Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout01 GP 99-001 ZC 99-001 03-01-99NO. 1 3-1-99 DATE: MARCH 1, 1999 TO: FROM: SUBJECT: WILLIAM A. HUSTON, CITY MANAGER COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT PUBLIC HEARING FOR GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 99-001 AND ZONE CHANGE 99-001 (ORDINANCE NO. 1212) SUMMARY: General Plan Amendment (GPA) 99-001 and Zone Change (ZC) 99-001 (Ordinance No. 1212) are requests to amend the General Plan Land Use Designation from Transportation to High Density Residential and amend the Zonh~g District from Unclassified (U) to Planned Development (PD) for an 8,923 square foot parcel of abandoned Caltrans freeway right-of-way. The parcel is located inunediately northeast of the Tustin Village Townhome complex at 15500 Tustin Village Way, directly southwest of the I-5/SR-$$ Freeway Interchanga A Negative Declaration was prepared and circulated for this project in conformance with the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act On February 22, 1999, the Plann#tg Commission recommended that the City Council approve this project. Applicant/Property Owner: Mr. Elmer Tiedje, Tustin Village Community Association RECOMMENDATION That the City Council take the following actions: 1. Adopt Resolution No. 99-21 approving the environmental determination for the project; 2. Adopt Resolution No. 99-22 approving General Plan Amendment 99-001; and, 3. Introduce and have the first reading of Ordinance No. 1212 approving Zone Change 99- 001 and set for second reading at the Council's next scheduled meeting. BACKGROUND AND DISCUSSION The Tustin Village Townhomes community is a 118 unit townhome complex located at the southwest corner of the intersection of the I-5 Santa Aha Freeway and the SR-55 Newport Freeway at 15500 Tustin Village Way. In 1995, Caltrans completed the work on the reconfiguration of the 1-5/SR-55 freeway interchange and abandoned right-of-way adjacent to the Tustin Village Townhomes that was no longer needed. The City had the first option to acquire the subject parcel, but the City Engineer had found that there was no public need for the parcel. The Tustin Village Community Association purchased the parcel from Caltrans with the intent of paving a portion of the parcel for additional guest parking spaces and landscaping the remaining area. The 8,923 square foot parcel is irregularly shaped and situated to the northeast of the Tustin Village Tbwnhomes complex. The parcel abuts the Townhome complex and is separated from the current freeway right-of-way by a sound wall (see Location Map). City Council Report GPA 99-001 and ZC 99-001 March 1, 1999 Page 2 To allow for the development of additional parking facilities and landscaped open space on the parcel, the Zoning District and General Plan Designation must be changed. Currently, the parcel is zoned "Unclassified" (U) and is designated "Transportation" by the General Plan. This application would change the Zoning District to "Planned Development" (PD) and change the General Plan Land Use Designation to "High Density Residential" (see Zone Change and General Plan Amendment Exhibits to Resolution No. 3654). These designations are consistent with the Zoning District and Land Use Designations of the Tustin Village Townhomes Complex. A similar application was filed by the same applicant recently for a .5 acre abandoned right-of-way parcel directly south of the subject parcel, and was approved by the City Council on January 19, 1999. No formal plans for improvements have been submitted, however, accessory structures such as residential parking facilities are a permitted use within this Planned Development and would be subject to the design review and/or building permit process. Construction of additional units would be subject to the Conditional Use Permit and Design Review process. There are currently 118 units within the 6.5 acre. complex. With an additional .75 acres (.5 previously approved on January 19, 1999, and .25 under consideration with this item), the General Plan would allow for a maximum density of 175 units for redevelopment of the entire complex (25 units per acre), or an increase of fifty-seven (57) units. However, application of development standards (e.g., Setbacks, required parking facilities) would significantly reduce the redevelopment potential. If the entire complex is not redeveloped, it is unlikely that additional units could be accommodated on the subject parcel. ENVIRONMENTAL Attachment D is the Initial Study/Negative Declaration prepared for this project. Notice of the Negative Declaration public comment period was provided from January' 29, 1999, through February 19, 1999. No public comments were received and no significant impacts were identified. Any potential impacts would be 'related to the approval of future projects. ~zabeth A B~nsack Community Development Director ccreport:zc99001 cc. report, doc Attachments: A- Location Map B- Planning Commission Minutes C - Planning Commission Resolution Nos. 3653 and 3654 D - Initial Study/Negative Declaration E - Resolution No. 99-22/Ordinance No. 1212 ATTACHMENT A LOCATION MAP LOc, ATi 0 N MAP~. ' < > / / / VILLA~£ Yt£$ T VIA TV TOWNHOM£.~ Ii ?LAND£R$ POINT£ TV /-.-J ~ ~' s 101 ·---~--~--'-' /~o~ ...... ~-- /107 2 : oo //~0~ ~1111 ~LSOTO LANC 1141 --~7' ....... /ss sSIJ~ COSTA MESA FREEWAY NO SCALE ATTACHMENT B PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES FEBRUARY 22, 1999 MINUTES TUSTIN PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING FEBRUARY 22, 1999 DRAFT CALL TO ORDER: 7:02 p.m., City Council Chambers PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: Commissioner Jones INVOCATION:' Commissioner Davert ROLL CALL: Chairperson Pontious, Browne, Davert, Jones, Kozak Commissioners: Present: Chairperson Pontious Kozak Browne Davert Jones Absent: None staff: Elizabeth A. Binsack, Director Omar Sandoval, Deputy City Attorney Karen Peterson, Acting Senior Planner Douglas Anderson, Traffic Engineer Justina Willkom, Associate Planner Lori Ludi, Associate Planner Bradley Evanson, Assistant Planner Kathy Martin, Recording Secretary PUBLIC CONCERNS: (Limited to 3 minutes per person for items not on the agenda.) No Public Concerns were expressed. IF YOU REQUIRE SPECIAL ACCOMMODATIONS, PLEASE CONTACT THE PLANNING COMMISSION SECRETARY AT (714) 573-3106. CONSENT CALENDAR: (ALL MATTERS LISTED UNDER CONSENT CALENDAR ARE CONSIDERED ROUTINE AND WILL BE ENACTED BY ONE MOTION. THERE WILL BE NO SEPARATE DISCUSSION OF THESE ITEMS PRIOR TO THE TIME OF Planning Commission Minutes February 22, 1999 Page 2 THE VOTING ON THE MOTION UNLESS MEMBERS OF THE COMMISSION, STAFF OR PUBLIC REQUEST SPECIFIC ITEMS TO BE DISCUSSED AND/OR REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT CALENDAR FOR SEPARATE ACTION.) . CONSENT CALENDAR: . Minutes of the February 8, 1999 Planning Commission Meeting. Commissioner Davert moved, Commissioner Browne seconded., to approve the Consent Calendar. Motion carried 4-0. ChairpersOn Pontious abstained. PUBLIC HEARINGS' 2, Conditional Use Permit 98-007 and Design Review 98-007 a request to construct a 1,472 square foot drive-through oil change facility with three work bays and indoor/outdoor waiting areas. The project is located at 12972 Newport AvenUe within the Retail Commercial District (C-1) zoning district. APPLICANT: EZ Lube Michael J. Dobson PROPERTY OWNER: KC/OB Partners, LLC Tim O'Brien Recommendation That the Planning Commission continue the public hearing for this project until March 22, 1999. The Public Hearing opened at 7:03 p.m. The Director indicated that staff is working with the applicant to review their revised site plan and traffic analysis and asked the Commission to continue the hearing to the March 22, 1999 meeting. The Public Hearing closed at 7:03 p.m. Commissioner Davert moved, Commissioner Jones seconded, to continue the hearing to the March 22, 1999 Planning Commission meeting. Motion carried 5-0. . General Plan Amendment 99-001 and Zone Change 99-001 a request to amend the General Plan Land Use Designation for an 8,923 square foot abandoned Caltrans parcel from Transportation to High Density Residential and Planning Commission Minutes February 22, 1999 Page 3 amend the zoning district from Unclassified (U) to Planned Development (PD). The project is located at 15500 Tustin Village Way within the Unclassified (U) zoning district. APPLICANT/ PROPERTY OWNER: MR. ELMER TIEDJE TUSTIN VILLAGE WAY COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION Recommendation . That the Planning Commission adopt Resolution No. 3653 recommending that the City Council certify as adequate the Negative Declaration for General Plan Amendment 99-001 and Zone Change 99-001; and, 2. That the Planning Commission adopt Resolution No. 3654 recommending that the City Council approve General Plan Amendment 99-001 and Zone Change 99-001. The Public Hearing opened at 7:05 p.m. Bradley Evanson presented the subject report. Commissioner Davert inquired if there was any indication that the property owner proposed additional development' in the future. Bradley Evanson stated that the conceptual site plan shows only on-street parking and landscaping and they have no intention of proposing any units. Commissioner Jones asked if there would be any structures associated with the parking proposed. Bradley Evanson responded that structures were not identified in the submitted conceptual plan. Commissioner Davert noted the high density in this neighborhood and did not wish to allow additional development. The Director noted that if the property owner were to request additional units and could support the units by providing appropriate setbacks and parking spaces; the City may be obliged to approve the request. The Director noted the likelihood of that occurring on this site is minimal. Commissioner Jones noted that the current density is significantly below what could be constructed. The Director confirmed Commissioner Jones' statement. Planning Commission Minuses February 22, 1999 Page 4 Chairperson Pontious noted that the parcel did not have street frontage making it difficult to use for more than landscaping. Bradley Evanson confirmed that the parcel does not have street frontage. The parcel is behind'an adjacent mobilehome park and is an oddly shaped parcel due to Caltrans reconfiguration. Commissioner Jones noted that the access road could be realigned. Chairperson Pontious noted her concern that the area could become a 'gathering area without proper lighting and visual access. The Director noted that all development applications are routed to the Police Department for their review to ensure that there are no indefensible areas and the City's codes require one foot candle security lighting. Elmer Tiedje, applicant, stated that the request is only for landscaping a play area and no. parking is intended on the parcel. The Public Hearing closed at 7:10 p.m. Commissioner Davert moved, Commissioner Browne seconded, to adopt Resolution No. 3653 recommending that the City Council certify as adequate the Negative Declaration for General Plan Amendment 99-001 and Zone Change 99- 001, Motion carried 5-0. Commissioner Davert moved, Commissioner Browne seconded, to adopt Resolution No. 3654 recommending that the City Council .approve General Plan Amendment 99-001 and Zone Change 99-001. Motion carried 5-0. = Conditional Use Permit 98-031 a request for the on-site sale of beer and wine (ABC License Type "41") for on-site consumption in conjunction with a new restaurant. The project is located at 658 El Camino Real within the C-2, P Central Commercial District, Parking Overlay District. APPLICANT: AKIRA TAKASHIO HONDAYA CORPORATION PROPERTY OWNER: WILLIAM ZAPPAS EL CAMINO PLAZA Recommendation That the Planning Commission adopt Resolution No. 3658 approving Conditional Use Permit 98-031. ATTACHMENT C PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTIONS NOS. 3653 AND 3654 l0 14 2O 2.4 ?-6 2,? RESOLUTION NO. 3653 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN CERTIFY THE FINAL NEGATIVE DECLARATION AS ADEQUATE FOR GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 99-001 AND ZONE CHANGE 99-001 AS REQUIRED BY THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT. The Planning Commission of the City of Tustin does hereby resolve as follows: I. The Planning Commission finds and determines as follows: A. That General Plan Amendment 99-001 and Zone Change 99-001 are considered "projects" pursuant to the terms of the California Environmental Quality Act; and B. A Negative Declaration has been prepared for this project and has been distributed for public review. C. Wl~ereas, the City Engineer has determined that there is no public need for the subject parcel. D. Whereas, the' Planning Commission of the City of Tustin has considered evidence presented by the Community Development Director and other interested parties with respect to the subject Negative Declaration. E. The Planning Commission has evaluated the proposed final Negative Declaration and determined that the project is regulatory in nature and therefore, would not have a significant effect on the environment. When individual applications are submitted for consideration, independent environmental review will occur. II. A Final Negative Declaration has been completed in compliance with CEQA and state guidelines. The Planning Commission has received and considered the information contained in the Negative'Declaration prior to ' recommending approval of the proposed project, and found that it adequately discussed the environmental effects of the proposed project. Further, the Planning Commission finds the project involves no potential for any adverse effects, whether individually or cumulatively, on wildlife resources; and, therefore, makes a De Minimis Impact finding related to the California State Department Fish and Game Code Section 711.4. ]4 ]5 ]? 18 20 23 24 2? ?-8 Resolution 3653 Page 2 PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting Commission, held on the 22nd day of February, 1999. Planning Commission Secretary of the Tustin Planning ~_E~LIE PONTIOUS Chairperson STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTYOF 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. 3653 was duly passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the Tustin Planning Commission, held on the 22nd day of February, 1999. Planning Commission Secretary ]0 ]4 ]5 ]? 2O 24 RESOLUTION NO. 3654 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN, RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVE GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 99-001. AND ZONE CHANGE 99-001, AMENDING THE GENERAL PLAN LAND USE DESIGNATION FROM TRANSPORTATION TO HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL AND CHANGING THE ZONING DISTRICT FROM UNCLASSIFIED (U) TO. PLANNED DEVELOPMENT (PD) ON A 9,000 SQUARE FOOT ABANDONED PARCEL OF CALTRANS RIGHT-OF-WAY ADJACENT TO PROPERTY LOCATED AT 15500 TUSTIN VILLAGE WAY. The Planning Commission does hereby resolve as follows: I. The Planning Commission finds and determines as follows: Ao That a proper application for General Plan Amendment 99-001 and Zone Change 99-001 to amend the General Plan Land Use Designation and Zoning District of a 9,000 square foot abandoned 'Caltrans right-of-way parcel located adjacent to the 1-5/SR-55 freeway interchange at 15500Tustin Village Way, more specifically described as the Director's Deed recorded on September 28, 1998 as Instrument No. 19980649966 in the County of Orange. Bo That a public hearing was duly called, noticed and held on said application on February 22, 1999 by the Planning Commission. Co That the proposed General Plan Amendment 99-001 and Zone Change 99-001 are consistent with and implement the policies of the General Plan, in that: 1) Policy 1.9 encourages the consolidation of unused parcels to increase the opportunities for development and redevelopment. The proposed amendments would allow an abandoned right-of-way parcel to be incorporated into an existing residential community, o 2) Policy 5.8 encourages the .improvement of edge treatments between transportation rights-of-way and residential developments. The proposed amendments would allow a residential community the opportunity to redevelop an abandOned freeway right-of-way parcel that is adjacent to their community. Do E. Whereas, the City Engineer has determined that there is no public need for the subject parcel. That the proposed amendments ensure c°nsistency between the General Plan and the Zoning Ordinance. ]0 14 20 24 26 Resolution No. 3654 Page 2 Fo A Negative Declaration has been prepared and recommended for certification for this project in accordance with the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). II. The Planning Commission hereby recommends that the City Council approve General Plan Amendment 99-001 and Zone Change 99-001, amending the General Plan Land Use Designation of the subject property from "Transportation" to "High Density Residential" and amending the Zoning Designation of the subject parcel from "Unclassified" (U) to "Planned Development" (PD), as identified on Exhibit A attached hereto. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Planning Commission of the City of Tustin, at a regular meeting on the 22nd day of February, 1999. Planning Commission Secretary LESLIE A. PONTIOUS Chairperson 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. 3654 was duly passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the Tustin Planning Commission, held on the 22nd day of February, 1999. Planning Commission Secretary ATTACHMENT D INITIAL STUDY/NEGATIVE DECLARATION COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT 300 Centennial Way, Tustin, CA 92780 (7 4) S?S-S O0 INITIAL STUDY A. BACKGROUND Project Title: General Plan Amendment 99-001 and Zone Chanqe 99-001 Lead Agency: City of Tustin 300 Centennial Way Tustin, California 92780 Lead Agency Contact Person: Brad Evanson Phone: (714) 573-3118 Project Location: 15500 Tustin Village Way Project Sponsor's Name and Address: Tustin Village Community Association 15500 Tustin Village Way #119 Tustin, CA 92780 General PI,an Designation: Transportation' Zoning Designation: UnclasSified Project Description: Caitrans abandoned an 8,923 square foot parcel of right-of-way adjacent to the Tustin Village T°wnhome Complex. The Tustin Village Community Association has acquired the parcel and is proposing to incorporate it into their community. A General Plan Amendment from Transportation to High Density Residential and a Zone Change from Unclassified (U) to Planned Development (PD) are required to allow for residential use of the parcel. Surrounding Uses: North: Caitrans Right-of-Way South: Residential East: Caltrans Right-of-Way West: Residential Other public agencies whose approval is required: Orange County Fire Authority Orange County Health Care Agency South Coast Air Quality Management District Other [--] 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. ~-]Land Use and Planning [-]Population and Housing [~]Geological Problems ['-]Water [-]Air Quality ['-]Transportation & Circulation [-']Biological Resources [--]Energy and Mineral Resources [-]Hazards [--']Noise ' [-]Public Services [-]Utilities and Service Systems [-]Aesthetics [-~Cultural Resources [-]Recreation [-]Mandatory Findings of Significance C. DETERMINATION: On the basis of this initial evaluation: I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. ['-] I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described on an attached sheet have been added to the project. A NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. [-'] I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect(s) on the environment, but at least one effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets, if the effect is a "Potentially Significant Impact" or "Potentially Significant Unless Mitigated." An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there WILL NOT be a significant effect in this case because all potentially significant effects 1) have been analyzed adequately in an' earlier EIR pursuant to applicable standards, and 2) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project. I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there WILL NOT be a significant effect in this case because all potentially significant effects 1) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and 2) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are in3ga~upon the proposed project. S i gnamr e~-L, SZ.~.~.d~/f4~~/..,~--r./~../~-- Date Print Name Elizabeth A. Binsack Title Director D. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS: [--] Earlier analyses used: Available for review at: CiO, of Tustin Community Development Department 1. LAND USE & PLANNING- WouM the proposal: a) Conflict with general plan designation or zoning? b) Conflict with applicable environmental plans or policies adopted by agencies with jurisdiction over the project? c) Be incompatible with existing land uses in the vicinity? d) Affect agricultural resources or operations? e) Disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an established community (including a low-income or minority community)? 2. POPULATION & HOUSING- WouM the proposal: a) Cumulatively exceed official regional or local population projections? b) Induce substantial growth in an area either directly or indirectly (e.g., through projects in an undeveloped area or extension of major infrastructure)? c) Displace existing housing, especially affordable housing? 3. GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS - WouM the proposal result in or expose people to potential impacts involving: ' a) Fault rupture? b) Seismic ground shaking? c) Seismic ground failure, including liquefaction? d) Seiche, tsunami, or volcanic hazard? e) Landslides or mudflows? f) Erosion, changes in topography or unstable soil conditions from excavation, grading, or fill? g) Subsidence of land? h) Expansive soils? i) Unique geologic or physical features? 4. WATER - Would the proposal result in: a) Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the. rate and amount of surface runoff?. b) Exposure of people or property to water related hazards such as flooding? c) Discharge into surface waters or other alteration of surface water quality (e.g., temperature, dissolved oxygen or turbidity)? d) Changes in the amount of surface water in any water body? e) Changes in currents, or the course or direction of water movements? Potentially Significant Impact Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less than Significant Impact No Impact 0 0 0 [5] 0 [5] 0 vi 0 [5] 0 [5] [5] 0 0 [5] 0 0 0 0 0 0 © 0 0 0 0 0 © 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 .0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O' 0 0 0 f) Change in the quantity of ground waters, either through direct additions or withdrawals, or through interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations or through substantial loss of groundwater recharge capability? g) Altered direction or rate of flow of groundwater? h) Impacts to groundwater quality? i)' Substantial reduction in the amount of groundwater otherwise available for public water supplies? . 5. AIR QUALITY - Wo,tM the proposal: . e . a) Violate any air quality standard or contribute to an existing or projected air quality violation? b) Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants? c) Alter air movement, moisture, or temperature, or cause any change in climate? d) Create objectionable odors? TRANSPORTATION & CIRCULATION- Would the proposal result in: a) Increased vehicle trips or traffic congestion? b) Hazards to safety from design features (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment) c) Inadequate emergency access or access to nearby uses? d) Insufficient parking capacity onsite or offsite? e) Hazards or barriers for pedestrians or bicyclists? f) Conflicts w~[h adopted policies supporting alternative transportation (e.g. bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? g) Rail, waterborne or air traffic impacts? BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES -: WouM the proposal result in impacts to: a) Endangered, threatened or rare species or their habitats (including but not limited to plants, fish, insects, animals, and birds? b) Locally designated species (e.g., heritage trees)? c) Locally designated natural communities (e.g., oak forest, coastal habitat, etc.)? d) Wetland habitat (e.g., marsh, riparian, and vernal pool)? e) Wildlife dispersal or migration corridors? ENERGY & MINERAL RESOURCES - Would the proposal: a) Conflict with adopted energy conservation plans? b) Use nonrenewable resources in a wasteful and inefficient manner? c) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of future value to the region? Potential(v Significant Impact ,uialb, Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less than Significant Irnpact No hnpact 0 © 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 © © 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 9. HAZARDS - WouM the proposal involve: a) A risk of accidental explosion or release of hazardous substances (including, but not limited to, oil, pesticides, chemicals, or radiation)? b) Possible interference with emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? c) The creation of any health hazard or potential,health hazard? d) Exposure of people to existing sources of potential health hazards? e) Increased fire hazard in areas with flammable brush, grass, or trees? 10. NOISE - WouM the proposal result in: 11. 12. a) Increases in existing noise levels? b) Exposure of people to severe noise levels? PUBLIC SERVICES - Would the proposal have an affect upon, or result in a need for new or altered government services in any of the following areas: a) Fire protection? b) Police protection? c) Schools? d) Maintenance .r>f public facilities, including roads? e) Other goverfi~nent services? UTILITIES & SERVICE SYSTEMS- Would'the proposal result in a need for new systems or supplies, or substantial alterations to the following utilities: a') Power or natural gas? b) Communications systems? c) Local or regional water treatment or distribution facilities? d) Sewer or septic tanks? e) Storm water drainage? f) Solid waste disposal? g) Local or regional water supplies? 13. AESTHETICS - WouM the proposal: a). Affect a scenic vista or scenic highway? b) Have a demonstrable negative aesthetic effect? c) Create light or glare? Potential(v Significant Impact ~tentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less than Significant Impact No Impact 0 0 0 0 0 © 0 0 0 O. 0 0 0 O. 0 0 0 0 0 0 © 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 14. CULTURAL RESOURCES - Would the proposal?: a) Disturb paleontological resources? b) Disturb archaeological resources? c) Have the potential to cause a physical change which would affect unique ethnic cultural values? d) Restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the potential impact area? 15. RECREATION - Would the proposal: a) Increase the demand for neighborhood or regional parks or other recreational facilities? b) Affect existing recreational opportunities? 16. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE a) b) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory Does the pro, j~:ct have the potential to achieve short-term to the disadvantage of long-term, environmental goals? c) 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). d) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? Significant Potentially Unless Less than Significant Mitigation Significant Impact Incorporated Impact No hnpact EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS Please refer to Attachment A for an evaluation of the environmental impacts identified in Section D above. ATTACHMENT A EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 99-001 AND ZONE CHANGE 99-001 ANALYSIS The proposed project involves amending the General Plan Land Use Designation and Zoning District of a 8,923 square foot abandoned portion of Caltrans right-of-way. The proposed amendments would not create significant impacts. Any potential impacts would be associated with discretionary approval of future' projects at the subject location, if proposed. Additional environmental review and analysis would be conducted at the time that a specific project is proposed to be implemented in accordance with the Tustin City Code and the California Environmental Quality Act. Since the proposed amendment is regulatory in nature, no potential impacts related to land use, planning, population, housing, geology, water quality, air quality, transportation, circulation, biological resources, energy or mineral resources, hazards, noise, public services, utilities, aesthetics, cultural resources, or recreation are anticipated. In addition, the proposed project does not have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment nor achieve short-term environmental goals to the disadvantage of long-term goals. The amendment has no environmental effects which are individually limited but cumulatively considerable nor that will cause substantial adverse direct or indirect effects. Source: Tustin City Code Tustin General Plan Mitigation/Monitorinq Required: None required. BE:Zc99001 negdec, doc ATTACHMENT E RESOLUTION' NOS. 99-21 AND 99-22 AND ORDINANCE NO. 1212 RESOLUTION NO. 99-21 l0 l? 20 22 24 25 2.? 29 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA, CERTIFYING THE FINAL NEGATIVE DECLARATION AS ADEQUATE FOR GENERAL PLAN. AMENDMENT 99-001 AND ZONE CHANGE 99-001 AS REQUIRED BY THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT. The City Council of the City of Tustin does hereby resolve as follows: I. The City Council finds and determines as followS: Ao That General Plan Amendment 99-001 and Zone Change 99-001 are considered "projects" pursuant to the terms of the California Environmental Quality Act; and B. A Negative Declaration has been prepared for this project and has been distributed for public review. Co Whereas, the Planning Commission of the City of Tustin has considered evidence presented by the Community Development Director and other interested parties with respect to the subject Negative Declaration, and on February 22, 1999 recommended that the City Council certify the Negative Declaration. D, The City Council of the City of Tustin has reviewed and considered the Negative Declaration and has determined that the Negative Declaration is adequate and complete. II. A Final Negative Declaration has been completed in compliance with CEQA and state guidelines. The City Council has received and considered the information contained in the Negative Declaration prior to recommending approval of the proposed project, and found that it adequately discussed the environmental effects of the proposed project. Further, the City Council finds the project involves no .potential for any adverse effects, whether individually or cumulatively, on wildlife resources; and, therefore, makes a De Minimis Impact finding related to the California State Department Fish and Game Code Section 711.4. PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Tustin City Council, held on the 1st day of March, 1999. THOMAS R. SALTARELLI Mayor PAMELA STOKER City Clerk RESOLUTION NO. 99-22 17 20 21 24 2? A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN, APPROVING GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 99-001, TO CHANGE THE LAND USE DESIGNATION FROM "TRANSPORTATION" TO "HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL" ON AN 8,923 SQUARE FOOT ABANDONED PARCEL OF CALTRANS RIGHT-OF-WAY ADJACENT TO PROPERTY LOCATED AT 15500 TUSTIN VILLAGE WAY. The City Council of the City of Tustin does hereby resolve as follows: The City Council finds and determines as follows: A, That proper applications were filed for General Plan Amendment 99- 001 and Zone Change 99-001 to amend the land use designation of an 8,923 square foot abandoned Caltrans right-of-way parcel located adjacent to the 1-5/SR-55 freeway interchange at 15500 Tustin Village Way, more specifically described as the Director's Deed recorded on September 28, 1998 as Instrument No. 19980649966 in the County of Orange. Bo That a public hearing was duly noticed, called and held on said application by the Planning Commission on February 22, 1999 and by the City Council on March 1, 1999; and, Co A Negative Declaration has been previously prepared for this project in accordance with the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA); and, Do That the existing General Plan Land Use Designation on the subject property reflects a use that has been abandoned by Caltrans; and, Eo Proposed General Plan Amendment 99-001 would provide consistency with the proposed Zoning District and is consistent with the Zoning District and General Plan Land Use Designation of the adjacent Townhome complex; and, Fo That the proposed General Plan Amendment to High Density Residential is in the best interest of the public health, safety and welfare of the surrounding area in that the proposed, designation is compatible with the surrounding residential uses. II. The City Council hereby approves General Plan Amendment 99-001 changing the Land Use Designation of the subject parcel from Transportation to High Density Residential as shown on Exhibit A, attached hereto. III. If any section, such section, sentence, clause, phrase or portion of this ordinance is for any reason held out to be invalid or unconstitutional by the decision of any court of competent jurisdiction, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this ordinance. The City Council of the City of Tustin hereby declares that it would have adopted this ordinance and each section, subsection, clause, phrase or portion thereof irrespective of the fact that any one or more sections, subsections, sentences, clauses, phrases, or portions be declared invalid or unconstitutional. l0 14 20 24 25 26 2? 28 29 Resolution No. 99-22 Page 2 PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Tustin City Council, held on the 1st day of March, 1999. THOMAS R. SALTARELLI Mayor PAMELA STOKER City Clerk STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF ORANGE ) CITY OF TUSTIN ) SS I, Pamela Stoker, City Clerk and ex-officio Clerk of the City Council of the City of Tustin, California, do hereby certify that the whole number of the members of the City Council of the City of Tustin is five; that the above and foregoing Resolution No. 99-22 was duly passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the Tustin City Council, held on the 1st day of March, 1999, by the following vote: COUNCILMEMBER AYES: COUNCILMEMBER NOES: COUNCILMEMBER ABSTAINED: COUNCILMEMBER ABSENT: PAMELA STOKER CITY CLERK . ZONING DISTRICT: PLANNED DEVELOPMENT (PD) GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL. .. ? (,. THAT PORTION OF PARCEL 1, IN THE CITY OF TUSTIN. COUNTY OF P[ ),~ ORANGE. STATE OF CALIFORNIA, AS DESCRIBED IN A DEED TO THE ~ · ¢ ' ~ STATE OF CALIFORNtA RECORDED ON NOVEMBER 18, 1953 IN BOOK . "~ (' 2614. PAGE 13 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY I · ~ ") RECORDER OF SAIR ORANGE COUNTY, LYING SOUTHWESTERLY OF THE I J`% ~,./ FOLLOWING DESCRIBED LINE; /-'- "?- BEG,..,.G AT THE SO~EASTER"Y TER,.,,NUS OF THE CURVE ~/2'% ¢ / DESCRIBED AS HAVING A RADIUS OF 828.00 FEET IN PARCEL 7256~1 OF . ' / ~ THE FINAL ORDER OF CONDEMNATION RECORDED ON MARCH 29. 1996 ~" · . ~ (' ~' IN DOCUMENT NO, 19960153956 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS IN THE OFFICE . %~."'~% ~' OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAID ORANGE COUNTY; THENCE ' ~. N~ ~ CONTINUING EASTERLY ALONG SIAD CURVE 57.11 FEET THROUGH A ~ J. CENTRAL ANGLE OF 3'57'07'; THENCE NON-TANGENT TO SAID CUR~/E ( ~' SOUTH 13'46'38' EAST 45.12 FEET TO THE BEGINNING OF A NON- '~_. ~ TANGENT CURVE CONCAVE SOUTHWESTERLY AND HAVING A RADIUS ~. ~ OF 801.33 FEET. A RADIAL TO SAID POINT BEARS NORTH 41'16'56' EAST; -- ~' THENCE ALONG SIAD CURVE SOUTHEASTERLY AND SOUTHERLY 438.50 .... · , ~ FEET THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 31'21'11' TO THAT CERTAIN ~'. COURSE DESCRIBED AS 'NORTH 4g'10'02' WEST 215.33 FEET' IN PARCEL " / ' · 4A OF THE FINAL ORDER OF CONDEMNATION RECORDED ON MAY 17. ' .4'.. - EXHIBITA  I m m , THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAID ORANGE COUNTY I I J I STfi, TERET~ ' ' RESOLUTION NO. 99-22 · F-XCEPT,NG THeReFROM. T~T CERT^,N. PARCEL OF L*.D^S DESCRIBED IN A DEED TO CHARLES M. PLUM AND MAE H. PLUM. -- -- RECORDED SEPTEMBER 18. lg57 IN BOOK 4040. PAGE 597 OF OFFICIAL FOR [NFORPI~T [0NC--L F UR RECORDS IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAlt) ORANGE .... · .. COUNt. o ]0 14 2.0 2] 24 25 28 29 ORDINANCE NO. 1212 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN, APPROVING ZONE CHANGE 99-001, CHANGING THE ZONING DISTRICT FROM UNCLASSIFIED (U) TO PLANNED DEVELOPMENT (PD) ON AN 8,923 SQUARE FOOT ABANDONED PARCEL OF CALTRANS RIGHT-OF-WAY ADJACENT TO PROPERTY LOCATED AT 15500 TUSTIN VILLAGE WAY. The City Council does hereby ordain as follows: I. The City Council finds and determines as follows: Ao That a proper application was filed for General Plan Amendment 99-001 and Zone Change 99-001 to amend the Zoning District of an 8,923 square foot abandoned Caltrans right-of-way parcel located adjacent to the 1-5/SR-55 freeway interchange at 15500 Tustin-Village Way, more specifically described as the Director's Deed recorded on September 28, 1998 as Instrument No. 19980649966 in the County of Orange and shown as Exhibit A attached hereto. Bo That a public hearing was duly called, noticed and held on said application on February 22, 1999 by the Planning Commission, and on March 1, 1999 by the City Council. Co That on February 22, 1999 the Planning Commission recommended that the City Council approve the project. Do That the proposed Zone Change 99-001 is consistent with the policies of the General Plan, in that: 1) Policy 1.9 encourages the consolidation of unused parcels to increase the opportunities for development and redevelopment. The proposed change would allow an abandoned right-of-way parcel to be incorporated into an existing residential community. 2) Policy 5.8 encourages the improvement of edge treatments between transportation rights-of-way and residential developments. The proposed change would allow a residential community the opportunity to redevelop an abandoned freeway right-of-way parcel that is adjacent to their community. Eo Approval of Zone Change 99-001 is contingent upon approval by the City Council of General Plan Amendment 99-001. ]0 14 t? 20 22 24 25 26 2? 28 29 Ordinance No. 1212 Page 2 II. Fo A Negative Declaration has been approved for this project by the City Council in accordance with the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The Tustin Village community Associates shall hold harmless and defend the City of Tustin from all claims and liabilities arising out of a challenge of the City's approval of this project. III. The City Council hereby approves Zone Change 99-001, amending the Zoning District of the subject parcel from "Unclassified" (U) to "Planned Development" (PD), as identified on Exhibit A attached hereto. IV. If any section, such section, sentence, clause, phrase or portion of this ordinance is for any reason held out to be invalid or unconstitutional by the decision of any court of competent jurisdiction, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this ordinance. The City Council of the City of Tustin hereby declares that it would have adopted this ordinance and each section, subsection, clause, phrase or portion thereof irrespective of the fact that any one or more sections, subsections, sentences, clauses, phrases, or portions be declared invalid or unconstitutional. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Tustin, at a regular meeting on the 15th day of March, 1999. THOMAS R. SALTARELLI Mayor PAMELA STOKER City Clerk ZONING DISTRICT: PLANNED DEVELOPMENT (PD) GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: / HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL ,  ' &, THAT PORTION OF PARCEL 1. IN THE CITY OF TUSTIN. COUNTY OF "~ r~ ),~ ORANGE STATE OF CALIFORNIA AS DESCRIBED IN A DEED T TH ,.,. ~, ? STATE OF CALIFORNIA RECORDED ON NOVEMBER 16. 1953 IN BOOK · , ~) (' 2614. PAGE 13 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY · ' / ,~'2 RECORDER OF SAIR ORANGE COUNTY. LYING SOUTHWESTERLY OF THE //~ ~ FOLLO~NG DESC~,BED L,NE: /-- '~ BEGINNING AT THE SOUTHEASTERLY TERMINUS OF THE C R ¢ D U VE (/?% j ESCRIBED AS HAVING A RADIUS OF 828.00 FEET IN PARCEL 72564-1 OF - / /' THE FINAL ORDER OF CONDEMNATION RECORDED ON MARCH 29. 1996 ~' · .%~ ¢ ~' IN DOCUMENT NO 19960153956 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS IN TH ' ~% '% F ' E OFFICE ' N""~ ~' 0 THE COUNTY RECORQ,ER OF SAID ORANGE COUNTY; THENCE ~, '~ ~' ' CONTINUING EASTERLY ALONG 'SIAD CURVE 57 11 FEET THROU H " C N · G A 4,~ ~ E TRAL ANGLE OF 3'57'07'; THENCE NON-TANGENT TO SAID CURVE 4,,, ~ ~' SOUTH 13'46'38' EAST 45.12 FEET TO THE BEGINNING OF A NON. '~-.--,, ~' TANGENT CURVE CONCAVE SOUTHWF,.STERLY AND HAVING A RADIUS ~ ~ OF 801.33 FEET. A-RADIAL TO SAID POINT BEARS NORTH 41'16'56' EAST; ~ THENCE ALONG SIAD CURVE SOUTHEASTERLY AND SOUTHERLY 438.50 . . ,~ FEET THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 31'21'11' TO THAT CERTAIN ~' COURSE DESCRIBED AS 'NORTH 49o10'02· WEST 215.33 FEE1' IN PARCEL JJ 4A OF THE FINAL ORDER OF CONDEMNATION RECORDED ON MAY 17. ~ 1961 IN BOOK 5724. PAGE 681 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS IN THE OFFICE OF I I'lSTATE RETs:THEc°uNTYREc°RDE"°FsAID°RANGEc°UNTY' EXHIBIT A ' ' EXCEPTING THEREFROM THAT CERTAIN.PARCEL OF LANO AS ORDINANCE 1212 DESCR,BED ,N A DEED TO C,ARLES M. AND .. 'LUM. RECORDED SEPTEMBER 18. 1957 IN BOOK 4040. PAGE 597 OF OFFICIAL I NF C'R hi.r- T [ (] N r-L F ',2'F, .ECOnOS ,. T.E OFF,CE OF THE COUN'n' nECO.DER OF SA,O .......... COUNTY.