HomeMy WebLinkAbout01 GP 98-002 ZC 98-005 01-19-99DATE:
JANUARY 19, 1999
NO. 1
1-19-99
In t e r-C o m
TO'
FROM:
SUBJECT:
VVILLIAM A. HUSTON, CITY MANAGER
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
PUBLIC HEARING FOR GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 98-002 AND ZONE CHANGE
98-005
~ 9&005 ar¢.a request to
parcelof
the i'TUs tin
the:Planning
RECOMMENDATION
That the City Council take the following actions:
1 Adopt Resolution No. 99-09 approving the environmental determination for the project;
2. Adopt Resolution No. 99-10 approving General Plan Amendment 98-002; and,
3. Introduce and have the first reading of Ordinance 1210 approving Zone Change 98-005
and set for second reading at the Council's next scheduled meeting.
BACKGROUND AND DISCUSSION
The Tustin Village Townhomes community is a 118 unit owner-occupied townhome complex
located at the southwest comer of the intersection of the I-5 Santa Ana Freeway and the SR-55
Newport Freeway at 15500 Tustin Village Way. In 1995, Caltrans completed their work on the
reconfiguration of the I-5/SR-55 freeway interchange. In reconfiguring the interchange, Caltrans
abandoned a parcel that was a portion of the freeway right-of-way. This .5 acre parcel is situated
along the eastern edge of the Tustin Village Townhomes complex. The parcel abuts the
Townhome complex and is separated from the current freeway right-of-way by a sound wall (see
Location Map).
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 City had the first option to acquire the parcel, but the City Engineer had found that there
was no public need for the parcel. To make use of the parcel, the Zoning Distdct and General Plan
Designation must be changed. Currently, the parcel is zoned "Unclassified" (U) and is designated
Ci~ Council Repod
GPA 98-002 and ZC 98-005
Janua~ 19,1999
Page 2
"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. 3643).
These designations are consistent with the Zoning District and Land Use Designations of the
Tustin Village Townhomes Complex.
No formal plans for any improvements on site have been submitted, however, accessory structures
such as residential parking facilities is a permitted use within this Planned Development and future
improvements would require building permits. Any other improvements would be subject to
applicable discretionary actions.
At their meeting on January 11, 1999, the Planning Commission expressed concern as to the
density of the project, and the potential for additional units to be constructed. There are currently
118 units within the 6.5 acre complex. The General'Plan allows for a maximum density of 25 units
per acre, or 162 units for this complex. As noted above, no plans have been submitted, but the
complex would be required to comply with all current standards for lot area, parking, and the like for
any expansion of the number of units within the .complex. The Commission then adopted
Resolution Nos. 3642 and 3643, recommending that the City Council approve the project.
ENVIRONMENTAL
Attachment C is the Initial Study/Negative Declaration prepared for this project. Notice of the
Negative Declaration public comment period was provided from December 25, 1998, through the
Planning Commission and City Council meetings. No significant impacts were identified. Any
potential impacts would be related to the approval of future projects.
BE:Zc98005ccreport doc
Elizabeth A. B~n-sack
Community Development Director
Attachments:
A - Location Map
B - Planning Commission Minutes
C - Planning Commission Resolution Nos. 3642 and 3643
D - Initial Study/Negative Declaration
RESOLUTION NO. 99-09
]o
]3
14
]5
]7
]8
20
24
25
28
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA, CERTIFYING THE FINAL NEGATIVE
DECLARATION AS -ADEQUATE FOR GENERAL PLAN
AMENDMENT 98-002 AND ZONE CHANGE 98-005 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 98-002 and Zone Change 98-005
are considered "projects" pursuant to the terms of the California
Environmental Quality Act; and
Bo
A Negative Declaration has been prepared for this project and has
been distributed for public review.
C.
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 January 11, 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 pdor 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 19th day of January, 1999.
THOMAS R. SALTARELLI
Mayor
PAMELA STOKER
City Clerk
RESOLUTION NO. 99-10
]2
]4
]6
]7
]8
20
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
TUSTIN, APPROVING GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 98-002, TO
CHANGE THE LAND USE DESIGNATION FROM
"TRANSPORTATION" TO "HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL" ON A .5
ACRE 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 a proper application was filed for Zone Change 98-005 to
amend the Zoning District of a .5 acre abandoned Caltrans right-of-
way parcel located adjacent to the I-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.
19980649965 in the County of Orange.
Bo
The a public hearing was duly noticed, called and held on said
application by the Planning Commission on January 11, 1999 and by
the City Council on January 19, 1999; and,
C.
A Negative Declaration has been previously prepared for this project .
in accordance with the provisions of the California Environmental
Quality Act (CEQA); .and,
D.
That the existing General Plan Land Use Designation on the subject
property reflects a use that has been abandoned by Caltrans; and,
E.
Proposed General Plan Amendment 98-002 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,
2]
22
23
24
25
I1.
F.
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.
The City Council hereby approves General Plan Amendment 98-002
changing the Land Use Designation of the subject parcel from
Transportation to High Density Residential as shown on Exhibit A, attached
hereto.
26
27
28
?-9
II1.
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.
3.0
3.1
3.3
3.4
3.5
3.6
3.'/
18
3.9
20
23.
23
2.4
28
Resolution No. 99-10
Page 2
PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Tustin City Council, held on
the 19th day of January 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, Califomia, 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. 99-10 was duly passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the Tustin City
Council, held on the 19th day of January, 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
.o
%...,../
/ ./~
/' / -r,
c/C ,]- ../
~ / %
· .~? ," ,
((~ o~ ~o~ ~s~., ~.~ o~. s~
B ~ON ~~ ~y ~7. ~m~ ~N
~ ~K ~4, PAGE 681 ~ O~ ~
COR~ OF ~D O~E ~U~,
SO~~y OF ~E FOXING DESCRIBED UNE ·
~ BEGIN~ AT ~E
~ ~ ............ ~Y~MINUS OF ~E ~ ~SC~BED ~
~ ~ A ~US ~ ~ ~ ~
~"~~ ~~ UN ~ 29 1~ I
~ ~ ~F ~ ................ N ~~NO. 1~01~
' ~r~ ~ ~ ~E ~CE OF ~E
~ ~"~ ]. ~n=m~ ~NUING ~y ~O~ ~ CUR~ ~ 11 ~
~ ~~H A CE~ ~ ~ 3'~' ~ENCE ~T~;~ Tn
~ CU~ ~ .13'~' ~ST ~ 12 F;~ ~ ~c o=~,~,~,~-~ ~--~ -
~ ~N~ ~~LY ~D
F~, A ~ TO ~D ~ · ~ A ~IUS OF ~1.~
T ~ E~Y 4~.~ ~ ~R~ ~
5 T E c~ ~ o~ 3~=~. ~
; : ~T CE~N ~U~E DESC~B~ ~..~
~ , 4~1~ ~ 215.~ ~ ~ PARC~ ~ OF ~E R~ ORD~ ~
COND~ ~~ ON ~Y 17, 1~1 IN ~K ~4. P~E ~1 ~
FOR [NFORH~T [0N~L o~E~.
EXHIBIT A
i
RESOLUTION NO. 99-10
l0
14
20
24
25
28
ORDINANCE NO. 1210
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
TUSTIN, APPROVING ZONE CHANGE 98-005, CHANGING THE
ZONING DISTRICT FROM UNCLASSIFIED (U) TO PLANNED
DEVELOPMENT (PD) ON A .5 ACRE 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 Zone Change 98-005 to
amend the Zoning District of a .5 acre 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.
19980649965 in the County of Orange.
B.
That a public hearing was duly called, noticed and held on said
application on January 11, 1999 by the Planning Commission, and
on January 19, 1999 by the City Council.
C.
That on January 11, 1999 the Planning Commission recommended
that the City Council approve the project.
Do
That the proposed Zone Change 98-005 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.
Do
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.
l0
]4
20
24
28
Ordinance No. 1210
Page 2
III.
The City Council hereby approves Zone change 98-005, 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 19th day of January, 1999.
THOMAS R. SALTARELLI
Mayor
PAMELA STOKER
City Clerk
ATTACHMENT
LOCATION MAP
LOCATI 0 N MAP ~/';'
?
/
VILLAGE
RE.ST
TV TOiCNHOM£$ !1
?LAND£R$
POINTE
LANE
LANE
~ ~ 1101
.:)-:%-~-'
.,,...MBO LANE /107
· i- -- o 0
I
:1~1 ~t 111
i
II41 ,
14'7
COSTA MESA FREEWAY
NO SCALE
ATTACHMENT B
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
JANUARY 11, 1999
Planning Commission Minutes
January 11, 1999
Page 3
Chairperson Pontious asked if staff could include a condition that a staff member monitor
the loading and unloading process and requested the applicant speak on her behalfi
Chairperson Pontious inquired about the percentage of children requiring care outside of
school hours.
Barbara Krull, applicant, stated that care outside of regular school hours was limited to 12
children, the school is required to track sign-ins on students and historically there have
been no more than 2 or 3 students arriving at the same time.
The Public Hearing closed at 7:15 p.m.
Commissioner Davert stated his approval of the project.
Commissioner Kozak stated his approval of the project.
Commissioner Jones stated his approval of the project.
The Director asked the Commission if there was a consensus on adding a condition for a
staff member to monitor drop-offs and pick-ups.
The Commission stated their consensus to add the condition.
Commissioner JoneS moved, Commissioner Davert seconded, to adopt Resolution
No. 3647 approving Conditional Use Permit 98-023 and Design Review 98-028, as
revised. Motion carried 5-0.
3,
General Plan Amendment 98-002 and Zone Change 98-005 a request to amend
the General Plan Land Use Designation for a .5 acre abandoned Caltrans parcel
from Transportation to High Density Residential and amend the zoning distdct from
Unclassified (U) to Planned Development (PD). The project is located at 15500
Tustin Village Way within the Unclassified zoning district.
APPLICANT/
PROPERTY
OWNER:
MR. ELMER TIEDJE
TUSTIN VILLAGE COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION
Recommendation
.
That the Planning Commission adopt Resolution No. 3642
recommending that the City Council certify as adequate the Negative
Declaration for General Plan Amendment 98-002 and Zone Change 98-
005; and,
2. That the Planning Commission adopt Resolution No. 3643
recommending that the City Council approve General Plan Amendment
98-002 and Zone Change 98-005.
Planning Commission Minutes
January 11, 1999
Page 4
The Public Headng opened at 7:17 p.m.
Bradley Evanson presented the subject report.
Commissioner Davert stated his concern that additional parking built on the parcel might
qualify for additional development in the area and asked that could be restricted.
The Director stated that the Commission does not have the ability to condition a zone
change and the density, for that location. Given the development that has occurred,
development of another unit is unlikely.
Commissioner Davert asked if the project would come before the Planning Commission if
a future owner were to request additional dwelling units.
The Director stated that any additional development would come before the Commission
for consideration.
The Public Hearing closed at 7:20 p.m.
Commissioner Davert moved, Commissioner Jones seconded.., to adopt Resolution
No. 3642 recommending that the City Council certify as adequate the Negative
Declaration for General Plan Amendment 98-002 and Zone Change 98-00.5. Motion
carried 5-0.
Commissioner Davert moved, COmmissioner Jones seconded, to adopt Resolution
No. 3643 recommending that the City Council approve General Plan Amendment
98-002 and Zone Change 98-005. Motion carried 5-0.
1
Conditional Use Permit 98-032 is a request to amend the Master Sign Program
for the Tustin Marketplace to allow pad tenants occupying a building of at least.
10,000 square feet as a sole tenant to have an aggregate total of up to 300 square
feet of signage,' allocated among up to four elevations with no more than 150
square feet on any one elevation. The project is located at 3030 El Camino Real
within the East Tustin Specific Plan Mixed Use Land Use designation.
APPLICANT:
STUART ANDERSON'S RESTAURANTS
PROPERTY
OWNER:
IRVlNE RETAIL PROPERTIES
C/O: DONAHUE SCHRIBER
Recommendation
That the Planning Commission adopt Resolution
Conditional Use Permit 98-032.
No. 3646 approving
ATTACHMENT C
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTIONS
NOS. 3642 AND 3643
10
15
17
Ill
2O
2.1
24
26
2.?
RESO.LUTION NO. 3642
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 98-002 AND ZONE CHANGE 98-005 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 98-002 and Zone Change 98-005
are considered "projects" pursuant to the terms of the California
Environmental Quality Act; and
Bo
C°
A Negative Declaration has been prepared for this project and has
been distributed for public review.
VVhereas, the City Engineer has determined that there is no public
need for the subject parcel.
Do
· VVhereas, 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. VVhen 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.
2O
34
26
28
Resolution 3642
Page 2
PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Tustin
Commission, held 'on the 11th day of January, 1999.
'ELIZABETR A. BINSACK - ~
Planning Commission Secretary
Planning
LESLIE 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. 3642
was duly passed and adopted at a regular meeting' of the Tustin Planning
Commission, held on the 11th day of January, 1999.
ELIZABETH A. BINSACK
Planning Commission Secretary
]2
14
15
]?
]8
20
2]
24
26
2?
29
RESOLUTION NO. 3643
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF TUSTIN, RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL
APPROVE GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 98-002 AND ZONE
CHANGE 98-005, 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 .5
ACRE ABANDONED PARCEL OF CALTRANS RIGHT-OF-WAY
ADJACENT' TO PROPERTY LOCATED AT 15500 TUSTIN
VILLAGE waY.
The Planning Commission does hereby resolve as follows:
The Planning Commission finds and determines as follows:
Ao
..
That a'proper application for General Plan Amendment 98-002 and
Zone Change 98-005 to amend the General Plan Land Use
Designation and Zoning District .of .5 acre abandoned Caltrans
right-of-way parcel located adjacent to the I-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. 19980649965 in the County of Orange.
Bo
C,
That a public hearing was duly called, noticed and held on said
application on January 11, 1999 by the Planning Commission.
That the proposed General Plan Amendment 98-002 and Zone
Change 98-005 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 fight-of-way parcel to be incorporated into an
existing residential community.
2)
Policy 5.8 encourages the improvement of edge treatments
between transportation fights-of-way and residential
developments. The proposed amendments would allow a
residential community the opportunity to redevelop an
abandoned freeway fight-of-way parcel that is adjacent to
their community.
D,
Whereas, the City Engineer has determined that there is no public
need for the subject Parcel.
Eo
That the proposed amendments ensure consistency between the
General Plan and the Zoning Ordinance.
10
2O
21
24
Resolution No. 3643
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 98-002 and Zone Change 98-005,
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 11th day of January, 1999.
ELIZABETH A. BINSACK
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. 3643
was duly passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the Tustin Planning
Commission, held on the 11th day of January, 1999.
ELIZABETH A. BINSACK
Planning Commission Secretary
ATTACHMENT D
INITIAL STUDY/NEGATIVE DECLARATION
COMM-U-NITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
300 Centennial Way, Tustin, CA 92780
(714) 573-3100
INITIAL STUDY
· A. BACKGROUND
Project Title: General Plan Amendment 98-002 and Zone Chanqe 98-005
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 Plan Designation: TransPortation
Zoning Designation: Unclassified
Project Description:
Caltrans abandoned a .5 acre parcel of right-of-way adjacent to the Tustin
Village Townhome 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: Caltrans Right-of-Way
South: Residential
East: Caltrans Right-of-Way
West: Residential
Other public agencies whose approval is required:
[23
Orange County Fire Authority
Orange County Health Care Agency
South Coast Air Quality Management
District
Other
0
0
City of Irvine
City of Santa Arm
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
~-]Populmion and Housing
I--]Geological Problems
[-]Water
[-]Air Quality
["]Transportation & Circulation
[-~BiolOgical Resources
[-]Energy and Mineral Resources
[-]Hazards
[~Noise
I-]Public Services
[--]Utilifies and Service Systems.
[---]Aesthetics
[--]Cultural Resources
[-]Recreation
[--]Mandatory Findings of Significance
C. DETERMINATION:
On the basis of this initial evaluation:
[5~] 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.enviroment, 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 enviroment, and an
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.
[---l I f'md 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 l) 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 f'md 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
Signature ~'/-~~5,..// "'/~ DatC"'Oe.~.nb~ 1~3 (~9 ~
Print Name Bmdle~ son Title Assistant Planner
2
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS:
Earlier analyses used:
Available for review at: City 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. POP.ULATION & 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 - Would 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 fi.om 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 nmotT?.
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
O
O
O
0
E]
E]
0
0
E]
E]
E]
E]
0
E]
E]
E]
E]
E]
0
0
0
E]
0
0
0
E]
E]
0
0
0
E]
E]
0
0
0
0
0
E]
E]
0
E]
E]
E]
0
E]
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
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- WouM the proposal:
.
o
0
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- WouM
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 with 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 - WouM 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?
Potentially
Significant
Impact
l~otentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
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
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
9. HAZARDS - Would the proposal involve:
a) A risk of accidental explosion or release of hazardous
substances (including, but not limited to, oil, pesticides,
chemicals, or radiation)?
b) Possible interference with emergency response plan or
emergency evacuation plan?
c) The creation of any health hazard or potential health
hazard?
d) Exposure of people to existing sources of potential
health hazards?
e) Increased fire hazard in areas with flammable brush,
grass, or trees?
10. NOISE - Would the proposal result in:
11.
12.
a) Increases in existing noise levels?
b) Exposure of people to severe noise levels?
PUBLIC SERVICES - WouM 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 of public facilities, including roads?
e) Other government Services?
UTILITIES & SERVICE SYSTEMS- WouM 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?
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
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
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
14. CULTURAL RESOURCES- WouM 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 - WouM 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
Does the project have the potential to degrade the
quality of the environment, substantially reduce the
habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or
wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels,
threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community,
reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or
endangered plant or animal or eliminate important
examples of the major periods of California history or
prehistory
b)
c)
Does the project have the potential to achieve short-term
to the disadvantage of long-term, environmental goals?
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).
Does the project have environmental effects which will
cause substantial adverse effects on human beings,
either directly or indirectly?
Potentially
Significant
Potentially Unless Less than
Significant Mitigation Significant
Impact Incorporated Impact
No Impact
.[5] 0 0 ,[]
0 0 0 ~q
0 0 0 ~
0 0 0 ~q
0 0 0 ~
ge
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 98-002 AND ZONE CHANGE 98-005
ANALYSIS
The proposed project involves amending the General Plan Land Use Designation and
Zoning District of an 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" ~i
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/Monitoring Required: None required.
BE:Zc98005negdec.doc