HomeMy WebLinkAbout02 Prezone 02-001 for Annex 158ITEM #2
_Y
Re Port to the ST1�
Planning Commission
DATE: DECEMBER 9, 2002
SUBJECT: PREZONE 02-001 FOR ANNEXATION 158
(LORETTA/BONNER/MEDFORD/GROVESITE ANNEXATION)
APPLICANT/
PROPERTY
OWNER: CITY OF TUSTIN
LOCATION: 17521, 17531, 17541, 17551, 17561, 17571, 17581,17522, 17532,
17542, 17552, 17562, AND 17572 BONNER DRIVE; 13791,
13801, 13815, 13831, 13841, 13762, 13772, 13782, 13792, 13802,
13816, 13832, AND 13842 LORETTA DRIVE; 17592, 17602,
17612, 17626, 17642, 17652, AND 17662 MEDFORD AVENUE;
AND 13771, 13781, 13791, 138019 13815, 13831, 13841, 13772,
13782, 13792, 13802, 13816, 13832, 13842, AND 13852
GROVESITE DRIVE
ZONING: COUNTY OF ORANGE SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL
ENVIRONMENTAL
STATUS: A NEGATIVE DECLARATION HAS BEEN PREPARED IN
CONFORMANCE WITH THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL
QUALITY ACT (CEQA).
REQUEST: PREZONING OF LORETTA/BONNER/MEDFORD/GROVESITE
PROPERTIES FROM THE ORANGE COUNTY "SINGLE FAMILY
RESIDENTIAL" ZONING DISTRICT TO THE CITY OF TUSTIN
SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL (R-1) ZONING DISTRICT AND
ANNEXATION OF LORETTA/BONNER/MEDFORD/GROVESITE
PROPERTIES INTO THE CITY OF TUSTIN.
RECOMMENDATION
That the Planning Commission:
1. Adopt Resolution No. 3853 recommending that the City Council certify as adequate the
Negative Declaration for Prezone 02-001 for Annexation 158.
2. Adopt Resolution No. 3854 recommending that the City Council approve Prezone 02-
001 for Annexation 158.
Planning Commission Report
Prezone 02-001
December 9, 2002
Page 3
Annexation Process
Upon the City Council approval of Prezone 02-001, the City Council would submit an
application to and request the Local Agency Formation Commission of Orange County
(LAFCO) to initiate proceedings to annex the identified properties from the unincorporated
area of Orange County to the City of Tustin. If the annexation is approved by LAFCO, the
pre -zoning classification would become the official zoning for these properties.
Attachment 3 provides information related to annexation process, changes to services
and taxes, and Orange County strategies.
Previous Annexations
Previously, in 1977, 1985, and 1990, three annexation attempts were initiated by both the
City and the residents of the County island. All three failed during the protest hearings due
to opposition by the residents. The residents felt annexation would provide no significant
benefits and they wanted to retain the status quo. With the passage of AB 1555, no
protest hearing is required for any annexation requests of islands that are 75 acres or less.
Therefore, upon LAFCO approval of the City's application to annex the County island into
the City of Tustin, the annexation would become final.
ENVIRONMENTAL
Exhibit A of Resolution No. 3853 is the Initial Study/Negative Declaration prepared for the
Prezoning and potential annexation of the Loretta/Bonner/Medford/Grovesite Annexation.
Notice of the Negative Declaration and Notice of Public Comment period was provided
from November 14, 2002, through December 3, 2002. No significant impacts were
identified and no public comments were received.
Elizabeth A. Binsack
Community Development Director
- (6 & 11 f4a.
Jus i Wi kom
Associate Planner
Attachments:
1. Prezoning Map
2. Fiscal Feasibility Report
3. Workshop Presentation Materials
4. Workshop Follow-up questions and answers
5. Resolution No. 3853
6. Resolution No. 3854
SACdd\PCREPORIIPrezone 02-001.doc
ATTACHMENT
PREZONING MAP
I
I
I
LAURIE LN.
ZONING DISTRICTS
u
Single Family Residence
TOTAL AREA - U.41 ACRES
TUSTTI ,\I
1
BOUNDARIES
City Boundaries
NOTE:
Area Is Within
City of Tustin
Sphere of Influence
County Unincorporated Areas
Tustin Island 3 -TU -1
County of orange, California
6 /29 /99
VICINITY MA.P
r ,V
0'
80, 160' ��� tFot'�� �l
PUBLIC FACILITIES AND RESOURCES DEPT.
Geomatics / Land Information Systems Division
GIS Maoorng Unit
ATTACHMENT
FISCAL FEASIBILITY REPORT
Orange County Local Agency Formation Commission
City Oustf Tin Dwaft Annexation
Fiscal
Feasibility Report
January 9, 2002
eco
12 Civic Cerner Plaza, Roan 235
Santa Ana, Calffomia 92701
(714)834-2556
Fl- -
88wdd.aeat
Rosenow Spevacek Group, Inc.
540 North Golden Circle, Suite 305
Santa Ana, California 92705
Phone: (714) 541-4585
Fax: (714) 836-1748
E -Mail: info ,webrsg.com
Table of Contents
I. BACKGROUND........................................................................................._.. 1
A. STUDY AREA DESCRIPTION.:................................................................................1
B. STUDY AREA SERVICE PROVIDERS....................................................................1
C. ASSUMPTIONS....................................................................................................._....2
II. REVENUES.................................................................................................... 2
A. GENERAL FUND......................................................................................................2
1. Taxes...............................................................................:.....................................2
a. Property Taxes.............................................................................................2
b. Property Transfer Taxes...............................................................................2
C. Homeowners Property Tax Relief................................................................3
2. State Subventions (Motor Vehicle Fees)
3. Franchise Fees.......................................................................................................3
4. Development Related Fees..............................................................................
a. Land Use Planning and Regulation Fees.........:...........................................3
b. Building Inspection and Permit Fees...........................................................3
C. Engineering Fees..........................................................................................4
5. Other Revenues.....................................................................................................4
a. Fines and Forfeitures....................................................................................4
b. Miscellaneous Revenues..............................................................................4
B. ROAD FUND..............................................................................................................4
III. EXPENDITURES.......................................................................................... 4
A. GENERAL FUND EXPENDITURES......................................................................4
1. General Government..............................................................................................5
a. Administration
b. Animal Control........................................................................................ _ ...5
C. County Property Tax Collection Charges....................................................5
Rosenow Spevacek Group, Inc 1 Annexation Fiscal Feasibility Report
August, 2000 "FCO
2. Public Safety........................................................
a. Law Enforcement............................................................ .......... _ ....5
..............
b. Fire Protection..............................................................................................5
3. Community Development...................................................................................6
4. Public Works......................................................................
a. Street Lighting ..........................
b. Street Sweeping ....................................
B. ROAD FUND EXPENDITURES..............................................................................6
1. Street Maintenance ..... :...............
................................. .......6
...................................
2. Traffic Signals.........................................................................
IV. SUMMARY OF FINDINGS...................................................:..................... 7
APPENDIX 1
Table A-1 — General Fund Revenues and Expenditures
Table A-2 — Road Fund Revenues and Expenditures
Table A-3 — General Fund and Road Fund Summary
Table A-4 — County Island Details
APPENDIX 2
County Unincorporated Island Map
Rosenow Spevacek Group, Inc 11 Annexation Fiscal Feasibility. Report
August, 2000
LA FCO
ANNEXATION FISCAL FEASIBILITY REPORT
I. BACKGROUND
The Orange County Local Agency Formation Commission ("LAFCO") has requested the Rosenow
Spevacek Group, Inc. ("RSG") to prepare a fiscal feasibility analysis ("Report" or "Study")
pertaining to the annexation of the unincorporated island located within the City of Tustin's Sphere
of Influence ("Study Area"). This Report can be used to meet certain applicable requirements of the
Cortese -Knox Government Reorganization Act, if and when the City of Tustin ("City") desires to
pursue annexation of this area. This Report will focus on what City services will be provided within
this area, the forecasted cost of those services, and what revenues could reasonably be expected to be
available to fund those services. It should be understood that there will usually be differences
between the estimated and actual results because events and circumstances frequently do not occur
as expected, and those differences may be material.
A. STUDY AREA DESCRIPTION
The Study Area is approximately 11.4 acres in size and -comprised of 48 single-family
residential units. The Study Area is generally located east of the Costa Mesa Freeway
(55), west of Prospect Avenue, north of Seventeenth. Street and south of Santa Clara
Avenue. Based on Census 2000 data, the population of the Study Area is 126. Please
see Appendix 2 for a map of the Study Area.
B. CURRENT AND POST ANNEXATION SERVICE PROVIDERS
rvice
Current
Provider
Post Annexation
Provider
feral Government
County of Orange
City of Tustin
Governing Board
County Board of Supervisors
City Council of the City of Tustin
Management
County of Orange
City of Tustin
Attorney
County of Orange
City of Tustin
Admin. Services/Finance/Clerk
County of Orange
City of Tustin
clic Safety
County of Orange
City of Tustin
Law Enforcement
Orange County Sheriffs Department
Tustin Police Department
Fire Protection
;Orange County Fire Authority
Orange County Fire Authority
Animal Control
County of Orange
County of Orange
Community Development
Planning
County of Orange
City of Tustin
Building
County of Orange
City of Tustin
Code Enforcement
County of Orange
City of Tustin
Public Works
Public Works Administration
County of Orange
City of Tustin
Road Maintenance
Countv of Orange
City of Tustin
Street Lighting
County of Orange
City of Tustin
)ther Services
Domestic Water
City of Tustin
City of Tustin
Sewer Services
Orange County Sanitation District
Orange County Sanitation District
Rosenow Spevacek Group, Inc.
January, 2002 Annexation Fiscal Feasibility Report
1
LAFCO/lslands/Tustin I_4FC0
C. ASSUMPTIONS
The assumptions used in this analysis were based on documentation and data
provided by the County of Orange ("County"), City budget data and case study
methodology. While RSG has taken precautions to assure the accuracy of the data
used in the formulation of this analysis, we cannot ensure that these estimates are an
accurate method to project future events. In addition, this analysis does not consider
any potential impacts that Proposition 218 ("Right to Vote on Tax Act") may have on
revenue forecasts.
This Report does not take into account state, federal or CDBG monies that may be
available or capital improvement projects that may be necessary if annexation were to
occur.
IL REVENUES
RSG has applied data from the County in calculating anticipated revenues to be generated by the
Study Area where possible. When such methodologies were not available, revenues were calculated
based upon a per capita or per household basis using City budget data or case study methodology.
This information was utilized to calculate certain revenue and cost factors presented below.
A. GENERAL FUND
The primary sources of General Fund revenues are noted below and shown on Table
A-1:
1. Taxes:
a. Property Taxes:
The City's property tax revenue is based on a property tax ratio of
45/55% to be split between the City and the County, respectively. In
addition, the City will receive the aforementioned split associated with
the dissolved Orange County Street Lighting Assessment. District. The
2001-02 total assessed value for the Study Area is $7,548,040.
b. Property Transfer Taxes:
Property transfer taxes are generated at the time a new property is sold
or an existing property is resold. The property transfer taxes shown on
Table A-1 are derived ,from the sale of existing homes in the Study
Area. A property transfer tax of $1.10 per $1,000 (0.110%) of
transferred value is levied on the sale of real property and is divided
between the County and the City. The amount of property transfer tax
received will depend upon the level of resale activity within the Study
Area. These revenues have been estimated for residential properties
Rosenow Spevacek Group, Inc. Annexation Fiscal Feasibility Report
January, 2002 FCO
LAFCO/Islandslrustin
using the assumption of a 5% assessed value turnover rate annually at
the rate of 550 per $1,000 of assessed value.
C. Homeowners Property Tax Relief:
Revenue estimates generated from the Homeowner's Property Tax
Relief were not specifically projected because this analysis bases the
Property Tax Apportionment on assessed valuation gross of the
Homeowners Exemption. Therefore_ , revenue from the Homeowner's
Property Tax Relief is included in the Property Tax Apportionment.
2. State Subventions (Motor Vehicle Fees):
Upon annexation, the City will be eligible to receive Motor Vehicle In -Lieu
taxes. These taxes are collected by the State's Department of Motor Vehicles
and allocated to cities on a per capita basis. Off-road Vehicle taxes are also
allocated to cities by the State on a per capita basis. Both subventions are
based on the estimated population of 126 for the Study Area.
The per capita figure of $54.23 used in the revenue summary has been
provided by the State Controller's office for the 2001-02 fiscal year, and
includes both on and off-highway fees.
3. Franchise Fees:
Upon annexation, the City will receive the franchise fees currently paid to the
County. Fees for the aforementioned franchises have been estimated at
$47.79 per household using current budget figures from the City.
4. Development Related Fees:
The fees described below are not included in Table A-1 because these fees
specifically offset costs of development related services.
a. Land Use Planning and Regulation Fees:
The City is authorized to charge fees for all land use planning and
regulation services. The City would utilize their existing fee schedule.
These fees should offset most of the City's cost in providing these
services.
h. Building Inspection and Permit Fees:
The fees collected for these building and permit inspection services
should, in most cases, totally offset the cost of these services.
Rosenow Spevacek Group, Inc. Annexation Fiscal Feasibility Report
.January, 2002 � I✓,9 FCO
C. Engineering Fees:
The City is also authorized to charge fees for plan checking, public
works inspection, permit issuance and review and other engineering
services. The fees collected for these services should, in most cases,
offset the cost of these services.
5. Other Revenues:
a. Fines and Forfeitures:
This represents Motor Vehicle Code fines and City ordinance fines.
Fines and forfeitures were estimated at $9.02 per capita using current
budget figures from the City.
b. Miscellaneous Revenues:
Miscellaneous revenues include the sale of real and personal property
and the sale of maps and publications. This revenue has been
estimated at $1.20 per capita using case study methodology.
B. ROAD FUND
All Road Fund subventions are calculated and allocated to the cities on a per capita
basis, with the exception of Section 2107.5. The State Subvention Section 2107.5 is
allocated to the cities based upon total population size. It is estimated that the
proposed annexation of the Study Area would add approximately 126 people to the
City's, population. According to State data, this added population would notlace the
City's population status into the next revenue threshold. As such, no revenue is
reflected relative to Section 2107.5. Other Road Fund revenues include the voter -
approved Measure "M" sales tax distributed by the Orange County Transportation
Authority. Please see Table A-2 for the primary sources of Road Fund revenues.
Revenues attributed to these gasoline taxes are restricted for use on road related
maintenance expenditures.
III. EXPENDITURES
A. GENERAL FUND EXPENDITURES
Expenditures have been categorized by departments within the City's organizational
structure and are estimated as follows:
Rosenow Spevacek Group, Inc.
January, 2002 Annexation Fiscal Feasibility Report
LAFCO/Islands/ usun 4 LAFCO
FROM ORANGE LAFCO
(THU) 2. 14' 02-15:Of .. 15:07/N0. 4860219465 P 2
1. General Government:
a• Administration:
The analysis assumed no new positions, equipment or major operating
costs would be incurred as a result of the annexation. Minimal
expenditures were estimated including a per capita expense of $1.50
for elections and $2.00 for G=M -al Government, which includes Iegal
COM, advertising, Postagc, and other selected services and supplies.
b. Animal Control:
The City contracts with the County for animal control services. Upon
annexation, the City will continue to contract for animal control
services for the Study Area. Costs were estimated using ,a net per
capita estimate of $2.19 derived from information received from the
County,
C, County Property Tax Collection Charges:
Beginning in 1992-93, the County Auditor -Controller's Office charged
cities and local districts receiving property tax revenue for incidental
administrative costs- These charges are estimated at .25% of all
Property tax revenues.
2.Public Safety:
a. Law Enforcement:
Based on the size and land use of the Study Arca, this Report assumes
that the annexation can be accomplished immediately with existing
department resources.
b• Fire Protection:
The Orangc County Fire Authority C,OCFA,) currently provides fire
Protection and paramedic services to the Study Area. Upon
annexation, the OCFA will continuc to provide fire protection and
paramedic services to the Study Area. Structural Fire Fund property
tax revenues will continue to pass through to the OCFA as
conipen-UUM for the additional service area added to the City's
conte,
XOSMOW Speyocek Group, Inc
Ammery, 2002 Annexation Fiscal FeusfbU&y jteport
LAroanbhAur,'d' 5 4AFCU
3. Community Development:
Upon annexation of the Study Area, the Community Development
Department will assume the processing of all land use related services. These
services will, inmost cases, be offset by fees.
This Report assumes that the Study Area will not substantially add to the
demands on the resources allocated to code enforcement. Existing staffing
levels can absorb the impacts associated with the annexation.
The Community Development Department is responsible for the annexation
process. It is RSG's understanding that LAFCO will waive all application
fees associated with the annexation of the Study Area.
4. Public Works:
For purposes of this Report, it is assumed that the current level of service of
maintenance programs is sufficient for the Study Area's needs.
a. Street Lighting:
The County of Orange currently provides street lighting services
within the Study Area. The County estimates the electricity costs
associated with street lighting to be $810 annually. There are currently
nine streetlights located within the Study Area's boundaries.
b. Street Sweeping:
The County of Orange currently provides street sweeping services to
the Study Area. The County estimates the cost of street sweeping to
be $329 annually. The County currently street sweeps on a monthly
basis. County street sweeping costs have been multiplied by four to
account for the City's weekly street sweeping requirement.
B. ROAD FUND EXPENDITURES
1. Street Maintenance:
The County of Orange, on average, slurry seals every seven years, overlays
every twenty-one years and stripes annually. Maintenance costs provided by
the County are estimated to be $8,969 annually based on a 30 -year arnortized
capital improvement program. There are .8 lane miles located in the Study
Area.
Rosenow Spevacek group, Inc. Annexation Fiscal Feasibility Report
January, 2002 6
LAFCO/lslands/Tusti n L,9FC0
2. Traffic Signals:
The Study Area does not contain any traffic signals.
IV. SUMMARY OF FINDINGS
The following chart, also depicted in Table A-3, details the financial information for the
Study Area.
2001-02 Summary of Revenues and Expenditures
City of Tustin Annexation Analysis
3 -TU -1
General Fund
General Fund Revenues 14,010
General Fund Expenditures 11,536
General Fund Surplus/(Deficit) 12,474
Road Fund
Road Fund Revenues 4,091
Road Fund Expenditures 10,287
Road Fund Surplus/(Deficit) (6,196)
Total All Revenues 18,102
Total All Expenditures 11,823
Revenue Surplus/(Deficit) 6,279
Based upon this fiscal analysis of annexing the Study Area, estimated General Fund revenues
exceed estimated expenditures by $12,474. However, Road ,Fund expenditures exceed
revenues by $6,196 for a revenue surplus of an estimated $6,279. Please see Table A-4 for
details associated with the calculation of the aforementioned revenues and expenditures.
Rosenow Spevacek Group, Inc. Annexation Fiscal Feasibility Report
January, 2002 7 LAFCQ
LAFCO/lslands/Tustin
APPENDIX I
Rosenew Spevacek Group, Inc- lli Annexation Fiscal Feasibility Re
August, 2000 port
L14 JC;"CO
Table A-1
2001-02 Estimated General Fund Revenues and Expenditures
City of Tustin Annexation Analysis
General Fund Expenditures
General Government 441
Street Lighting 810
Animal Control 276
County Property Tax Collection Fee ,91
Total Expenditures 19536
General Fund Operating Surplus (Deficit) 129474
01/09/2002 10:56 AM
1 of 6 Tustin CFA / (GF)
3 -TU -1
General Fund Revenues
Property Tax
2 119
�OcSLAD 'Property Tax
15270
-Tyropur y Transfer Tax
208
Motor Vehicle In -Lieu
6,833
Franchise Fees
2,294
Fines & Forfeitures
L136
Miscellaneous Revenues
151
Total Revenues
149010
General Fund Expenditures
General Government 441
Street Lighting 810
Animal Control 276
County Property Tax Collection Fee ,91
Total Expenditures 19536
General Fund Operating Surplus (Deficit) 129474
01/09/2002 10:56 AM
1 of 6 Tustin CFA / (GF)
Table A-2
2001-02 Estimated Road Fund Revenues and Expenditures
City of Tustin Annexation Analysis
Total Road Fund Revenues 49091
Road Fund Expenditures
Street Maintenance 89969
Street Sweeping 1 318
Total Road Fund Expenditures 10 287
Road Fund Surplus (Deficit) (69196)
01/09/2002 10:56 AM
2 of 6 Tustin CFA / (RF)
3 -TU -1
Road Fund Revenues
Section 2105
794
Section 2106
489
Section 2107,
1,042
Measure "M"
1,767
Total Road Fund Revenues 49091
Road Fund Expenditures
Street Maintenance 89969
Street Sweeping 1 318
Total Road Fund Expenditures 10 287
Road Fund Surplus (Deficit) (69196)
01/09/2002 10:56 AM
2 of 6 Tustin CFA / (RF)
Table A-3
2001-02 Summary of Revenues and Expenditures
City of Tustin Annexation Analysis
3 -TU -1
General Fund
General Fund Revenues 149010
General Fund Expenditures 1,536
General Fund Surplus/(Deficit) 12!474
Road Fund
Road Fund Revenues 4,091
Road Fund Expenditures 10,287
Road Fund Surplus/(Deficit) (6,196)
Total All Revenues 18,102
Total All Expenditures I'L,823
Revenue Surplus/(Deficit) 6,279
01/09/2002 10:56 AM
3 of F. 7UStip CF .A / Summa'_
Table A-4
County Island Details
City of Tustin Annexation Analysis
Item 3 -TU -1 Information 'Obtained From
General Fund Revenues
Property Taxes
2001-02 Secured Assessed Value 7,546,444 Orange County Auditor/Controller
2001-02 Unsecured Assessed Value 1,596 Orange County Auditor/Controller
2001-02 Total Assessed Value 7,548,040 Orange County Auditor/Controller
Assessed Value X .01
Orange County General Fund Tax Rate
Tustin Master Property Tax Rate
General Fund Property Tax
OCSLAD Property Tax Rate
OCSLAD Property Tax
Property Transfer Tax
Property Transfer Rate
AV*Property Transfer Rate
$.55 per 1,000 of value
Motor Vehicle Fees
Per Capita
Motor Vehicle Fees
Franchise Fees
Per Household
Franchise Fees
Fines & Forfeitures
Per Capita
Fines & Forfeitures
Miscellaneous Revenues
Per Capita
Miscellaneous Revenue
General Fund Expenditures
General Government
Per Capita
General Government Costs
01 / 09/200210:56 AM
4of6
75,480
6.25% Orange County Auditor/Controller
44.95% Orange County LAFCO
2,119
3.74% Orange County Auditor/Controller
1,270
5.00% RSG estimate
377,322
208
54.23 State Controller's Office (2001-02 information)
6,833
47.79 2001-02 Tustin City Budget
2,294
9.02 2001-02 Tustin City Budget
1,136
1.20 RSG estimate
151
3.50 RSG estimate
441
Tustin CFA / Details
Table A-4
County Island Details
City of Tustin Annexation Analysis
Item 3 -TU -1 Information Obtained From
-1
Street Lighting 810 Southern California Edison Estimate
Animal Control
Net Per Capita
Animal Control Costs
County Property Tax Collection Fee
County Property Tax Collection Fee
Road Fund Revenues
2105 (Per Capita)
Total 2105
2106 (Per Capita)
Total 2106
2107 (Per Capita)
Total 2107
Measure M (Per Capita)
Total Measure M
Road Fund Expenditures
Street Maintenance
Street Sweeping
Demographic Information -Study Area
Single Family Residential Units
Census 2000 Population
Demographic Information -City
2000 Housing Units
2000 Population
01/09/200210:56 AM
5of6
2.19 Based on County information (Inflated 6%).
276
0.25% Orange County Auditor/Controller
8
6.30 State Controller's Office (2001-02 information)
794
3.88 State Controller's Office (2001-02 information)
489
8.27 State Controller's Office (2001-02 information)
1,042
14.02 OCTA (2001-02 information)
1,767
8,969 Based on County information (Inflated 6%).
1,318 Based on County information (multiplied by four).
48 Orange County Assessor's Office
126 Census 2000
24,861 2001-02 Tustin City Budget
681,316 2001-02 Tustin City Budget
Tustin CFA / Details
ATTACHMENT
WORKSHOP PRESENTATION MATERIALS
cu
cu
'C
H
�
o
O
�
V
"moo�o
~
�
a
N
L
CL
•v
w
i CL
O
O
�
�
Lo
•
�
to
v
-
C. M
>+
v
Im
c
O
U) 4-
O O
U
O U)
to . C/)�
4- > '0 Co
O c to
CCS -}-
O O
OO — E
> > .cn_
—
O U O U 0
cn O C: L.
o
O 4O C L
C: > O Cv C -O y-
cn
cO CCE L. U O >
�CC0 O- O-
0
UU 0 c
O Q O O Cv U
> -, L L y---
.0-0 O O >� 0
CD E
-� E •— U
cn� 0 cn .0
cn
CCS OD O -� L O
O
> � O � CCS � U
.— U —
L Q > • - CU > ca. CD
�. • - I
O O �.
Ea)4) L Oy-- Cll
—�. �cn 0
O■
C;)
C111. ■
4■
co
73
U)
U
._
>
_vO
• —
-�
CV
CL
70.O
.,
O
4-a
x
Com'
�
O
Q�
U)
CL
�
ocu
-
U
cu
. _
C/)
cu
—
M
.C=
U
O
U)
C/)
U)
cu
>i
. _'cn
E
-�--+
IMMMEME
3:
0
cu
0
CU
W
}, M
O �
C/) C:
�
•0
CtS�=
L (n
-�--+ O
cu 0
U
c
O -�
cu
� O
CU U
OCU
X '0
L
O
O U
L (�
cu cu
X
CU 'F'a
-�+ CU
(D L
a)
CL .=
0A"'
L >,
0. .0
0
-f-J,
O
c \
�^
U)
O O
O U
c
L cu
CD 4.j
0
F— c
. L
00 CU
ti U)
� O
r x
c CCS
E- .�..�
U)
L
4.0
0
> 0
Q, L
.� M
C/) cu
C
CL U
0
cu
x
C6
elm
X
co
ai
c
co
L
O
KII
v
O
oc
H
13
O
O
m
L;
O
ma
O
4a
a�
L
L
L
m
c�
0
c
a)
0
C,
m
o�U
E
N
�
cn
co
cn
c:
0
0
M�
X
Q
0
(1)
O
>*,
Q
C
�
CU
O
L
�
o�
U
Q
h
s
�4W
O
N
O
C
p
CD
C
0
ti
}
to
00
O x
E
w
a
w
w
co
>mLm
o
�
o
0
a
�
W
z
C'
�
=
W
�
W
v
W
-
W
O
m
0
W
•LL
F-
w
Cl)
to
Z
O
O
W
W
Oa
W
0
I-
�
W
— W
Q
W
W
O
RON
Cl)
L)
V
p
IL W
1-
0
G
U)
CO) W
C)
CO
a�
a
U)
W
U
o
m
>
>
O
CLr'
M
ti
N
�m �
F
a
�o
h
s
,�
me
M
N
C0
p
C�
wIN
csiVON,
T-
>
to
60.
60-
0 x
E
Q c�
In
a�
C*
a?
co
cnLon
O
ca
� Rf
CCsto
v
� m
r
r
p
C=j
C
Ixp
F--
�+
Q
_
a�
W
Z
W
C'
O
=
w
0
MEMOS
to
J
O
m
W
Q
0
W
F-
cn
Z
c
O
�`
�-J Cl)O
W
W
MORONO
W
o
Q W
C.�
I—
Roo
W
J
V W
Q
ME
W LL
O
Cl)
I—
0
U)
WV
Cl)a�
Q
cl)
W
v
o
m
>
O
� CL
r-
Q
Q
co
t>
cam.
4j
U
(1)
v
0
am
El
O
F—
c
0
v
(1)
0
L
am
m
L
um
2
ca
0
FM
L
NOMMIN
oomm*.
i
un
um
vw
M MOVE
>1
(.)
0
MIMMEM
4000
�
°
O
L
I�
VINC
C.)
L
%mmm
O
mc
4a
L
0
a
0
■�
x
a
L
Q
�l
'N
I
ca
O
F
AW
�.+ L
AW
■U
O, 0
�
W
�
00
V
Mo
o
c
m
L
=
O
m
0)
AW
�.+ L
AW
■U
O, 0
'N
O
t
R
L
tC�
O
H
u
tiC
0
9
;,.
tC4
E
cu
o�
v
cu
U
u
tiC
0
9
C
O
�
b
O
Q
°
Z
W
L
y"
Q
V
06
V
■
LM
V
LU
v
�
v
N
�
F.y
W
cam.
o�
U
(A
5+
oj
v
'N
R
�
J
2
O
F
L
4w
5+
�
V
V
=
L
Z
L
omi
L
4w
2
m
13
0
Mk
L
m
C.
0
V
0
AMAL
V
L
El
�•7
L L
U
�
CL L
H
0
2
C
O
L
m
2
0
2
Nd
a�
4N
L
�
0
�
�+
0
.2
LM
o
y�
CO
No
E
L
E
WINES
RIMME
d
Z
L
SOMME
�
'ca
3
�
Cl)
vMINES_
�
�
�
0
�
N
O
WOMEN
SIMON
�
•y
O
0
CIE
L
L
O
s
0
.-.
.v
W
E
0
o.
O
N
E
WINES
RIMME
d
Z
L
o
�
'ca
3
�
Cl)
W
�
�
�
O
O
O
U
U
O
U
,�
F -I
F -I
cn
O
C�5
cn
C
�
�
O
N
•—
O
c
.0
-4-f
■V
CL>
. —
cn
C
O
O
C:L
cncn'
—
0)
4)
—
to
cn
U
0
cn
O
C:
--
(DC:•V
L.
O
C:
U
>
0
U
O
O
73
U
L
C/)4
C:
c
-j
toto
N
• —
CL
U5
m �
to
O
>
O
O
cn
cn
cn
O
Q
Q
�a.�
C!�
`I
i
0-1
S-A
a�
u
C/1
ATTACHMENT 4
WORKSHOP FOLLOW UP QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS
00-12-02 14:25 From-Oranas County LAFCO 7148342643 T-100 -P.0O3/0O4 F-447
Questions from Tustin esident Community Workshop
1. If annexed, will our voting precinct change?
According to the Registrar of Voters, the Tustin County Island is currently a "mail
in" precinct, meaning residents have no polling place and must vote by mail. If
annexed to the City of Tustin, residents will be absorbed into the surrounding
precincts and will have a designated polling place to vote. Residents will still
have the option to vote absentee by mail.
2, if annexed, will our mailing address and/or zip code change (e.g.; from the Santa
Ana to Tustin)?
Yes, the City will request address changes to the U.S. Postmaster upon
annexation. Affected properties will have the same street numbers, however, the
city will change from City of Santa Ana to City of Tustin and the zip code will
change from 92705 to 92780.
3. If annexed, will my trash hauler change?
In accordance with the State Public Resources Code Section 49520, the City
would be required to use the existing waste hauler (Waste Management) who
provides services under the County's franchise agreement for a minimum of five
(5) years following the annexation.
4. Does the County and the City have different rcquircments/rcgulations for home-
based businesses?
In reviewing both the City and County ordinances on home --based businesses,
both have similar requirements although the City's is more thorough in terms of
what is and is not allowed. Exhibit A, on the following page, is a comparison of
the requirements for having a home-based business.
06-12-02 14:25 From-Oranso County LAFCO 7148342643 T-100 P-004/004 F-447
Exhibit A
Com arson of Horne -Baked Businesses Re
uirements/Re ulations
County
Ci
Purpose
The County does not have a definition
The City defines home occupation,
Guidelines/
for home-based businesses, but does
eke home-based businesses, as an
Definitions
provide some general guidelines. Home
occupation carried on wholly within
occupation permitted when conducted as
a dwelling by an occupant of the
an accessory use to a residential use In
dwelling, as a secondary use
any district that specifies home
occupations as a permitted use, subject
to certain requirements
Requirements/
There shall be no exterior evidence of
No person employed who is not a
Restrictions
the conduct of a home occupation
resident of the premises
A home occupation shall be conducted
No exterior display
only within the enclosed living area of the
dwelling unit
Electrical and mechanical equipment
No stock -in -trade or commodity
which creates visible or audible
sold upon the premises
Interference in radio or television
receivers or causes fluctuations In line
voltage outside the dwelling unit shall be
prohibited
Only the residents of the dwelling unit
No mechanical or electrical
may be engaged in the home
equipment used except such as is
occupation
customary for housekeeping
purposes
There shall be no sale of goods not
No outside operations or storage
produced on the premises
The establishment and conduct of the
No alteration of the residential
home occupation shall not change the
prinicipal character or use of the dwelling
unit involved
appearance of the health, safety or
welfare of the general public, or
which emits smoke, dust, fumes,
odors, vibrations, glare or electrical
disturbances onto any other
remises
There shall be no signs
No activity which generates
excessive pedestrian traffic or
vehicular traffic or parking In
excess of that otherwise normally
found in the zone
Required residential off-street parking
shall be maintained
No parking or use made of any
vehicle over three-fourths ton
caMinq capacity
A home occupation shall not create
greater vehicular or pedestrian traffic
than normal for the district in which R Is
located
No perking in the front yard,
driveway or immediately adjacent to
the premises of any vehicle bearing
any sign, identification or
advertisement of the home
,occupation
ATTACHMENT
RESOLUTION NO. 3853
RESOLUTION NO. 3853
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA,
RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL
ADOPT THE FINAL NEGATIVE DECLARATION AS
ADEQUATE FOR PREZONE 02-001 AND
ANNEXATION 158 AS REQUIRED BY THE
CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT.
The Planning Commission of the City of Tustin does hereby resolve as follows:
The Planning Commission finds and determines as follows:
A. That Prezone 02-001 and Annexation 158 are considered a
"project" pursuant to the terms of the California Environmental
Quality Act;
B. A draft Initial Study and Negative Declaration has been prepared
for this project and distributed for public review. The draft Initial
Study/Negative Declaration evaluated the implications of Prezone
02-011 and Annexation 158; and,
C. 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 draft Initial
Study/Negative Declaration.
II. A Negative Declaration, attached hereto as Exhibit A, 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 Prezone 02-001 and Annexation 158 and found that it
adequately discusses the environmental effects of the proposed
prezoning and annexation. On the basis of the initial study and
comments received during the public hearing process, the Planning
Commission finds that there will not be a significant effect on the
environment as a result of Prezone 02-001 and Annexation 158. In
addition, 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. The Planning Commission hereby recommends that the City
Council adopt the Negative Declaration for Prezone 02-001 and
Annexation 158.
Resolution No. 3853
Page 2
PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Tustin Planning
Commission, held on the 9t" day of December, 2002.
Stephen V. Kozak
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 City of Tustin, California; that Resolution
No. 3853 was duly passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the Tustin
Planning Commission, held on the 9t" day of December, 2002.
ELIZABETH A. BINSACK
Planning Commission Secretary
EXHIBIT A OF RESOLUTION NO. 3853
INITIAL STUDY
A. BACKGROUND
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
300 Centennial Way, Tustin, CA 92780
(714) 573-3100
Project Title: Prezone 02-001 and Annexation 158 (Loretta/Bonner/Medford/Grovesite
Annexation)
Lead Agency: City of Tustin, 300 Centennial Way, Tustin, California 92780
Lead Agency
Contact Person: Justina Willkom Phone: (714) 573-3174
Project Location: 17521,
17531,
17541,
17551, 17561, 17571, 17581,17522, 17532, 17542,
175525
17562,
and 17572 Bonner Drive; 13791, 13801, 13815, 13831, 138415
13762,
13772,
137821
13792, 13802!1 138165 13 83 2, and 13 842 Loretta Drive;
17592,
176021
176121
176265 17642, 17652, and 17662 Medford Avenue; and
137715
137815
137915
138015 138155 13831, 138419 137725 13782, 137925
138025
138165
138321,
13842, and 13852 Grovesite, City of Tustin, County of
Orange.
Project Sponsor's
Name and Address: N/A
General Plan Designation: Low Density Residential
Zoning Designation: County of Orange Single Family Residential
Project Description: Prezoning of Loretta/Bonner/Medford/Grovesite properties from Orange
County "Single Family Residential" zoning district to the City of Tustin
Single Family Residential (R-1) zoning district and annexation of
Loretta/Bonner/Medford/Grovesite properties into the City of
Tustin.
Surrounding Uses:
North: Single Family Residences
South: Single Family Residences and Condominiums
Other public agencies whose approval is required:
❑ Orange County Fire Authority
❑ Orange County Health Care Agency
❑ South Coast Air Quality Management
District
❑ Other
East: Single Family Residences
West: Single Family Residences
❑ 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
C. DETERMINATION:
On the basis of this initial evaluation:
❑Hazards
❑Noise
❑Public Services
❑Utilities and Service
Systems
❑Aesthetics
❑Cultural Resources
❑Recreation
❑Mandatory Findings of
Significance
® I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a
NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
❑ I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will
not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described on an attached sheet
have been added to the project. A NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
❑ I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.
❑ I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect(s) on the environment, but at least one
effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and
2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached
sheets, if the effect is a "Potentially Significant Impact" or "Potentially Significant Unless Mitigated."
An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that
remain to be addressed.
❑ I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there WILL
NOT be a significant effect in this case because all potentially significant effects 1) have been analyzed
adequately in an earlier EIR pursuant to applicable standards, and 2) have been avoided or mitigated
pursuant to that earlier EIR, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the
proposed project.
❑ I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there WILL
NOT be a significant effect in this case because all potentially significant effects 1) have been analyzed
adequately in an earlier NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and 2) have
been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or
mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project.
Preparer: Justina Willkom
s4tt�-�
Elizabeth A. Binsack, Community Development Director
Title Associate Planner
Date November 14, 2002
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, 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, and 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) Earlier Analysis Used. Identify and state where they are available for review.
b) 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.
c) 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.
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
I. AESTHETICS — Would the project:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista?
b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not
limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings
within a state scenic highway?
c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or
quality of the site and its surroundings?
d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which
would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area?
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?
b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a
Williamson Act contract?
c) Involve other changes in the existing environment which,
due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of
Farmland, to non-agricultural use?
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?
b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially
to an existing or projected air quality violation?
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)?
d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant
concentrations?
e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number
of people?
❑
Less Than
❑
❑
Significant
❑
Potentially
With
Less Than
Significant
Mitigation
Significant
Impact
Incorporation
Impact
No Impact
❑
❑
❑
❑
❑
❑
❑
❑
❑
❑
❑
❑
❑
❑
❑
❑
❑
❑
❑
❑
❑
❑
❑
❑
❑
❑
❑
❑
❑
❑
❑
❑
❑
IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES: - Would the project:
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 of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service?
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 of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service?
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) 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?
e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting
biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or
ordinance?
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?
V. CULTURAL RESOURCES: - Would the project:
a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of
a historical resource as defined in § 15064.5?
b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of
an archaeological resource pursuant to § 15064.5?
c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological
resource or site or unique geologic feature?
d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred
outside of formal cemeteries?
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
Impact Incorporation Impact No Impact
❑ ❑ ❑
❑ ❑ ❑
❑ ❑ ❑
❑
❑
❑
❑
❑
❑
❑ ❑ ❑
❑
❑
❑
❑
❑
❑
❑
❑
❑
❑
❑
❑
i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the
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.
ii) Strong seismic ground shaking?
iii) Seismic -related ground failure, including liquefaction?
iv) Landslides?
b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil?
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) 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?
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?
VILHAZARDS 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?
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?
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) 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?
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?
f) 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?
Less Than
Significant
Potentially With Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant
Impact Incorporation Impact No Impact
❑
❑
❑
❑
❑
❑
❑
❑
❑
❑
❑
❑
❑
❑
❑
❑
❑
❑
❑ ❑ ❑
❑
❑
❑
❑
❑
❑
❑ ❑ ❑
❑ ❑ ❑
❑ ❑ ❑
g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an
adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation
plan?
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?
VIII. HYDROLOGY AND WATER OUALITY: — Would
the project:
a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge
requirements?
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)?
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?
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?
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?
f) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality?
g) Place housing within a 100 -year flood hazard area as
mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood
Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map?
h) Place within a 100 -year flood hazard area structures
which would impede or redirect flood flows?
i) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss,
injury or death involving flooding as a result of the failure of a
levee or dam?
j)' Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow?
IX. LAND USE AND PLANNING — Would the project:
a) Physically divide an established community?
❑ ❑ ❑
❑ ❑ ❑
❑ ❑ ❑
❑ ❑ ❑
❑
Less Than
❑
Significant
❑
Potentially
With
Less Than
Significant
Mitigation
Significant
Impact
Incorporation
Impact No Impact
❑
❑
❑
❑ ❑ ❑
❑ ❑ ❑
❑ ❑ ❑
❑ ❑ ❑
❑
❑
❑
❑
❑
❑
❑
❑
❑
❑
❑
❑
❑
❑
❑
❑
❑
❑
❑
❑
❑
Z.
❑ ❑ ❑
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?
c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or
natural community conservation plan?
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?
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?
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?
b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive
groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels?
c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels
in the project vicinity above levels existing without the
project?
d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient
noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing
without the project?
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?
f) 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?
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 infrastructure)?
b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing,
necessitating the construction of replacement housing
elsewhere?
Less Than
Significant
Potentially With Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant
Impact Incorporation Impact No Impact
❑
❑
❑
❑
❑
❑
❑
❑
❑
❑
❑
❑
❑
❑
❑
❑
❑
❑
❑
❑
❑
❑
❑
❑
❑
❑
❑
❑
❑
❑
❑
❑
❑
❑
❑
❑
c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the
construction of replacement housing elsewhere?
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?
Police protection?
Schools?
Parks?
Other public facilities?
XIV. RECREATION
a) Would the project increase the use of existing
neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational
facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the
facility would occur or be accelerated?
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?
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)?
b) Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of
service standard established by the county congestion
management agency for designated roads or highways?
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) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g.
sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses
(e.g., farm equipment)?
e) Result in inadequate emergency access?
f) Result in inadequate parking capacity?
❑
Less Than
❑
Significant
❑
Potentially
With
Less Than
Significant
Mitigation
Significant
Impact
Incorporation
Impact No Impact
❑
❑
❑
❑
❑
❑
❑
❑
❑
❑
❑
❑
❑
❑
❑
❑
❑
❑
❑
❑
❑
❑
❑
❑
❑
❑
❑
❑
❑
❑
❑
❑
❑
❑
❑
❑
g) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs
supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts,
bicycle racks)?
XVI. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS —
Would the project:
a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the
applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board?
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?
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) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the
project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or
expanded entitlements needed?
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?
f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity
to accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs?
g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and
regulations related to solid waste?
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 of the major periods of California history or
prehistory?
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)?
c) Does the project have environmental effects which will
cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either
directly or indirectly?
Less Than
Significant
Potentially With Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant
Impact Incorporation Impact No Impact
❑ ❑ ❑
❑ ❑ ❑
❑ ❑ ❑
❑
❑
❑
❑
❑
❑
❑
❑
❑
❑
❑
❑
❑
❑
❑
❑ ❑ ❑
❑ ❑ ❑
❑ ❑ ❑
ATTACHMENT A
EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
PREZONING 02-001
(Prezoning of Loretta/Bo n ner/Medford/G roves ite County Island)
BACKGROUND
Effective January 1, 2001, Assembly Bill (AB) 1555 provided streamlined annexation
process for small unincorporated county islands located within the City's boundaries.
The purpose for the annexation is to improve the delivery of public services for residents
within the island. Prezone 02-001 would prezone properties located at 17521, 17531,
175411 175511 175611 175711 175811175221 175321 175421 175527 17562, and 17572
Bonner Drive; 13791, 13801, 13815, 13831, 13841, 13762, 13772, 13782, 13792,
13802, 138161 13832, and 13842 Loretta Drive; 17592, 17602, 17612, 17626, 17642,
17652, and 17662 Medford Avenue; and 13771, 13781, 13791, 13801, 13815, 13831,
13841, 137721 137821 137921 13802, 13816, 13832, 13842, and 13852 Grovesite Drive
(Exhibit "A") from Orange County "Single Family Residential" zoning district to the City of
Tustin Single Family Residential (R-1) zoning district. The City of Tustin R-1 zoning
district provides for the development of low density single family homes and accessory
buildings. Uses such as second single family homes on large lots, guest rooms, public
institutional facilities, churches, schools, large family daycare homes, that are
determined to be compatible with, and oriented toward serving the needs of low density
detached single family neighborhoods are permitted through use permit process.
Upon the City Council approval of Prezone 02-001, the City Council would submit an
application to and request the Local Agency Formation Commission of Orange County
(LAFCO) to initiate proceedings to annex the identified properties from the
unincorporated area of Orange County to the City of Tustin. Upon LAFCO approval of
the City's application, the City Council would proceed with the property tax transfer
agreement to complete the annexation. If the annexation is approved, the pre -zoning
classification would become the official zoning for these properties.
There would be no physical improvement or changes in the environment as a result of
the Prezone 02-001. No changes to the existing infrastructure and utilities are
proposed. Impacts of potential future projects such as additions, alterations, and/or
modifications to the existing single family homes would be evaluated in conjunction with
each future project.
1. AESTHETICS
Items a through d - "No Impact": The proposed prezoning would prezone properties
within the Lo retta/Bon ne r/Medford/G roves ite county island from Orange County "Single
Family Residential" zoning district to the City of Tustin Single Family Residential (R-1)
zoning district. No physical improvements are currently proposed in conjunction with
Prezone 02-001 or annexation. As such, the proposed prezoning and annexation will
Prezoning 02-001- Initial Study
Attachment A
Page 2 of 10
not have any effects on aesthetics in the area including scenic vistas or scenic
resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rocks outcropping, and historic buildings
within a state scenic highway. The proposed prezoning and annexation will not degrade
the existing visual character or quality of the plan area or its surroundings. The proposed
prezoning and annexation will not create new source of substantial light or glare that would
affect day or nighttime views in the area. Impacts related to any future project would be
identified and evaluated in conjunction with a specific project.
Sources: Tustin Zoning Code
Tustin General Plan
Mitigation/Monitoring Required: None Required
2. AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES
Items a through c — "No Impact": The proposed prezoning would prezone
properties within the Lo retta/Bon ner/Medfo rd/G roves ite county island from
Orange County "Single Family Residential" zoning district to the City of Tustin
Single Family Residential (R-1) zoning district in preparation for annexation. No
physical improvements are currently proposed in conjunction with Prezone 02-
001 or the annexation. The proposed prezoning and annexation will have no
impacts on any farmland, nor will it conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use,
or a Williamson Act contract. The prezoning and annexation will not result in
conversion of farmland to a non-agricultural use. Impacts related to any future
project would be identified and evaluated in conjunction with a specific project;
however, no foreseeable impacts related to agricultural resources are
anticipated.
Sources: Tustin General Plan
Mitigation/Monitoring Required: None Required
3. AIR QUALITY
Items a through e — "No Impact. The proposed prezoning would prezone
properties within the Lo retta/Bon ner/M edfo rd/G roves ite county island from
Orange County "Single Family Residential" zoning district to the City of Tustin
Single Family Residential (R-1) zoning district in preparation for annexation. No
physical improvements are currently proposed in conjunction with Prezone 02-
001 or the annexation. As such, the prezoning and annexation will not conflict with
or obstruct implementation of any applicable air quality plan, violate any air quality
standard, 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. Impacts related to any future project
Prezoning 02-001 - Initial Study
Attachment A
Page 3 of 10
would be evaluated when a specific project is proposed; however, no foreseeable
impacts related to air quality are anticipated.
Sources: South Coast Air Quality Management District Rules and
Regulations
Tustin General Plan
Mitigation/Monitoring Required: None Required
4. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
Items a through f — "No Impact": The proposed project would prezone properties
within the Lo retta/Bon ner/Medfo rd/G roves ite county island from Orange County
"Single Family Residential" zoning district to the City of Tustin Single Family
Residential (R-1) zoning district in preparation for annexation. No physical
improvements are currently proposed in conjunction with Prezone 02-001 or the
annexation. 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 would
occur as a result of this prezoning and annexation. The prezoning and annexation
would not have substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat, sensitive natural
community identified in the local or regional plan, federally protected wetlands, or
interfere with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife
species, nor would the prezoning and annexation conflict with any local policies or
ordinances protecting biological resources and the provisions of an adopted habitat
conservation plan. Impacts related to any future project would be evaluated when
a specific project is proposed; however, no foreseeable impacts related to
biological resources are anticipated.
Sources: Tustin General Plan
Mitigation/Monitoring Required: None Required
5. CULTURAL RESOURCES
Items a through d — "No Impact": The proposed prezoning would prezone
properties within the Lo retta/Bon ne r/Medfo rd/G roves ite county island from
Orange County "Single Family Residential" zoning district to the City of Tustin
Single Family Residential (R-1) zoning district in preparation for annexation. No
physical improvements are currently proposed in conjunction with Prezone 02-
001 or the annexation. As such, the prezoning and annexation will not adversely
affect any historical resources or archaeological resources or destroy or disturb a
unique paleontological resource, human remains or geological feature. Impacts
related to any future project would be identified and evaluated in conjunction with
Prezoning 02-001 - Initial Study
Attachment A
Page 4of10
a specific project; however, no foreseeable impacts related to cultural resources
are anticipated.
Sources: Cultural Resources District
Tustin Zoning Code
General Plan
Mitigation/Monitoring Required: None Required
6. GEOLOGY AND SOILS
Items a (1), a (ii), a (iii), a (iv), b, c, d and e — "No Impact": The proposed prezoning
would prezone properties within the Lo retta/Bon ne r/Medfo rd/G roves ite county
island from Orange County "Single Family Residential" zoning district to the City
of Tustin Single Family Residential (R-1) zoning district in preparation for
annexation. No physical improvements are currently proposed in conjunction with
Prezone 02-001 or the annexation. As such, the proposed prezoning and
annexation will not expose people to potential adverse geologic impacts, including
the risk of loss, injury, or death involving the rupture of a known earthquake fault,
strong seismic ground shaking, landslides, soil erosion, or loss of top soil, nor is the
project on unstable or expansive soil. Impacts related to any future project would
be identified and evaluated in conjunction with a specific project; however, no
foreseeable impacts related to geology and soils are anticipated.
Sources: Tustin General Plan
Mitigation/Monitoring Required: None Required
7. HAZARD AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
Items a through h — "No Impact": The proposed prezoning would prezone
properties within the Loretta/Bonner/Medford/Grovesite county island from
Orange County "Single Family Residential" zoning district to the City of Tustin
Single Family Residential (R-1) zoning district in preparation for annexation. No
physical improvements are currently proposed in conjunction with Prezone 02-
001 or the annexation. As such, the proposed prezoning and annexation will not
result in significant hazards (i.e. explosion, hazardous materials spill, interference
with emergency response plans, wildland fires, etc.), nor is the project area located
within an airport land use plan or vicinity of a private airstrip. Impacts related to
future project would be evaluated when a specific project is proposed; however,
no foreseeable impacts related to hazard and hazardous materials are
anticipated.
Prezoning 02-001 - Initial Study
Attachment A
Page 5of10
Sources: Orange County Fire Authority
Orange County Health Agency
Tustin General Plan
Mitigation/Monitoring Required: None Required
8. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
Items a through j — "No Impact": The proposed prezoning would prezone
properties within the Lo retta/Bo n ne r/M edfo rd/G roves ite county island from
Orange County "Single Family Residential" zoning district to the City of Tustin
Single Family Residential (R-1) zoning district in preparation for annexation. No
physical improvements are currently proposed in conjunction with Prezone 02-
001 or the annexation. The prezoning and annexation would not violate any
water quality standards or waste water discharge requirements, substantially
deplete or alter groundwater supplies, drainage pattern, including alteration of the
course of stream or river, nor would the prezoning and annexation create or
contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned
stormwater drainage systems. The Prezoning and annexation would not
degrade water quality, place housing within a 100 -year flood hazard area or
impede or redirect flood flows. The prezoning and annexation would not expose
people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving flooding
as a result of the failure of a levee or dam, nor would the prezoning and
annexation inundated by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow. Impacts related to any
future project would be identified and evaluated in conjunction with a specific
project; however, no foreseeable impacts related to hydrology and water quality
are anticipated.
Sources: Tustin General Plan
Mitigation/Monitoring Required: None Required
9. LAND USE AND PLANNING
Items a through c — "No Impact": The proposed prezoning would prezone
properties within the Lo retta/Bon ner/Medfo rd/G roves ite county island from
Orange County "Single Family Residential" zoning district to the City of Tustin
Single Family Residential (R-1) zoning district in preparation for annexation. No
physical improvements are currently proposed in conjunction with Prezone 02-
001 or the annexation.
The affected properties are currently improved with single family residences and
designated as Low Density Residential by the City's General Plan. Upon LAFCO
approval of the annexation, the prezoning classification would become the official
Prezoning 02-001- Initial Study
Attachment A
Page 6 of 10
zoning of the affected properties. The existing County and the City development
standards are similar, and the new City zoning would not negatively impact the
existing and/or future improvements. In addition, the proposed prezoning of
Single Family Residential (R-1) zoning district is consistent with the existing
single family residential uses on the properties and the City's General Plan land
use designation of Low Density Residential.
The affected properties are currently surrounded by properties located within the
City's incorporated boundaries. The proposed prezoning and annexation will not
physically divide an established community but rather unite the community by
conveying a sense of community through equal development standards, public
services, and government for the entire neighborhood.
The proposed prezoning and annexation will not conflict with any environmental
programs or applicable habitat conservation plans. Impacts related to any future
project would be identified and evaluated in conjunction with a specific project;
however, no foreseeable impacts related to land use and planning are
anticipated.
Sources: Tustin General Plan
Tustin Zoning Code
Mitigation/Monitoring Required: None Required
10. MINERAL RESOURCES
Items a and b — "No Impact The proposed prezoning would prezone properties
within the Lo retta/Bon ner/Medfo rd/G roves ite county island from Orange County
"Single Family Residential" zoning district to the City of Tustin Single Family
Residential (R-1) zoning district in preparation for annexation. No physical
improvements are currently proposed in conjunction with Prezone 02-001 or the
annexation. The proposed prezoning and annexation will not result in loss of a
known mineral resource or availability of a locally important mineral resource
recovery site delineated on the general plan or other applicable land use maps.
Impacts related to any future project would be identified and evaluated in
conjunction with a specific project; however, no foreseeable impacts related to
mineral resources are anticipated.
Sources: Tustin General Plan
Mitigation/Monitoring Required: None Required
Prezoning 02-001 - Initial Study
Attachment A
Page 7 of 10
11. NOISE
Items a through f - "No Impact": The proposed prezoning would prezone
properties within the Lo retta/Bo n ne r/M edfo rd/G roves ite county island from
Orange County "Single Family Residential" zoning district to the City of Tustin
Single Family Residential (R-1) zoning district in preparation for annexation. No
physical improvements are currently proposed in conjunction with Prezone 02-
001 or the annexation. As such, the proposed prezoning and annexation will not
expose persons to noise levels in excess of standards established in the general
plan, noise ordinance, or excessive ground vibrations, nor will it create a temporary
or permanent increase in the existing ambient noise levels. Impacts related to any
future project would be identified and evaluated in conjunction with a specific
project; however, no foreseeable impacts related to noise are anticipated.
Sources: Tustin City Code
Tustin General Plan
Mitigation/Monitoring Required: None Required
12. POPULATION AND HOUSING
Items a, b, and c — "No Impact": The proposed prezoning would prezone
properties within the Loretta/Bonner/Medford/Grovesite county island from
Orange County "Single Family Residential" zoning district to the City of Tustin
Single Family Residential (R-1) zoning district in preparation for annexation. No
physical improvements are currently proposed in conjunction with Prezone 02-
001 or the annexation.
Upon annexation the affected properties would be incorporated to the City of
Tustin and be made part of the City's housing stock. However, the addition of 48
existing single family homes to the City's housing stock would not induce
substantial population growth in the area nor would it displace substantial
numbers of people or housing, necessitating the construction or replacement of
housing elsewhere. No foreseeable impacts related to population and housing
are anticipated.
Sources: Tustin General Plan
Mitigation/Monitoring Required: None Required
13. PUBLIC SERVICES
Item a — " No Impact": The proposed prezoning would prezone properties within
the Loretta/Bonner/Medford/Grovesite county island from Orange County "Single
Prezoning 02-001 - Initial Study
Attachment A
Page 8of10
Family Residential" zoning district to the City of Tustin Single Family Residential
(R-1) zoning district in preparation for annexation.
Upon the Local Agency Formation Commission of Orange County (LAFCO)
approval of Prezone 02-001, the affected properties would be incorporated to the
City of Tustin. LAFCO has provided the City with a Fiscal Feasibility Report
(Exhibit B) regarding any consequences resulting from the annexation of the
Lo retta/Bon ne r/Medford/G roves ite county island. The report provides analysis
for City services upon annexation and includes estimated revenues and
expenditures. The report concludes that the City would need to capture services
such as street maintenance, police service, fire service, water service, etc. for the
affected properties, however, the additional services will not create demand for an
alteration of or addition to government facilities or services (fire and police
protection, parks, etc.). Currently the affected properties are under the Tustin
Unified School District boundaries. No changes to the school district boundaries
are being proposed. As such, no impact to public services is anticipated.
Sources: Tustin General Plan
Mitigation/Monitoring Required: None Required
14. RECREATION
Items a and b - "No Impact": The proposed prezoning would prezone properties
within the Loretta/Bonner/Medford/Grovesite county island from Orange County
"Single Family Residential" zoning district to the City of Tustin Single Family
Residential (R-1) zoning district in preparation for annexation. No physical
improvements are currently proposed in conjunction with Prezone 02-001, or the
annexation. The properties are currently improved with single family residences.
Upon annexation, the affected properties would be part of the City of Tustin.
Although the addition of these properties to the City would increase the housing
stock, no substantial population increase is anticipated. As such, the prezoning
and annexation would not increase demand for neighborhood parks or recreational
facilities. Impacts related to any future project would be identified and evaluated
in conjunction with a specific project; however, no foreseeable impacts related to
recreation are anticipated.
Sources: Tustin General Plan
Mitigation/Monitoring Required: None Required
15. TRANS PORTATION/TRAFFIC
Items a through g — "No Impact": The proposed prezoning would prezone
properties within the Loretta/Bonner/Medford/Groves ite county island from
Prezoning 02-001 - Initial Study
Attachment A
Page 9of10
Orange County "Single Family Residential" zoning district to the City of Tustin
Single Family Residential (R-1) zoning district in preparation for annexation. No
physical improvements are currently proposed in conjunction with Prezone 02-
001 or the annexation. As such, no alteration in the traffic generation and
circulation patterns within the project area would be affected by the proposed
prezoning and annexation.
The existing single family homes are developed with two -car garages. Upon
annexation to the City of Tustin, the parking capacity would be in compliance with
the City's zoning standard related to single family homes. In addition, the City's
Public Works Department indicates that the existing roads are in compliance with
City's circulation and right-of-way standards. Therefore, no impacts to the parking
capacity of the traffic level of services are anticipated.
The proposed prezoning and annexation would not result in changes to air traffic
patterns, emergency access, or conflict with adopted policies, plans or programs
supporting alternative transportation. Impacts related to any future project would
be identified and evaluated in conjunction with a specific project; however, no
foreseeable impacts related to transportation/traffic are anticipated.
Sources: Tustin General Plan
Mitigation/Monitoring Required: None Required
16. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS
Items a throughg - "No Impact": The proposed prezoning would prezone
properties within the Lo retta/Bon ner/Medfo rd/G roves ite county island from
Orange County "Single Family Residential" zoning district to the City of Tustin
Single Family Residential (R-1) zoning district in preparation for annexation. No
physical improvements are currently proposed in conjunction with Prezone 02-
001 or the annexation.
The affected properties' utilities and water services would be served by the same
providers upon annexation. No changes to the utility and water services are
anticipated. Since no additional units are proposed in conjunction with Prezone 02-
001, no additional demand for utility and water services are anticipated. The
adoption of Prezone 02-001 will have no impacts to water treatment, water supply,
wastewater treatment, and solid waste disposal. Impacts related to any future
project would be identified and evaluated in conjunction with a specific project.
Sources: Tustin General Plan
Mitigation/Monitoring Required: None Required
Prezoning 02-001 - Initial Study
Attachment A
Page 10 of 10
17. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE
Items a through c - "No Impact": The proposed prezoning would prezone
properties within the Lo retta/Bon ner/Medfo rd/G roves ite county island from
Orange County "Single Family Residential" zoning district to the City of Tustin
Single Family Residential (R-1) zoning district in preparation for annexation. No
physical improvements are currently proposed in conjunction with Prezone 02--
001 or the annexation. Impacts of potential future projects would be evaluated in
conjunction with each future project. As such, the prezoning and annexation
does not have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, achieve
short-term environmental goals to the disadvantage of long-term goals, nor
produce significant negative indirect or direct effects on humans.
S:\Cdd\JUSTINA\current plan ning\Environmental\Prezoning attachment A.doc
EXHIBIT A
Annexation 158 (Loretta/Bonner/Medford/Grovesite Annexation)
ZONING DISTRICTS BOUNDARIES 11 11 VICINITY MAP
0
Single Family Residence City Boundaries
NOTE:
Area Is Within
City of Tustin
TOTAL AREA = 11.41 ACRES Sphere of Influence
County Unincorporated Areas
Tustin Island 8 -TU -1 0' 80' 160,
County of Orange, California
6/29/99
qt of p
IPO �
PUBLIC FACILITIES AND RESOURCES DEPT.
Geomatics / Land Information Systems Division
GIS Mapping Unit
EXHIBIT B
City of Tustin Draft Annexation Fiscal Feasibility Report
See Attachment 2 of the Planning Commission Staff Report
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
300 Centennial Way, Tustin, CA 92780
(714) 573-3100
NEGATIVE DECLARATION
Project Title: Prezone 02-001 and Annexation 158(Loretta/Bonner/Medford/Grovesite Annexation)
Project Location: 17521, 175315 175419 175515 175615 175715 175815175225 175325 175425 175525 17562, and
17572 Bonner Drive; 13791, 138015 13815, 13831, 13841, 13762, 13772, 13782, 137925 13802,
138161, 13832, and 13842 Loretta Drive; 17592, 17602, 17612, 17626, 17642, 17652, and 17662
Medford Avenue; and 13771, 13781, 13791, 13801, 13815, 13831, 13841, 13772, 13782, 13792,
138021 13816, 13832, 138425 and 13852 Grovesite, City of Tustin, County of Orange.
Project Description: Prezoning of Loretta/Bonner/Medford/Grovesite properties from Orange County "Single
Family Residential" zoning district to the City of Tustin Single Family Residential (R-1)
zoning district.
Project Proponent: City of Tustin, 300 Centennial Way, Tustin, CA 92780
Lead Agency Contact Person: Justina Willkom Telephone: (714) 573-3174
The Community Development Department has conducted an Initial Study for the above project in accordance with the
City of Tustin's procedures regarding implementation of the California 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.
❑ That potential significant effects were identified, but revisions have been included in the project plans and agreed
to by the applicant that would avoid or mitigate the effects to a point where clearly no significant effects would
occur. Said Mitigation Measures are included in Attachment A of the Initial Study which is attached hereto and
incorporated herein.
Therefore, the preparation of an Environmental Impact Report is not required.
The Initial Study which provides the basis for this determination is attached and is on file at the Community Development
Department, City of Tustin. The public is invited to comment on the appropriateness of this Negative Declaration during
the review period, which begins on November 14, 2002 and extends for twenty (20) calendar days. Upon review by the
Community Development Director, this review period may be extended if deemed necessary.
REVIEW PERIOD ENDS 4:00 P.M. ON December 3, 2002
Date: November 14, 2002
Elizabeth A. Binsack
Community Development Director
ATTACHMENT
RESOLUTION NO. 3854
RESOLUTION NO. 3854
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF TUSTIN, RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY
COUNCIL ADOPT PREZONE 02-001 PREZONING THE
LORETTA/BONNER/MEDFORD/GROVESITE PROPERTIES
FROM THE ORANGE COUNTY "SINGLE FAMILY
RESIDENTIAL" ZONING DISTRICT TO THE CITY OF TUSTIN
SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL (R-1) ZONING DISTRICT.
The Planning Commission does hereby resolve as follows:
The Planning Commission finds and determines as follows:
A. That the City of Tustin is proposing to annex the
Loretta/Bon ne r/Medford/G roves ite County island into the City of Tustin.
Prior to annexation, a prezoning is required for the existing 48 single family
homes. The prezoning would become the official zoning of the affected
properties upon annexation.
B. That the Assembly Bill (AB) 1555, effective January 1, 2001, provided a
streamlined annexation process for islands that are fewer than seventy-five
(75) acres in size. The State enacted this law to encourage cities and
counties to annex inefficient urban land throughout the counties. The
primary reason for annexation of County islands is to improve the delivery of
public services for residents within these islands.
C. That the Local Agency Formation Commission of Orange County (LAFCO)
has encouraged and facilitated the annexation of small County islands in
response to the Assembly Bill 1555.
D. That the proposed prezoning is consistent with the General Plan Land Use
Designation "Low Density Residential," which provides for the development
of low density single family dwellings and accessory buildings. The project
has been reviewed for consistency with the Air Quality Sub -element of the
City of Tustin General Plan and has been determined to be consistent with
the Air Quality Sub -element.
E. That a public hearing was duly called, noticed, and held for said application
on December 9, 2002, by the Planning Commission.
F. That this project would not have a significant effect on the environment, and
a Negative Declaration has been recommended for adoption.
Il. The Planning Commission hereby recommends that the City Council adopt
Prezone 02-001 for Annexation 158 by prezoning the Loretta/Bonner/Medford/
Planning Commission Report
Prezone 02-001
December 9, 2002
Page 2
BACKGROUND AND DISCUSSION
Effective January 1, 2001, Assembly Bill (AB) 1555 provided a streamlined annexation
process for islands that are fewer than seventy-five (75) acres in size. The State enacted
this law to encourage cities and counties to annex inefficient urban land throughout the
counties. The primary reason for annexation of County islands is to improve the delivery
of public services for residents within these islands. The Orange County Board of
Supervisors believes that local government services such as law enforcement, street
maintenance, tree trimming, and permit issuance are provided more efficiently through
local governments/cities. The County is structured to provide regional services such as
court system, airports, and health and welfare program.
AB 1555 made the following key changes: 1) if an island annexation is initiated by City
resolution, the Local Agency Formation Commission of Orange County (LAFCO) cannot
deny the annexation; and 2) an island annexation becomes final following the LAFCO
Commission approval.
Prezone 02-001 would prezone properties located within the County island (Attachment
1) from the Orange County "Single Family Residential" zoning district to the City of Tustin
Single Family Residential (R-1) zoning district. The affected properties are currently
improved with single family residences. Although the properties are not part of the City of
Tustin jurisdictional boundaries, they are located within the City of Tustin sphere of
influence and are designated as Low Density Residential by the City's General Plan.
Staff compared the development standards of both the City and the County and found the
standards to be similar. Therefore, no significant impacts would result from the
annexation of these properties to the City of Tustin.
On April 30, 2001, Jay Wong and Bob Aldrich of LAFCO met with City staff to discuss the
potential annexation of the subject County island. A Fiscal Feasibility Report was provided
to the City by LAFCO to allow the City to realize any consequences resulting from the
annexation of the island. In general, the report indicates that the City would gain
approximately $6,279 in revenue after the projected expenditures (Attachment 2).
On August 26, 2002, the City and LAFCO conducted a joint public workshop to inform the
residents of the potential annexation. Approximately 20 residents attended the workshop.
Attachment 3 is a copy of the workshop presentation materials. In general, the residents
had mixed feelings about the annexation. Approximately half of the attendances were in
favor of the annexation, while others did not believe there were significant benefits to them
for the annexation. LAFCO, City of Tustin, and the County Orange provided the residents
with information explaining the process and consequences following the annexation. The
City, County, and LAFCO also provided follow-up questions and answers to the residents
after the workshop (Attachment 4).
Resolution No. 3854
Exhibit A
Page 2
Grovesite properties from Orange County "Single Family Residential" zoning district
to the City of Tustin Single Family Residential (R-1) zoning district subject to the
following condition:
A. Said prezoning shall be effective upon annexation to the City of Tustin.
PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Planning Commission of the City of Tustin, at a
regular meeting on the 9t" day of December, 2002.
Stephen V. Kozak
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 City of Tustin, California; that Resolution No. 3854 was
duly passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the Tustin Planning Commission, held
on the 9t" day of December, 2002.
ELIZABETH A. BINSACK
Planning Commission Secretary