HomeMy WebLinkAbout01 PREZONE 02-001 01-06-03AGENDA REPORT
NO. 1
01-06~03
MEETING DATE:
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
JANUARY 6, 2003
WILLIAM HUSTON, CITY MANAGER
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
PREZONE 02-001 FOR ANNEXATION NO. 158
(LORETTNBONN ER/MEDFORD/GROVESITE ANNEXATION)
SUMMARY
Prezoning of LorettalBonnedMedfordlGrovesite county island properties from the Orange
County "Single Family Residential" zoning district to the City of Tustin Single Family
Residential (R-l) zoning district for annexation of LorettalBonnedMedfordlGrovesite
properties into the City of Tustin.
RECOMMENDATION
That the City Council:
1. Adopt Resolution No. 03-04 certifying the Negative Declaration as adequate for
Prezone 02-001 for Annexation No. 158.
2. Introduce and have first reading by title only to adopt Ordinance No. 1264 approving
Prezone 02-001 for Annexation No. 158.
FISCAL IMPACT
There is no fiscal impact for prezoning of the subject properties. However, in accordance
with the Fiscal Feasibility Study (Attachment 2) submitted by the Local Agency Formation
Commission of Orange County (LAFCO), upon annexation the City would gain
approximately $6,279 in revenue after the projected expenditures.
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
Prezone 02-001
January 6, 2003
Page 2
local governments/cities. The County is structured to provide regional services such as
court system, airports, and health and welfare programs.
AB 1555 made the following key changes: 1) if an island annexation is initiated by City
resolution, 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-l) 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. A number of the attendees were in favor of the
annexation, while others did not believe there were significant benefits to them for the
annexation. LAFCO, the 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).
On December 9, 2002, the Planning Commission considered Prezone 02-001 and
recommended the City Council to adopt the Negative Declaration for Prezone 02-001 and
approve Prezone 02-001 for Annexation No. 158. A resident spoke in opposition of the
prezoning and potential annexation of the LorettalBonnedMedfordlGrovesite properties
into the City of Tustin. The resident indicated that they would like to remain in the County
island, but AB 1555 took away their voting rights and that they are being forced to be part
of the City of Tustin.
Prezone 02-001
January 6, 2003
Page 3 ·
Annexation Process
Upon the City Council approval of Prezone 02-001, the City Council at a later date would
direct staff to submit an application to and request that LAFCO 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.
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. 03-04 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 were 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
J dSij/na Willkom
Associate Planner
Attachments: 1. Prezoning Map
2. Fiscal Feasibility Report
3. Workshop Presentation Materials
4. Workshop Follow-up questions and answers
5. Planning Commission Resolution Nos. 3853 and 3854
6. City Council Resolution No. 03-04
7. Ordinance No. 1264
S:\Cdd\CCREPORT~orezone 02-001.doc
ATTACHMENT 1
PREZONING MAP
BONNER DR.
O?
TUST!
ZONING DISTRICTS
BOUNDARIES
$inl~e Family Residence
TOTAL AREA = ],3..4.:). ACRES
Cit7 Boundaries'
NOTE:
Area is~ W'rl~in
Cit'/ of Tustin
Spher~ of Influence
County Uninco~po~.a~ed Areas
Tus~in Island 3-TU-'I
County of O~'ange, California
$/29/99
80
ATTACHMENT 2
FISCAL FEASIBILITY REPORT
Orange County'Local Agency Formation Commissior
City. of Tustin Draft-Annexation
Fiscal FeaSibility Report
January 9, 2002
LAFCO
'12 CM¢ Center Plaza, Room 235
Santa Ana, California 92701
(714) &34-2556
R°senow Spevacek Group, Inc.'
540 NOrth Golden Circle, Suite 305
Santa Ana, California 92705
.Phone: (714) 541-4585
Fax: (714) 836-1748
E-Mail: infoC, webrs,q.com
III.
Table-of .Conten.ts
...
BACKGROU~ ............................................................................................ I
A. STLrDY AREA DESCRIPTION
B. STUDY AREA SERVICE PROVIDERS ' . ..... 1
C. ASSUMPTIONS ...... ' ................................................................................ 2
-REVENUES ..................................................................................................... 2
A. GENrP.~L fUND ................................................ , ............................. , ....................... 2
1. Taxes ................................................................................ ; ..................................... 2
a. Property Taxes .............................................................................................. 2
b. - Property Transfer Taxes ......................... ' ...................... i ............................... 2
c. Homeowner~ Property Tax Relief. ............................................................... 3
2. State Subventions (Motor Vehicle Fees) ........................................................... :..3
3. Franchise Fees ....................................................................................................... 3
4. DeVelopment Related Fees ................................................................................... 3
a.- Land'Use Plann/ng and Regulation Fees ......... :'. ............ : ............................. 3
b. Building Inspection and Permit Fees ................... 2 ....................................... 3
c. Engineering 'Fees ................................................................................ i ......... 4
5. Other Revenues ..................................................................................................... 4
a. Fines and Forfeitures .................. .' .................................. 2 .............................. 4
b. Miscellaneous Revenues .......................................................................... :...4
B. ROAD FUND ......
EXPENDITURES ................................................................... , ..................... 4
A. GENERAL FUND EXPENDITURES ......................................................................
1. General Government .............................................................................................. 5
a. Administration ........................................................................................... :.5
b. Animal Control ............................................................................................ 5
c. County Property Tax Collection Charges ' . .... 5
Rosenow Spevacek Group, Inc.
August, 2000
Annexation Fiscal Feasibility Report
LAFCO
..
,Public Safety' .............................................................................. i ............... : ........... 5
a. Law EnforCement...2..: ...................................................... 2 .......................... 5
b.. Fire Protection .............................................................................................. 5
Community Development ...................................................................................... 6
pUblic Works ...................................... ' .................................................................. ',.6
a. 'Street'Lighting ....................................................................... i..i .................. 6
lb. Street Sweeping ....... : ................................................................................... 6
B. ROAD FUND EXPENDITURES ............ 2 ...... , ..................... ; ............................. . ...... 6
Street Maintenance .......................... ; ..................................................................... 6
Traffic signals ...................................................................................................... 7
IV. SUM3~ARY OF FIND~GS ......................... · .......................... ~ ..................... 7.
APPENDIX 1
Table A-1 -General Fund Revenues and. Expenditures
Table A-2 - Road Fund Revenues and Expenditures
Table A-3 - General F_and and Road Fund Summary
Table A-4 -County Island Details
APPENDIX 2
County uninCorporated Island Map
.,
liosenow Spevaceic Group, Ina.
August, 2000
ii
Annexation Fiscal Feasibility. Report
LA FCO
ANNEXATION FISCAL FEASIBILITY REPORT
I. BACKGROUND
The Orange County Loeal'Ageney Formation Commission ("LAFCO") has requested the Rosenow
SpeVaeek 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 ditTerenees
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
residemial unitsl '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.
CURRENT AND POST ANNEXATION SERVICE'PROVIDERS
.
Post Annexation
Service
Provider
Provider
General Government
· Governing Board
Management
Attorney
Admin. S~vi~inan~dClerk
Public Safely
Law Enforcement
Fire Prote~ion
Animal Control
2ommunity Development
Planning
Building
Code Enforcement
Public Works
Public Works Adminiswation
Road Maintenance
Street Lighting
Other Services
Domestic Water
Sewer Services
County Board of Supervisors
County of Orange
County of Orange
County of Orange
Orange County Sheriffs I;~'pamn,nt
,Orange County Fire Authority
County of Orange
County.of Orange
County of Orange
County of Orange
County of Orange
County. of Orange
County of Orange
City of Tustin
Orange CounW Sanitation District
City Council of tho City of Tuatin
City of Tmtin
City of Tustin
City of Tusfin
Tustin Police Department
Onmge County Fire AuthOrity
County of Orange
City of Tustin
City of Tustin
City of TUStin
City of Tustin
City of Tustin
City. of Tustin
C~ of Tustin
Oratige Count5, Sanitation District
Rosenow Spevacek Group, Inc.
January, 2002
LAF COflsla~'I'ustin
Annexation Fiscal Feasibility Report
LAFCO
Cl
ASSUMPTIONS
The assumPtions used in this analysis were based on d0cumematiOn .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 imprOvemem projects that may be necessary if annexation were to
'OCCur.
.
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-l: ,
1. Taxes:
bi
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 aforememioned 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.
Property Transfer Taxes:
Property transfer taxes are generated at the time.a new property is sold
or an existing property is resoldi' 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.
January, 2002
LAFCO/lslands~ustin
Annexation Fiscal Feasibility ~Report
LAFCO
e
e
e
using the asstunpt..ion of a 5% assessed value remover rate annually at
the rate of 55¢ per $1,000 of assessed Value.
c. Homeowners Property Tax Relief:
Revenue estimates generated, from the Homeo,wner'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.
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 Departmeiat 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.
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.
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 1and 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.
b,
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, Ina
January, 2002 .
LAF CO/lslandsFl'ustin
Annexation Fiscal Feasibility/Report
LAFCO
5e
c. Engineering Fees:
The City is also .authorized to charge fees for plan chec~ng, 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.
Other Revenues:
a. Fines and Forfeitures:
B,
be
ROAD FUND
This represents Motor Vehicle Code~ fines and City ordinance fmcs.
Fines and forfeitures were estimated at $9.02 per capita using current
budget figures from the City.
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.
'III.
All Road Fund subvemions are calculated and allocated to the cities on a per capita
basis, with the exception of Section 2107.5. The State 'Subvemion 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 not place .the
City's population status imo the next revenue threshold. As such, no revenue is
reflected relative to Section 2't07.5. Other Road Fund revenues include the voter-
approved Measure "M" sales tax distributed by the Orange County Transpomtion
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
maimenance expenditures.
EXPENDITURES
GENERAL FUND EXPENDITURES
Expenditures have been categorized by departments within the City's organizational
structure and are estimated as follows:
Rosenow Speuacek Group, Inc.
January, 2002
LAFCO/IsiandsFl'u~ti n
Annexation Fiscal Feasibility Report
LAFCO
FROM ORANGE LAFCO
2,
-'General Governnte_n~
Administration:
(THU) 2, 14: 02.15:0¢ .~ 15,07/N0, 4860219465 P- 2
b~
The'.ana!ysis assumed no new positions, equipment or major opemling
costs Would 'be incurred a~ a result .of the annexation. Minimal
expenditures were es. fimm~l including a p~ capita expcnse of $1.50
for elections and $2.00. for O~neral Oovemment, which includes legal
costs, advertising, postage, and other selected services and supplies.
Animal Control:
The Cily'contmets with the Cc~mty for animal' control services. Upon
anmnmion, .the City will continue .to contract, for mimal conn'ol
services for thc Study Area. Costs were estimated using a net per
capita cstimate of $2.19 derived, from information receive~ from the
County.
County Property Tax Collection Charges:
Be~-{,g in 1992-93, the County Auditor-COntroller,s Office charged
dries and local districts 'recei~g property tax rt~¢nu~ for incidental
aclm'inigh-afive co~.. These chm'ges ate cstimated at .25% of all
P__ublic Safety:
b,
Law Enforcemcnt:
/$a.%~t Ou the size and land use o£ the Study Ar~a, this Rcport assumes
that thc mmmmtion can be accomplished immediately with existing
departme, n~ resources.
-
· Fire Protection:
· .
The C:)~gc County F~ Author~t7 ("0¢]~^') cur~t]¥ pro'~cles fire
l~o~on and pm'amecl~c se~ce~ to th~ Study ~ Upon
annexation, tho OCFA w~J continue to provide f~ p~ot~on and
pm'ame~c scrv~ce~ to th~ Study ,~-oa. Structure] Fire Fund pwpcrty
tax revenues'w~ continue to pass through to the OCFA as
compensation for thc additional s~,vi¢¢ area added to the City's
¢ontracL
Ro. senow Spevacek GrouA Inc
Annexation F~eal Featlbtl~ ~eport
L4FCO
4~
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 Undeistanding that LAFCO' will waive all application
'fees. associated with the annexation of the Study Area.
Public Works:
B,
For purposes of this Report, it is assumed that the current level of service of'
maintenance programs is sufficient forthe 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 p~ovides 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.
ROAD FUND EXPENDITURES
1. Street Maintenance:
The County of Orange, on aVerage, slurry seals .every seven years, ox~erlays
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 amortized
capital improvement program. There are .8 lane. miles located in the Study
Area.
Rosenow Spevacek Group, Ina
January, 2002
LA.FOOflslan drJ'l'u~tin
Annexation Fiscal Feasibility Report
LAFCO
IV.
Traffic Signals:
The StUdy Area does not contain any traffic Signals.
SUIVIMARY OF FINDINGS
The following chart, also depicted in Table A-3' details the financial informatiOn for the
StUdy Area.
200i-02 Summary of Revenues and Expenditures
City of Tustin Annexation Analysis
General Fund
General Fund Revenues
General Fund Expenditures
14,010
1,536
General Fund Surplus/(DefiCi0
12,474
Road Fund.
'Road Fund Revenues
Road Fund E~pendimres
4,091
10,287
Road Fund Surplus/(Deficit)
(6,196)
Total Ali Revenues
Total All Expenditures
18,102
13,823
Revenue 'Surplus/(Deficit)
6,279
Based upbn 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.
January, 2002
LAFCOfl~landsfltmin
, ,
Annexation Fiscal Feasibility Report
LAFCO
APPENDIX 1
Rosenow Spevacek Group, Inc.
August, 2000
iii
Annexation Fisaal Feasibility Report
.LA FCO
Table A-1
2001-02 Estimated. General Fund Revenues and Expenditures
City of Tustin Annexation Analysis
General Fund Revenues
Property Tax
· O'~SLAD Property Tax
'l~_.op~- Transfer Tax
Motor Vehicle In-Lieu
Franchise Fees
Fines & Forfeitures
· Miscellaneous Revenues
Total Revenues
3-TU-1
'2,119
1,270
208
6,833
'2,294
1,136
151
14,010
General Fund Expenditures
General Government
Street Lighting
Animal Control
County Property Tax Collection Fee
Total Expenditures
441
810
276
1,536
General Fund Operating Surplus (Deficit)
12,474
0110912002 10:56 AM
~ of 6 TuslS_rt CFA ,, ..
Table A-2 · '
2'001-02 Estimated Road Fund Revenues.and Expenditures
City of Tustin .~xnnexation Analysis
Road Fund Revenues
Section 2105 -
Section 2106
Section 2107,
Measure "M"
Total Road Fund Revenues
794
489
1,042
1,767
4,091
Road Fund 'Expenditures
Street Maintenance
Street Sweeping
Total Road Fund Expenditures
Road Fund SurplUs (Deficit)
8,969.
1,318.
10,287
(6,196)
Oll0912002 10:56 AM
2 of 6
~Table A-3
2001-02 Summary of Revenues and Expenditures
City of Tustin Annexation Analysis
3-TU-1
General Fund
General Fund Revenues
General Fund Expenditures
14,010
1,5.36
General Fund Surplus/(Deficit)
12,474
,Road Fund
Road Fund Revenues
Road' Fund Expenditures
4,091
10,287
Road Fund Surplus/(I}eficit)
'(6,196)
Total All Revenues
Total All Expenditures
18,102
1'1,823
Revenue Surplus/(Deficit)
6,279
0110912002 10:56 AM
~ of~, Tusti~_ CFA /
Table A-4
County Island ,Details
City of Tustin Annexation Analysis
Item
General Fund Revenues
'prOperty Taxes N..
2001-02 Secured Assessed Value
2001-02 UnseCured Assessed Value
2001-02 Total Assessed Value
~..
Assessed Value X .01
Orange County. General' Fund Tax Rate
Tustin Master Property Tax Rate
General. Fund Property Tax
3-TU-1
7,546,444
1,596
7,548,040
75,4.80
6.25%
44.95% ·'2,119
Information 'Obtained From
Orange ~County Auditor/Controller
Orange Couffty Auditor/Controller
Orange County Auditor/ContrOller
Orange County Auditor/Controller
Orange County LAFCO
OCSLAD Property Tax Rate
OCSLA~ Property Tax
3.74% Orange County Auditor/Controller
· 1,270
PropertyTransfer Tax
Property Transfer Rate
AV*Property Transfer Rate
$.55 per 1,000 of value
5..00%
377,322
208
RSG estimate
Motor 'Vehicle Fees
Per Capita
Motor Vehicle Fees
· Franchise Fees
Per HOusehold
Franchise Fees
54.23·
.6,833
47.79
.2,294
State Controller's Office (2001-02 informatiOn)
2001-02 TUstin City Budget
Fines & Forfeitures
Per Capita
Fines & Forfeitures
Miscellaneous Revenues
Per Capita
Miscellaneous Revenue
9.02
1,136
1.20
151
2001-02 Tustin City Budget
RSG estimate
General Fund Expenditures
General Government
Per Capita
General Government Costs.
Oi/09/2002 10:56 AM
4 of 6
3.50
441
RSG estimate
Tustin CFA / Details
Table A-4
County Island Details
City of Tustin Annexation Analysis
ltem
Street Lighting
Animal Control
Net Per Capita
Animal Control Costs
County prOPerty· Tax Collection .Fee
County Property Tax .Collection Fee
$-TtI-1
~810
2.19
276
0.25%
8
Information Obtained From .
Southern California Edison Estimate.
Based on County information (Inflated 6%)..
'Orange County Auditor/Controller
Road Fund Revenues
2105. (Per Capita)
TOtal 2105
2106 (Per~ Capita)
Total 2106
6.30
794
489
State Controller's Office (2001-02 information)
State Controllers Office (2001-02 information)
2107 (Per Capita)
Total 2107 '
Measure M (Per Capita)
TOtal Measuie. M
8.27
1,042
14.02
1,767
State Controller's. Office (2001-02 information)'
- .
OCTA (2001-02 information)
Road Fund Expenditures
Street Maintenance
Street Sweeping
8,969
1,318
Based on County information (Inflated 6%).
Based on County information (multiplied by four).
Demographic Information-Study Area
Single Family Residential Units
Census 2000 Population
.48
126
Orange County Assessor's O~ce
Census 2000
Demographic Information-City
2000 Housing Units
2000 Population
24,861
68,316
2001-02 Tustin City Budget
2.001-02 Tustin City Budget
01/09/200210:56 AM
5 of 6
Tustin CFA / Details
ATTACHMENT 3
WORKSHOP PRESENTATION MATERIALS
(1)
X
X
mmI
0
0
0
0 0
~ 0
0
C
c~
~ 0
~D 0
0'0
0 E
~ 0
I
0
0
0
0
X
mm
immmm
0
0 c-
ml
X
mm ~mSmmmmm~
0 ~
0 ~'~ ~ (13
0 ~
0 c~
0
~ 0
~ 0
O_ 0
0 >,
X
'0
0
0
0
~' < '>
0
c~ 0
'ID
0
LL!
'ID
0
0
LIJ
"iD
0
0
0
'iD
0
I 0
e.- o
0
m/
X
m mmmmmmmmm
,E
E'
0
0
(D
X
X
X
X
0
0 O3
·
X
~'~0
o~~O
,.. 0 0
~ 0
0.,.,
"-'
ATTACHMENT 4
WORKSHOP FOLLOW UP QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS
00-12-02 F-447
14:Z5 From-Oranse Cou.*v LAF¢O 7148342643 'T-IOO .P.005/004
.Questions from Tustilt Resident Communi .ty__Workshop
1. If auncxcd, will our voting precinct change?
According to the Kegistrar of Voters, the Tustin County Island is currently a "mail
in" precinct, mem~g residents have no polling place and must vote by mail. if
annexed.to the City of Tus~ residents will be absorbed into th= surrounding
precinc~ and will have a designated polling place to vote, Kesidents will still
have the option to vote absentee by' mail.
If annexed, will our ma/ling address and/or zip cod= change (e.g4 from the San~a
Al~a to Tustin)?
Yes, the City will request address changes to the U.S. Postmaster upon
annexation. Affe~ed properties will have the same street numb~s, however, th=
cky will change from City of Santa Aha m City of Tustin and thc zip cod~ will
change from 92705 to 92780.
3. If annexed, win 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 O/v'~ Management) who
provides services under tho CounW' s franchise agreement for a minimum of five
($) years following thc ann~x~on.
.
Does the County and th~ City have different rc, quircmcnts/rcgulafions for home-
based busin~scs?
In reviewing both thc City and County ordinances on home-basrA businesses,
both have similar requirements although the City' s is more thorough ,in terms of
what is and is not allowed. I~xMbit A, on the following page, is a comparison of
the requirements for having a home-based business.
00-12-02
14:26 From-Oranae County L^FCO 7148342643. T-lO0 P.004/004
Exhibit A
F-447
_.Compa~o.n of i-~m~-.Bas,d ElU~in.eR~e~ ,Req~rements/RegUl~ti°ns
Cou~ C~
Pu~ose ~e Coun~ does not have; definiti~ ..... ~he C~ defin~ home ~pa~on,
Guidel~es/ ~r homebred b~ses, b~ do~ a~ ~b~ed busing, '86 an
D~nl~ons pro~ some general guideline. Home ~pa~on ~ied on ~ollY Wi~in
o~p~ion pe~d ~en ~ndu~ed'as a ~elllng by ~ o~pant ~ ~e
an a~s~ use ~ a residential use ~ ~ellhg, as a se~nda~ use
:any d~ ~at sp~ home
o~upaflons as e pe~l~d use. subJe~
~ ~ ~ui~m
~u~men~/ ~em shali ~e no e=eflor e~d~=e of No pem0n'empl~d who
Re~i~ons ~e ~ndu~ ~ a home ~pafion r~i~t
A home ~pmi~ sh~[ be condu~d No e~r display
only ~in ~e en~osed tiving
~d~ling ~it
Be~l and mech~i~l e~ui~t lEo stoc~-ln-~de or ~mmod~
~i~ ~~ v~le or audible is~d upon
i~Eemn~ ~ ~ or ~le~n
re~Ners or ~us~ flu~aflons in line
~l~ge ou~ide ~e' dwelling unit shell be
pmhib~ed
Only ~e res~en= ~ ~e dwelling unA I No m~ni~ or ~e~l
may be engaged ~ the home ~.~uipment used e~pt such as
oc=upa~on ~=ustoma~ ~r houseke~ing
purposes
~em s~ll be no ~le ~ g~ds not ~No ou~lde opemtl~s or storage
~e es~tishme~ and ~nduM of ~ No al~mfi~ ~ ~e ~iden~l
home ~pa~on shall not change ~e app~mn~ of ~e h~l~, ea~ or
pdnicipal ~arac~r or use of ~e dw~ling ~re of ~e general public, or
un~ invo~ ~i~ em~ ~oke. du~ ~m~,
,,, odom, vlb~ns, gla~ or e~ri~]
dis~an~ o~ any o~er
~rem~
~ere shah be no signs No acfiv~ ~i~ g~e~es
~~e p~ian ~c or
v~l~lar ~ffic ~ paring In
~c~ ~ ~M other.s no.ally
~und In the zone
Required ~td~fial ~et pa~hg No p=U~ or use made of any
shall be mainlined vehicle over ~re~fouAhs ton
,~ing mpac
A home occupaUon shall not =eats =No pa~ng in ~e fmflt yard,
g~ter vehi~lar or ped~an
· an no. al for ~e dt~ In ~1~ ~ Is ~e premises ~ any vehi~e bearing
lo.ted any sign, ld~flon or
adve~iseme~ of ~e home
, . o~Gupaflon
ATTACHMENT 5
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NOS. 3853 AND 3854
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 FOP, 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:
k.
That Prezone 02-001 and Annexation 158 are considered a
"project" pursuant to the terms of the California Environmental
Quality Act;
S.
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,
Co
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 pdor 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 dudng the public headng 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
,,~tep"h~l~. 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 9th day of December, 2002.
ELIZABETH A. BINSACK
Planning Commission Secretary
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
LORETTNBONNER/MEDFORD/GROVESITE PROPERTIES
FROM THE ORANGE .COUNTY "SINGLE FAMILY
RESIDENTIAL" ZONING DISTRICT TO THE CITY OF TUSTIN
SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL (R-l) ZONING DISTRICT.
The Planning Commission does hereby resolve as follows:
I. The Planning Commission finds and determines as follows:
Ae
That the City of Tustin is proposing to annex the Loretta/
Bonner/Medford/Grovesite 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.
Bo
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.
Do
That the proposed prezoning is consistent with the General Plan Land Use
Designation "Low Density Residential," which provides for the development
of Iow 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.
II.
The Planning Commission hereby recommends that the City Council adopt
Prezone 02-001 for Annexation 158 by prezoning the Loretta/BonnedMedford/
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-l) 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 9th day of December, 2002.
.
E"~BETH A. BIN~ACK- -
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 9th day of December, 2002.
ELIZABETH A. BINSACK
Planning Commission Secretary
ATTACHMENT 6
CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. 03-04
RESOLUTION NO. 03-04
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA, ADOPTING THE
FINAL NEGATIVE DECLARATION AS ADEQUATE
'FOR PREZONE 02-001 AND ANNEXATION NO. 158
AS REQUIRED BY THE CALIFORNIA
ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT.
The City Council of the City of Tustin does hereby resolve as follows:
I. The City Council finds and determines as follows:
A.
That Prezone 02-001 and Annexation No. 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
02-001 and Annexation 158; and,
C,
The City Council 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 Final Negative Declaration, attached hereto as Exhibit A, has been
completed in compliance with CEQA and State guidelines. The City
Council has received and considered the information contained in the
Negative Declaration prior to recommending approval of the proposed
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 City Council 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 City Council 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 City Council hereby adopts the Final Negative
Declaration for Prezone 02-001 and Annexation 158.
Resolution No. 03-04
Page 2
PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Tustin City Council, 'held
on the 6th day of January, 2003.
TRACY WILLS WORLEY
Mayor
PAMELA STOKER
City Clerk
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF ORANGE )
CITY OF TUSTIN )
CERTIFICATION FOR RESOLUTION NO. 03-04
PAMELA STOKER, City Clerk and ex-officio Clerk of the City Council of the City
of Tustin, California, does hereby certify that the whole number of the members
of the City Council of the City of Tustin is five; that the above and foregoing
Resolution No. 03-04 duly and regularly introduced, passed, and adopted at a
regular meeting of the Tustin City Council, held on the 6th day of January, 2003.
COUNCILMEMBER AYES:
COUNCILMEMBER NOES:
COUNCILMEMBER ABSTAINED:
COUNCILMEMBER ABSENT:
PAMELA STOKER
City Clerk
EXHIBIT A OF CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. 03-04
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
300 Centennial 'Way, Tustin, CA 92780
(7~ 4) 5 7S-S ~ O0
INITIAL STUDY
A®
BACKGROUND
Project Title:
Prezone 02-001 and Annexation 158 (Loretta/Bonner/Medford/Grovesite
Annexation)
Lead Agency;
·
Lead Agency
Contact Person:
City of Tustin, 300 Centennial Way, Tustin, California 92780
Justina Willkom Phone: (714) 573-3174
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, 1..7626, 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 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 Lorem/BonnerAVledford/Grovesite properties from Orange'
County "Sin~e Family Residential" zoning district to the City of Tustin
Single Family Residential (R-l) zoning district and annexation of
LoretmA3onner/Medford/Crrovesite properties into the City of
Tustin..
Surrounding Uses:
North: Single Family Residences
South: Single Family Residences and Condominiums
'East: Single Family Residences
West: Single Family Residences
Other public agencies whose approval is required:
Orange County Fire Authority
Orange County Health Care Agency
South Coast Air Quality Management
District
Other
['"] City of Irvine
[-] City of Santa Ana
[--] Orange County
EMA
B. ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED
The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one
impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact" as' indicated by the checklist in Section D below.
[-]Land Use and Planning
[--]Population and Housing
[-']Geological Problems
['--]Water
[-']Air Quality
[-'~Transportation & Circulation
[---]Biological Resources
[--]Energy and Mineral Resources
[--']Hazards
['-]Noise
[--']pUblic Services
[-']Utilities and Service
Systems
[-]Aesthetics
[-]Cultural Resources
[-"~Recreation
[-"]Mandatory Findings of
Significance
C. DETERMINATION:
On the basis of this initial evaluation:
I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment,
NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
and a
['--] 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,
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.
and an
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
1)
2)
3)
4)
5)
6)¸
7)
8)
9)
D. EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
DirectiOns
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).
All answers must take into account the whole action involved, including off-site, on-site, cumulative prOject level,
indirect, direct, construction, and operational impacts.
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.
"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).
(
-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.
.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.
SUpporting Information Sources: A source list should be attached, and other sources used or individuals
contacted should be cited in the discussion.
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.
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 Califomia 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 Thal'l
Significant
With
Mitigation
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 offish 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.9
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 6ffects, 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 S°il, 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 MATERIALg:
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
V/ith
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 dis'charge
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 stormwaterdrainage 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
Significant
Im?act
No Impact
a) Physically divide an established community? [~] 1"'] [~ ~
b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or
regulation of an agency with jnrisdiction 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 conse~:vation plan or
natural community conservation plan?
X. MINERAL RESOURCES - ~ould 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. POPULAT1ON 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 h'ousing,
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
lmpact
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
ln¢ or]~oration
Less Than
Significant
Impact
' No Impact
ATTACHMENT A
EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL' IMPACTS
PREZONING 02-001
(Prezoning of LorettalBonnerlMedfordlGrovesite County Island)
BACKGROUND
Effective January 11, 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, 1.3831, 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, 13.816, 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 throuqh d -"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. 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 l O
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/Monitorin,q Required: -.None Required
AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES
Items a throuqh c- "No Impact":. The proposed prezoning would prezone
properties within the LorettalBonnedMedford/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 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
AIR QUALITY
Items a throuqh e- "No ImpacL 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 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 l 0
.
,
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
Regulations
Tustin General Plan
District Rules and
Mitigation/Monitoring Required: None Required
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
Items a through f- "No Impact": The proposed project 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. 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
Miti,qation/Monitorinq Required:
CULTURAL RESOURCES
None Required
,
Items a through d -"'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. 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
,
,
a specific project; however, no 'foreseeable impacts related to cultural resources
are anticipated.
Sources:
Cultural Resources District
Tustin Zoning Code
General Plan
Miti_~ation/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 LorettaiBonnedMedfordlGrovesite 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
Mitigation/Monitoring Required: None Required
HAZARD AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
Items a through h- "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. 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.
Pre. zoning 02-001 - Initial Study
Attachment A
Page 5 of l O
.
,
Sources:
Orange County Fire Authority
Orange County Health Agency
Tustin General Plan
Mitigation/Monitoring Required: None Required
HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
Items a throu,qhi- "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 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
Miti,qation/Monitorinq Required:
LAND USE AND PLANNING
None Required
Items a throuqh c- "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 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
,Miti.qation/Monitorinq Required:
None Required
Prezoning 02-001 - Initial Study
Attachment A
Page 7 of l O
11. NOISE
Items a throuqh f- "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
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-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
.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
Attachrnent A
Page 8 of lO
t4.
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.)i 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
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-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
Mitigation/Monitoring Required:
None Required
TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC
Items a throuqh .q- "No Impact": The proposed prezoning would prezone
properties within the LorettalBonnedMedfordlGrovesite county island from
Prezoning 02-001 - Initial Study
Attachment A
Page 9 of lO
16.
Orange County "Single Family ResideCitiar' 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 pattems 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
Miti,qation/Monitorinq Required:
None Required
UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS
Items a throuqh ,q -"No Impact": The proposed prezoning would prezone
properties within the Loretta/BonnedMedfordlGrovesite 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
A ttachm ent A
Page 10 of lO
17.
MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE
Items a throuqh 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)
\ '~ ' ~ \ LAURIE
CITY ~- ~A~,~ ~'_ OF ~~
T'US.TIN
LN.
ZONING DISTRICTS
Single Family Residence
TOTAL AREA = I1.4]. ACRES
BOUNDARIES
Chy I~ounciaries
NOTE:
Area Is- W'r~in
~ of Tustin
Spl'~m of influence
County U.nincoryora~ed Areas
- Tus~i~ Island
O' ' 160'
Exhibit B
City of Tustin Draft Annexation Fiscal Feasibility Report
(See Attachment 2 of the City Council 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-I)
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 7
ORDINANCE NO. 1264
ORDINANCE NO. 1264
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
TUSTIN, ADOPTING PREZONE 02-001 PREZONING THE
LORETTA/BONNER/MEDFORD/GROVESITE COUNTY ISLAND
PROPERTIES FROM THE ORANGE COUNTY "SINGLE
FAMILY RESIDENTIAL" ZONING DISTRICT TO THE CITY OF
TUSTIN SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL (R-l) ZONING
DISTRICT.
The City Council of the City of Tustin does hereby ordain as follows:
Section 1. FINDINGS
The City Council finds and determines as follows:
Ao
That the City of Tustin is proposing to annex the Loretta/
Bonner/Medford/Grovesite 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 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.
Co
That the Local Agency Formation Commission of Orange County (LAFCO)
has encouraged and facilitated the annexation of small County islands in
response to 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 Iow 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 on Prezone 02-001
on December 9, 2002, by the Planning Commission. Following the public
hearing, the Planning Commission recommended approval of Prezone 02-
001.
Ordinance No. 1264
Page 2
F. That a public hearing was dully called, noticed, and held on Prezone 02-001
on January 6, 2003, by the C~t~'Council.
G. That this project would not have a significant effect on the environment, and
a Negative Declaration has been adopted'.
Section 2. The Zoning Ordinance of the City of Tustin is hereby amended to reclassify by
prezoning the properties shown on Exhibit "A" from Orange County "Single Family
Residential" zoning district to. the City of Tustin Single Family Residential (R-l) zoning
district subject to the following condition:
A. Said prezoning shall be effective upon annexation to the City of Tustin.
Section 3. SEVERABILITY
All of the provisions of this ordinance shall be construed together to accomplish the
purpose of the regulations. If any provision of this part is held by a court to be invalid or
unconstitutional, such invalidity or unconstitutionality shall apply only to the particular
facts, or if a provision is declared to be invalid or unconstitutional as applied to all facts,
all of the remaining provisions of this ordinance shall continue to be fully effective.
PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Tustin, at a regular meeting
on the day of ,2003.
TRACY WILLS WORLEY
Mayor
PAMELA STOKER
City Clerk
Ordinance No. 1264
Page 3
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF ORANGE )
CITY OF TUSTIN )
SS
CERTIFICATION FOR ORDINANCE NO. 1264
PAMELA STOKER, City Clerk and ex-officio Clerk of the City Council of the City of
Tustin, California, does hereby certify that the whole number of the members of the City
Council of the City of Tustin is 5; that the above and foregoing Ordinance No. 1264 was
duly and regularly introduced at a regular meeting of the Tustin City Council, held on the
6th day of January, 2003 and was given its second reading, passed, and adopted at a
regular meeting of the City Council held on the day of ,2003 by the
following vote:
COUNCILMEMBER AYES:
COUNCILMEMBER NOES:
COUNCILMEMBER A'BSTAINED:
COUNCILMEMBER ABSENT:
PAMELA STOKER
City Clerk
Exhibit "A" of Ordinance No. 1264
~,,,,.~_LAU RI E LN.
C 'TY
BONNER DR.
· ''LAURIE' LN, I
TUSTIN
ZONING DISTRICTS
BO.UNDARIES
$ingte Family R~si~enc~
TOTAL AR~
County Unincowo~'c~ed Arecs
Tusfin Island 3-TU~
Co~¢;y "of Or=~ge, C~iT*.m'r~ia
· ,
8O'
VICINITY
,; -'--_ _,"'-'~-2 '".-,
"'" -7 ~' * '
PUBUC FAcILr~ES AND RF. SOURCES D[FT.
G~ti~-~ / ~nd In~ormal~o. Systems Div~ion
GI$ ~aDotn~ Unit