Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC RES 3853RESOLUTION 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: I. The Planning Commission finds and determines as follows: Ao 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 Commission, held on the 9th day of December, 2002. of the Tustin Planning /'~te p~h~ ~. Kozak Chairper'Con 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 9th day of December, 2002. ELIZABETH A. BINSACK Planning Commission Secretary EXHIBIT A OF RESOLUTION NO. 3853 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT 300 Centennial Way, Tustin, CA 92780 (714) 573-3100 INITIAL STUDY A. BACKGROUND Project Title: Lead Agency: Lead Agency Contact Person: Project Location: Project Sponsor's Name and Address: General Plan Designation: Zoning Designation: Project Description: Prezone 02-001 and Annexation 158 (Loretta/Bonner/Medford/Grovesite Annexation) City of Tustin, 300 Centennial Way, Tustin, California 92780 Justina Willkom Phone: (714) 573-3174 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, 13801, 13815, 13831, 13841, 13772, 13782, 13792, 13802, 13816, 13832, 13842, and 13852 Grovesite, City of Tustin, County of Orange. N/A Low Density Residential County of Orange Single Family Residential Prezoning of Loretta/Bonner/Medford/Grovesite properties from Orange County "Single Family Residential" zoning district to the City of Tustin Single Family Residential (R-l) 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: West: Single Family Residences 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 [-~Transpo~ation & Circulation [~]Biological Resources ~-]Energy and Mineral Resources [--]Hazards [--]Noise [--]Public Services [-~Utilities and Service Systems [--]Aesthetics [~]Cultural Resources [--]Recreation [--]Mandatory Findings of Significance C. DETERMINATION: On the basis of this initial evaluation: I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. [--] I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described on an attached sheet have been added to the project. A NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. [-] I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. [-~ I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect(s) on the environment, but at least one effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets, if the effect is a "Potentially Significant Impact" or "Potentially Significant Unless Mitigated." An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there WILL NOT be a significant effect in this case because all potentially significant effects 1) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR pursuant to applicable standards, and 2) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project. I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there WILL NOT be a significant effect in this case because all potentially significant effects 1) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and 2) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project. Preparer: Justina Willkom Elizabeth A. Binsack, Community Development Director Title Date Associate Planner 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? Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With 3ffitigation Incorporation Less Than Significant 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: Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporation Less Than Significant 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? VII. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS: Would the project: a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? 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? Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant kVith Mitigation Incorporation Less Than Significant 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 QUALITY: - 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: Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporation Less Than Significant Impact No Impact a) Physically divide an established community? [-'1 I--I I--] [~ 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? ×. 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? Potentially Significant Impact LeSs Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporation Less Than Significant 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? Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporation Less Than Significant 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? Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporation Less Than Significant Impact No Impact ATTACHMENT A EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS PREZONING 02-001 (Prezoning of LorettalBonnerlMedfordlGrovesite 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, 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, 13801, 13815, 13831, 13841, 13772, 13782, 13792, 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-l) zoning district. The City of Tustin R-1 zoning district provides for the development of Iow 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 Iow 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 LorettalBonnerlMedfordlGrovesite county island from Orange County "Single Family Residential" zoning district to the City of Tustin Single Family Residential (R-l) 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 lO 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/Monitorinq Required: None Required 2. AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES Items a through c- "No Impact": The proposed prezoning would prezone properties within the LorettalBonnerlMedfordlGrovesite county island from Orange County "Single Family Residential" zoning district to the City of Tustin Single Family Residential (R-l) 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 LorettalBonnerlMedfordlGrovesite county island from Orange County "Single Family Residential" zoning district to the City of Tustin Single Family Residential (R-l) 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 lO o . 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 Miti.qation/Monitorinq Required: None Required BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES Items a through f-"No Impact": The proposed project would prezone properties within the LorettalBonnedMedfordlGrovesite county island from Orange County "Single Family Residential" zoning district to the City of Tustin Single Family Residential (R-l) 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 CULTURAL RESOURCES Items a throu.qh d -"No Impact": The proposed prezoning would prezone properties within the LorettalBonnerlMedfordlGrovesite county island from Orange County "Single Family Residential" zoning district to the City of Tustin Single Family Residential (R-l) 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 4 of lO o . a specific project; however, no foreseeable impacts related to cultural resources are anticipated. Sources: Cultural Resources District Tustin Zoning Code General Plan Mitigation/Monitorinq Required: None Required GEOLOGY AND SOILS Items a (I), a (ii), a (iii), a (iv), b, c, d and e- "No Impact": The proposed prezoning would prezone properties within the LorettalBonnerlMedfordlGrovesite county island from Orange County "Single Family Residential" zoning district to the City of Tustin Single Family Residential (R-l) 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 Miti.qation/Monitorinq Required: None Required HAZARD AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS Items a throuqh 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-l) 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 5 of lO . . Sources: Orange County Fire Authority Orange County Health Agency Tustin General Plan Mitigation/Monitorinq Required: None Required HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY Items a throuqh j-"No Impact": The proposed prezoning would prezone properties within the LorettalBonnerlMedfordlGrovesite county island from Orange County "Single Family Residential" zoning district to the City of Tustin Single Family Residential (R-l) 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 LAND USE AND PLANNING Items a throuqh c- "No Impact": The proposed prezoning would prezone properties within the LorettalBonnerlMedfordlGrovesite county island from Orange County "Single Family Residential" zoning district to the City of Tustin Single Family Residential (R-l) 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 l O 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-l) 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 MINERAL RESOURCES Items a and b- "No Impact The proposed prezoning would prezone properties within the LorettalBonnedMedfordlGrovesite county island from Orange County "Single Family Residential" zoning district to the City of Tustin Single Family Residential (R-l) 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 lO 11. NOISE 12. 13. Items a through f- "No Impact": The proposed prezoning would prezone properties within the LorettalBonnerlMedfordlGrovesite county island from Orange County "Single Family Residential" zoning district to the City of Tustin Single Family Residential (R-l) 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/Monitorinq Required: None Required POPULATION AND HOUSING Items a, b, and c- "No Impact": The proposed prezoning would prezone properties within the LorettalBonnerlMedfordlGrovesite county island from Orange County "Single Family Residential" zoning district to the City of Tustin Single Family Residential (R-l) 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/Monitorinq Required: None Required PUBLIC SERVICES Item a-" No Impact": The proposed prezoning would prezone properties within the LorettalBonnedMedfordlGrovesite county island from Orange County "Single Prezoning 02-001 - Initial Study Attachment A Page 8 of l O 14. 15. Family Residential" zoning district to the City of Tustin Single Family Residential (R-l) 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 LorettalBonnedMedfordlGrovesite 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 Miti.qation/Monitorinq Required: None Required RECREATION Items a and b -"No Impact": The proposed prezoning would prezone properties within the LorettalBonnedMedfordlGrovesite county island from Orange County "Single Family Residential" zoning district to the City of Tustin Single Family Residential (R-l) 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 Miti,qation/Monitorinq Required: None Required TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC Items a through ,q -"No Impact": The proposed prezoning would prezone properties within the LorettalBonnedMedfordlGrovesite county island from Prezoning 02-001 - Initial Study ,,t ttachm ent A Page 9 of lO 16. Orange County "Single Family Residential" zoning district to the City of Tustin Single Family Residential (R-l) 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 UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS Items a throuqh .q -"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-l) 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 Miti.qation/Monitorinq Required: None Required Prezoning 02-001 - Initial Study ,4 ttachm ent ,4 Page 10 of lO 17. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE Items a through 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-l) 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 planning\Environmental\Prezoning attachment A,doc EXHIBIT A Annexation 158 (Loretta/Bonner/Medford/Grovesite Annexation) _/ OF LAURIE LN. ZONING DISTRICTS BOUNDARIES Single Family Residence TOTAL AREA = 11.41 ACRES City Bounctades NOTE: Area Is Within City of Tustin Sphere of influence County Unincorporated Areas Tustin Island $-TU-1 County of Orange, california VICINITY MAP PUBLIC FACILITIES AND RESOURCF. S DEPT. Geomatics/Land IMormation Systems Division GI$ Napping 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, 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, 13801, 13815, 13831, 13841, 13772, 13782, 13792, 13802, 13816, 13832, 13842, 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-l) 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