan land use designations. Compared to
the current project proposal, the development of uses of a lower intensity
would afford the advantages of less traffic, noise and air quality impacts as
well as reduced demands on public services and utilities. Second to the "no
project" alternative, this alternative may be considered to be the
environmentally superior alternative. However, the existing general plan land
use designations provide for very little commercial, employment and recreation
uses to support the residential development allowed, thus creating an
"unbalanced" community. Based on land use balance considerations, this
alternative was rejected in favor of the current proposal.
Altm'native 6.3, Maximum Residential Development provides for a ~reater
number of residential units and less oommeroial uses than the currently
proposed project. The relative advantages would include less traffic generation
espeoially during peak travel hours, less mobile source air and noise pollution
and a greater contribution in the number and type of units added to the city's
existing housing stock. The disadvantages include greater impaots on public
servioes and utilities especially public Schools, greater demands on limited
existing commercial and employment land uses and the exposure of more
dwelling units to existing; noise sources particularly military aircraft noise. As
o
the apparent disadvantages exceeded the advantages, this alternative was
rejected in favor of the current project proposal.
Alternative 6.4~ l~l~ximum Comm~ial Development provides for more
commercial and less residential development than the current proposal. The
primary advantages of this alternative include greater local employment and
shopping opportunities for project residents and less of a demand on public
schools. The disadvantages~ which serve as the reasons for rejecting this
alternative~ include increased traffic generation especially during peak travel
hours, increased mobile source air and noise pollution and a higher intensity
development character than that of the local area.
During the draft EIR public review period, two noticed public hearings were held
before the Tustin Planning Commission to receive public testimony regarding the
draft EIR and Specific Plan (see comments A-1 through A-9 and H-1 through H-28 in
the Response to Comments document for summaries of comments received at the
hearings). Over five hours of public hearing testimony and a total of 26 letters
incorporating approximately 300 separate comments (including oral comments) were
received on the draft EIR.
The City of Tustin has prepared written responses to comments received during the
EIlt public review period. The Planning Commission has received direct public
testimony~ [,eviewed the draft El]t~and the comments and responses thereto~ in
consideration of the proposed actions involving the East Tustin area. This review
process has involved each environmental category and issues required by CE(~A and
the State EIlt guidelines. In recognition of this review, and the comprehensive
evaluation of environmental impacts contained in the EIR, the Tustin Planning
Commission recommends that the City Council consider the draft EIR)eomments and
responses thereto as a final EIR for their review and certification as provided in
Section 15090 of the State EIlt guidelines.
STAT~ OF CALIFORNIA)
COUNTY OF ORANGE )
CITY OF TUSTIN )
I, DONNA ORR, the under's~cjned, hereby certtfy that I am the Recot-dtncj
Secre~ of ',.he Planning Comm~ssion of the Ci~y of Tusttn,
California; that Resolution No. ~~as duly passed and adopted at~
a regul~r~/~e~ ejttng of the TusttO 1rT~~g Comission, held on the /~~
day of ~,..~_.~F.~4.jY_, ].9 ~..~.
Y ~/
·
DONNA ORR
Recordtng Secretar7
1