HomeMy WebLinkAbout15 GEN'L PLAN REV'S 02-07-94NO. 15
2-7-94
JATE:
FEBRUARY 7, 1994
Inter-Corn
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
WILLIAM A. HUSTON, CITY MANAGER
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
CITY OF. TUSTIN GENERAL PLAN REVISION AND FENAL PROGRAM
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the City Council: . .
1. Adopt Resolution No. 94-18, finding that the Environmental Impact Report (SCH
//92101104) prepared for the Tustin Area General Plan Update~is adequate with the
incorporation of all responses to certifying Final Program Environmental Impact Report
94-01 and adopting a Mitigation Monitoring Program.
2. AdOpt Resolution No. 94-19, approving General Plan Amendment 94-01, with
incorporation of the Errata to General Plan documents, updating all Elements of the
Tustin Area General Plan.
BACKGROUND
On January 17, 1994 the City Council held a public hearing and accepted public testimony on
the City of Tustin Draft General Plan (see Attachment I staff report).
After receiving public testimony and asking questions of the staff regarding inclusion of the
Sphere of Influence properties into the General Plan, the City Council closed the public
hearing. Due to the volume of material covering the Draft General Plan and Final
Environmental Impact Report, final City Council action on the documents was continued to
February 7, 1994. The Council at their February 7, 1994 meeting may desire to direct
questions to City staff on either the General Plan or Environmental Impact Report. However,
the public hearing has been closed.
In considering the Draft General Plan document, the Council shoald also consider the Errata
to the Gene. ral Plan. The Errata (Ng. 1 - Exhibit A) to the General Plan identifies all
recommended modifications and corrections that were identified during public review, final
staff review and as a result of meetings with interest groups from the North Tustin community.
Final modifications to the Plan by the City Council along with the Errata to the General Plan
will be printed in final form in the Final General Plan document.
City Council Report
General Plan Revision and
Final Program Environmental Impact Report
February 7, 1994
Page 2
As part of the staff's presentation to the Council on January 17, 1994, the Council was
provided with a second Errata (No. 2 - Exhibit B) to the General Plan which contained Policy
and Implementation Program language changes relative to the City's policy position on
commercialization of MCAS, El Toro. The Planning Commission requested that the City
Council make a final determination on this policy although the General Plan and Environmental
Impact Report already contain a number of policy and program statements concerning
commercial and general aviation operations at both MCAS Tustin and MCAS E1 Toro.
Councilman Thomas also requested that language be added to ensure that the City would also
monitor planning processes for John Wayne Airport and reuse on MCAS, E1 Toro. The revised
Errata has been included in the Council' report.
After the close of the public comment period, correspondence was received from the
Transportation Corridor Agency noting that ADT Volumes along the Eastern Transportation
Corridor depicted in Figure IV-3'of the General Plan Traffic Analysis and Figure 5-15 of
Environmental Impact Report did not correspond to information in the Final Environmental
Impact Report for the Eastern Transportation Corridor. The consultant has prepared revised
figure inserts that reflect corrected future traffic volume numbers for the corridor. Volume
changes do not affect the integrity of the analysis. The revised figure inserts are included in
Errata No. 2 - Exhibit B.
In response to individual concerns raised by a number of Council members, one additional
change has been made to Errata No. 1 as it relates to future annexation proposals. Policy 1.13
of the Land Use Element has been revised to delete specific reference to capital improvement
costs being borne by residents or property owners of annexed areas. However, the policy as
revised will continue to ensure that furore annexation proposals are evaluated for impacts on
the City of Tustin as has been previous policy.
~CONCLUSION
Appropriate resolutions, CEQA Findings and a Statement of Overriding Consideration have
been provided for the City Council to certify Final Environmental Impact Report 94-01 and
approve Tustin Area General Plan 94-01.
City Council Report
General Plan Revision and
Final Program Environmental Impact Report
February 7, 1994
Page 3
As part of the approval of the General Plan, the Council will need to determine if Erratas No.
1 and No. 2 should be included as provided or if any modifications are necessary.
Ri~a Westfield~
Assistant Director
Community Development Department
Christir~ Ai'shingleton
Assistant City, Manager
RW:CA S:kbc~genplan.#5
Attachments: Attachment I - City Council Report, January 17. 1994
Attachment II - Resolution No. 94-18 - Final EIR Certification
Attachment III - Resolution No. 94-19 - Approving General Plan Update with
Errata No. 1 and No. 2
ATTACHMENT I
PUi21C HEARING NO. 2 --94
a~TE:
TO:
FROM:
JANUARY 17, 1994
WILLIAM A. HUSTON, CITY MANAGER ,~~~-~_~ -
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
CITY OF TUSTIN GENERAL PLAN REVISION AND FINAI~ PROGRAM
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
RECOMMENDATION
Pleasure of the City Council
BACKGROUND
The Planning Commission held an initial public hearing on the
proposed Draft General Plan and Draft Environmental impact Report
(EIR) for the project on October 25, 1993. While the public
hearing on the Draft EIR was closed after receiu5 of public
testimony, the hearing on the General Plan was coniinued until
November 22, 1993.
A subsequent public hearing on the General Plan was held on
November 22, 1993. At the hearing, additional testimony on the
General Plan was received and the public hearing was closed. At
their meeting on January 10, 1994, the Planning Commi=sion adopted
Resolution No. 3222 recommending that the City Council certify the
Final Environmental Impact Report 94-01 for the Tustin Area General
Plan Update. They also adopted Resolution No. 3223 recommending
that the City Council approve General Plan Amendment 94-01,
updating all General Plan Elements of the Tustin General Plan with
incorporation of an Errata (Resolutions 3222 and 3223 are included
as Attachment I).
Ip early 1991, the City initiated a process to update the Tustin
General Plan, as an integral part of the General Plan preparation
a.public participation process for both the General Plan and Draft
EIR took place. Attachment II is a summary of all at~ivities and
noticing that occurred throughout the General Plan preparation.
Prior tO the January 10th Planning Commission meeting, an Errata
identifying recommended modifications to the General plan and the
recommended Final EIR were distributed to al- agencies,
organizations, and/or individuals who commented on the General Plan
and Environmental Impact Report during the public co~_nent period.
Since the Planning Commission agenda item on the General Plan and
Final EIR for January 10, 1994 was not a public hearing; the Deputy
City Attorney advised the Planning Commission not ~o open the
hearing for purposes of hearing from a representative of Foothill
City Council Report
General Plan Revision and
Final Program Environmental Impact Report
January 17, 1994
Page 2
Communities Association (FCA) but instructed staff to accept a
letter provided by FCA and transmit it to the City Council for
consideration during their public hearing on the Draft General Plan
(Attachment III). A discussion of issues raised in the Foothill
Community Association letter is provided under the General Plan
discussion.
A. General Plan
A brief highlight of each Element of the proposed Tustin General
Plan is attached as Attachment IV. A copy of the proposed General
Plan nhat is being considered tonight was transmitted to the City
Counc=! in September 1993. During the public hearings and 45 day
review period on the General Plan required by State law, there were
a nu~er of issues on the General Plan. Perhaps the most
significant issues raised were concerns expressed during the
Planning Commission public hearings on October 25, 1993 and
November 22, 1993 from a number of North Tustin residents and
.organizations (North Tustin Community Association and Foothill
Communities Association) that.the General Plan did not adequately
address the North Tustin community and ensure that the area's
characuer was maintained in the event of annexation. Additional
corrections requested to the General Plan from other parties were
relatively minor and responded to requests by the Planning
Commission, city staff, and other public comments.
An Errata to General Plan has been prepared which identifies all
recommended modifications/corrections to the Draft General Plan
including more substantial revisions that resulted from input from
North ?ustin residents.
As no5ed in Attachment II, staff met with various representative
groups from North Tustin on two separate occasions between the
October and November 1993 Planning Commission meetings. While the
Foothill Communities Association expressed appreciation for staff
efforts and generally agreed with the text changes.shown in the
proposed General Plan Errata in their letter submitted on January
10, 1994, they are still not in full agreement with the revisions.
In their January 10th letter, the Foothill Communities Association
has a~aip expressed that ~hey believe the revised text in the
Errata does not fully deal with their concerns. Primarily they
take exception to the use of the term complementary when
considering if new infill development is appropriate in North
Tustin. City staff believes that the changes in the Errata fully
protect the North Tustin Community by using the North Tustin
Specific Plan and the Community Profiles, adopted by the county as
a regulatory tool to ensure that in the event of annexation the
North ?ustin Specific Plan prevails. Also policy changes and a New
City Council Report
General Plan Revision and
Final Program Environmental Impact Report
January 17, 1994
Page 3
Goal No. 12 on the Land Use Element, as shown in the Errata,
further provide protection to the character and develooment
densities in North Tustin in the event of annexation.
The Foothill Communities Associanion letter also makes reference to
·
items not responded to in the proposed General Plan. On November
11, 1993 FCA transmitted to City staff, specific written comments
to the Draft General Plan. Ail their items were specifically
responded to and addressed in the November 22, 1993 staff report to
the Planning Commission. The issue apparently, however, is that
staff and the Planning Commission did not agree with all of their
recommendations as originally transmitted to the City. A copy of
a portion of the November Planning Commission report, which
responded to the requests from the Foothill Communities Association
is attached for the City Council's info_~mation (Attachment V).
As a separate issue, the Planning Commission has requested than any
final determination in the General Plan on the City's policy
position on commercialization of M~AS, E1 Toro be directed to the
City Council. As the Council is aware, decisions relative to E1
Toro wilt-be made as part of reuse planning efforts for the site.
There have been a number of conserns exoressed as to whether the
--
City would be unbiased in parnicipation on an E1 Toro Reuse
subcommittee if the General Plan policy explicitly took a position.
The following pages and polities 'in the General Plan and
Environmental Impact Report make reference to airport
commercialization.
Public Safety Element - Policy 7..6, Page 13
"Continue to oppose the future~use of MCAS E1 Toro and MCAS
Tustin for commercial air operations or general aviation
operations."
Public Safety Element - Implementation Program 1. (g), Dace 30
"Continue to oppose commercial or general aviation use of MCAS
E1 Toro and MCAS, Tustin."
Noise Element - Policy 1.5, Page 8
"Continue to oppose'an~ future commercial or general aviation
use of E1 Toro Marine Corps Air Station and MCAS Tustin."
Noise Element - Implementation Proaram No. 4, page 24
"The City will continue ~o participate in the planning
processes for John Wayne Airport, ]'4CAS, Tustin and MCAS, E1
City Council Report
General Plan Revision and
Final Program Environmental Impact Report
January 17, 1994
Page 4
Toro to avoid increased noise exposure from the aviation
activities associated with these facilities."
Environmental Impact Report - Mitigation Measure No. 1, Bullet
7, Paqe 5.7-10
"Oppose future commercial or general aviation use of MCAS E1
Toro and MCAS Tustin (Implementation Program No. 1 from the
General Plan Public Safety Element)."
In review of all related policy and implementation actions in the
General Plan and EIR, staff would recommend that each statement, at
minimum, opuose future reuse at MCAS, Tustin for commercial air
operations. However, the City Council might want to consider
language that is more similar to Implementation Program No. 4 in
the Noise Element as General Plan policy might apply to MCAS, E1
Toro. Staff will be prepared to offer a number of alternative
textural changes at the January 17th meeting on this issue as may
be directed by the City Council.
Any and all changes made by the City Council to the General Plan,
including changes as shown in the attached Errata will be included
in the final printed General Plan document. If the City Council
corrects the language in the recommended Final Environmental Impact
Report, the corrected language will also appear in the Final
Environmental Impact Report.
B. Environmental Impact Report
The General Plan Update Program also included the preparation of an
EIR on the General Plan to achieve compliance with the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).
The Draft EIR was completed and.made available for public review
and comment pursuant to CEQA Guidelines (Section 15087(c) for a
period of 45 days beginning on September 22, 1993 and ending on
November 4, 1993.
The Program EIR for the Tustin General Plan Update focuses on the
environmental impacts that are likely to result from long-term
implementation of the Plan and addresses the following issue'areas:
.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
Earth Resources
Air Quality
Water Resources
Biological Resources
Noise
Land Use
City Council Report
General Plan Revision and
Final Program Environmental Impact Report
January 17, 1994
Page 5
7. Risk of Upset/Human Health
8. Population/Housing
9. Transportation/Circulation
10. Public Services
11. Energy/Utilities
12. Recreation
13. Archaeological/Historical/Paleontological Resources
The General Plan Program EIR evaluates the impacts of the above
impact categories as they relate to the implementation of the
General Plan. This evaluation allows the City to consider broad
policy alternatives and program wide mitigation measures.
Implementation of the mitigation measures identified in the EIR can
reduce environmental impacts to a level less than significant.
The mitigation measures identified in the EIR will be achieved by
implementation programs which are part of the General Plan. While
implementation of some of the mitigation measures will be on-going,
the implementation of other mitigation measures will occur only if
the need arises and certain programmatic mitigation measures will
be subject to funding availability.
Based on the data and conclusions in the EIR, it has been
determined that adoption' of the Proposed General Plan will result
in significant cumulative air quality impacts that cannot be fully
mitigated by implementing all feasible mitigation measures.
The unavoidable project impacts on air quality from implementation
of the General Plan relate to the project's incremental adverse
impact on and increasing pollutant levels in a already stressed
non-attainment air basin.
During the 45 day review period on the General Plan, comments were
received in response to the Draft EIR. These responses included
public hearing and written comments from the public and responsible
agencies. The evaluation and response to public comments is an
essential part of the CEQA process. Section 9 of the Final EIR
includes an evaluation and response to those comments received on
the Draft EIR during the review period. Where responses have taken
the form of a revision to the EIR, margin notes are shown in the
left hand margin of the Final EIR showing that the information is
revised In response to domments.
The Final EIR incorporates the Draft EIR and changes to the Draft
EIR, and in addition comments received on the Draft EIR, the City's
response to comments and a list of p~rsons, organizations and
public agencies that submitted comments.
City Counc~- Report
General Plan Revision and
Final Program Environmental Impact Report
January 17, 1994
Page 6
While the City Council is the final approving authority on the
General Plan and must "certify" the Final EIR, the Planning
Commission a6 their January 10, 1994 meeting they also took an
action to "certify" the Final EIR by adopting Planning Commission
Resolution No. 3222. Certification really has two important
elements. The City Council must find that the document has been
completed in compliance with CEQA and that it has also reviewed and
considered 5he information within the EIR prior to acting on the
General Plan. In addition, where potential significant impacts of
a project kave been identified and the City wishes to approve the
project, the City Council must issue at least two sets of findings.
The first set of findings specifically state how the City has
responded tc significant effects identified in the EIR. The second
finding is a "Statement of Overriding Consideration"
For each pcnential significant impac5 identified in the EIR, the
City must make one or more of the following findings:
.
That changes or alterations have been required or
incorporated in the project that avoid or substantially
lessen the effect;
o
That the City lacks jurisdiction to make the changes, but
that another agency does have such authority; and/or
.
Ykat specific economic, social or other considerations
mske infeasible the mitigasion or project alternatives
i~entified in the Final EIR.
Each of tkese findings must be supported by evidence in the
administrative record. CEQA Findings and a Statement of Facts have
been attacked for the City Council.
~.n the case of unavoidable project impacts on air quality
identified in the Final EIR, "if the benefits of a proposed project
outweigh the unavoidable adverse environmental effects, the adverse
environmental effects may be considered acceptable" (CEQA
Guidelines, Section 15093(a) . However, the City must issue a
"Statement of Overriding Considerations" setting forth its specific
reasons for balancing competing policies and factors. A Statement
of Overriding Considerations has been attached for the City
Council."
With respec5 to the Final Environmental Impact Report, it should be
noted that Land Use Tables and text refer to an incorrect dwelling
unit count for MCAS, Tustin. The actual existing and future
dwelling unit count is 1,539 units wkich is less than evaluated in
the EIR, tkerefore the EIR examined 5he worst case scenario and no
changes to 5he EIR are required. Ccrrected tables and text with
City Council Report
General Plan Revision and
Final Program Environmental Impact Report
January 17, 1994
Page 7
respec~ to the corrected unit count will be incorporated into the .
Final General Plan.
CONCLUSION
In proceeding with the public hearing on the General Plan, it is
recommended that the City Council:
.
Provide information to the public requesting that they limit
their public hearing input to issues in the General Plan only.
The public record and testimony on the EIR has been closed.
CEQA requires one public hearing on an EIR, which was held and
closed on October 25, 1993;
Open the public hearing and receive testimony, and
3. Close the public hearing.
Once the public hearing has been closed, the City Council could
take action on the Final EIR and General Plan if they believe all
their issues and questions have been satisfactorily addressed as an
alternative, they may continue a decision to act on the documents
until February 7, 1994 providing staff at this time with specific
direction on any issues that require clarification or direction.
In the event, the City Council wishes to proceed in approval of the
project at their meeting on January 17, it would be recommended
that the City Council approve Resolution No. 94-18, the
Environmental Determination for the project.
Attached for the City Council consideration and.action and-
incorporated into Council Resolution No. 94-18 are the following:
· Exhibit A - A CEQA Findings and Statement of Facts which
identifies that all impacts, mitigation measures and project
alternatives have been identified in the EIR and have been
considered. Impacts have been reviewed and considered and
mitigation measures have been incorporated into the Project
that eliminate or substantially lessen the significant
environmental affects of the Project.
·
· Exhibit B - A Statement of Overriding Consideration which
identifies, that long term Air Quality impacts represent a
significant effect on the environment that have been found to
be unavoidable and can not be mitigated. The benefits of the
Project have been balanced against these Air Quality
environmental consequences and the benefits of the Project
have been found to override the long term significant effects.
City Council Report
General Plan Revision and
Final Program Environmental Impact Report
January 17, 1994
Page 8
If the Environmental impact Report for the project has been
certified by adoption of Resolution No. 94-18, it would be
recommended that the City Council approve General Plan Amendment
94-01 by adoption of Resolution No. 94-19 which incorporates the
Errata which includes recommended modifications/corrections to the
Draft General Plan.
Assistant Director
Community Development Department
~istine-A.' Sh~leton
Assistant City Manager
R%4: kbc\genp t an. #4
Attachments:
ATTACHMENT I -PC Resolutions No. 322 and No. 3223
ATTACHMEh~ II -Chronology of Public Participation,
-Workshops and Hearings
ATTACHMEh~ III -Foothill Communities Association,
Inc. letter of January 10, 1994
ATTACHMEXT IV -Summary of General Plan Elements
ATTACHME>~ V -Responses to Foothill Communities
Association, Inc. an North Tustin
Community Association Comment,
November 11, 1993
ATTACHMENT II
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
RESOLUTION NO. 94-1g
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA, FINDING THAT THE
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT 94-01 (SCH
//92101104) PREPARED FOR THE CITY OF TUSTIN
GENERAL PLAN IS ADEQUATE WITH THE
INCORPORATION OF ALL RESPONSES TO COMMENTS,
CERTIFYING FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
94-01 AND ADOPTING A MITIGATION MONITORING
PROGRAM.
The City Council finds and determines as follows:
AG
As part of the implementation of State planning regulations and in recognition
of current City 15.nd use issues, the City of Tustin General Plan has been updated
and adoption is proposed. Discretionary actions considered as part of the
"Project" and identified on pages 3-1 through 3-15 of the Environmental Impact
Report and within the proposed General Plan are collectively referred to
hereafter as the "Project."
Bo
'An Environmental Impact Report (hereinafter referred to as "EIR") was
determined to be necessary for the Project due to the potential effects identified
in an Initial Study prepared for the Project; and
Co
~am EIR and its associated mitigation monitoring program have been prepared
for the Project and circulated to interested public and private agencies with a
solicitation of comments and evaluation pursuant to the requirements of the
California Environmental Quality Act of 1970 (hereinafter "CEQA"); and
Do
A public hearing on the Draft EIR was duly called, noticed, and held on October
25, 1993; and
E.
The public review period for the Draft EIR officially commenced on September
22, 1993 and ended on November 4, 1993. Incorporated within the Final EIR
are comments of the public, Planning Commission, and other individuals 'and
agencies, and responses thereto; and
Fo
The Planning Commission at a regular meeting on January 10, 1994
recommended that the City Council certify EIR 94-01 as adequate and complete,
and adopt the associated mitigation monitoring program.
O.
In accord with the State Guidelines for the implementation of the California
Environmental Quality Act, the EIR has been prepared as .a Program EIR to
evaluate the impacts of implementing the General Plan. The Program EIR
analyzes direct and secondary effects that could occur from conceptual buildout
of the General Plan and will be used to determine when subsequent
environmental review is needed for a specific development proposal that is
consistent with the General Plan. The degree of specificity used to analyze the
potential impacts 'is iff proportion to the broad nature of the policy
recommendations contained in the General Plan; and
Ho
The City Council has read and considered all environmental documentation
comprising the EIR including comments and responses and the associated
mitigation monitoring program, and has found that the EIR considers all
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Resolution No. 94-18
Page 2
II.
III.
IV.
Vo
potentially significant environmental impacts of the proposed project, is adequate
with inclusion of all responses to comments, and fully complies with all
requirements of CEQA and the State Guidelines for the implementation of
CEQA.
The policy of the State of California and the City of Tustin, in accordance with
the provisions of CEQA, as amended (Public Resources Code, Section 21000 et
seq.), and the State Guidelines for implementation of CEQA, as amended
(California Administrative Code, Section 15000 et seq.) where there is no
feasible way to lessen or avoid significant effects the City shall not approve:a
project except through a Statement of Overriding Consideration after balancing
the benefits of the Project against environmental consequences. Pursuant to this
policy, all impacts have been avoided to the extent feasible or substantially
lessened and any remaining unavoidable si~maificant impacts are acceptable based
on CEQA, Section 15093; and
All impacts, mitigation measures and project alternatives identified in the EIR
have been reviewed and considered, mitigation measures have been incorporated
into the proposed Project that eliminate or substantially lessen-the significant
environmental effects as identified in the EIR and it is determined that remaining
significant effect on the environment tbund to be unavoidable have been
balanced against the benefits of the Project and against the Project alternatives
and those benefits have been found to be overriding on each significant impact
identified in the EIR. Findings and a Statement of Facts supporting such
findings are listed in Exhibit A attached hereto and incorporated herein by
reference. A Statement of Overriding Consideration is contained in Exhibit B
attached hereto and incorporated herein bv reference; and
The City of Tustin does hereby find that EIR 94-01 in its entirety with responses to
comments and technical appendices and Errata # 1 is adequate and complete and hereby
certifies Final EIR 94-01 for the City of Tustin General Plan; and
The City Council hereby finds that changes have been required in, or incorporated into,
the Project which will mitigate or avoid the potentially significant adverse effects
identified in the Final EIR as specifically itemized in Exhibit A, CEQA Findings and
Statement of Facts. The City Council further recognizes that there will be significant
impacts to Air Quality which can not be fully mitigated. All mitigation measures
contained in Final EIR 94-01 are adopted and shall be incorporated as conditions of
approval at subsequent discretionary actions at the appropriate level of project
implementation; and
The City Council hereby adopts the CEQA Findings and Statement of Facts attached
as Exhibit A and the Statement of Overriding Consideration attached as Exhibit B and
incorporated herein by reference.
The-City of Tustin does hereby, adopt the mitigation monitoring program for the City
of Tustin General Plan
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Resolution No. 94-18
Page 3
PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Tusfin City Council, held on the 7th
day of February, 1994.
JIM POTTS
Mayor
MARY E. WYNN
City Clerk
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF ORANGE )
CITY OF TUSTIN )
CERTIFICATION FOR RESOLUTION NO. 94-18
MARY E. WYNN, 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 Resolution No. 94-18 was duly and
regularly introduced, passed, and adopted at a regular meeting of the Tustin City Council, held
on the 7th day of February, 1994.
COUNCILMEMBER AYES:
COUNCILMEMBER NOES:
COUNCILMEMBER ABSTAINED:
COUNCILMEMBER:ABSENT:
h~kRY E. WYNN
City Clerk
EXHIBIT A OF RESOLUTION NO. 94-18
CEQA FINDINGS AND STATEMENT OF FACTS
EIR 94-01 (SCH #92101104) FOR THE CITY OF TUSTIN GENERAL PLAN
SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS OF THE
PROPOSED PROJECT, FINDINGS WITH RESPECT TO SAID
EFFECTS, AND STATEMENT OF FACTS IN SUPPORT
THEREOF, ALL WITH RESPECT TO THE PROJECT AND
RELATED ACTIONS PERTAINING THERETO FOR THE CITY
OF TUSTIN GENERAL PLAN.
BACKGROUND
The Califomia Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the State CEQA Guidelines
(Guidelines) provide:
"No public agency shall approve or carry out a Project for which an
environmental impact report has been completed and which identified one or
more significant effects of the Project unless the public agency makes one or
more written findings for each of these significant effects, accompanied by a
brief explanation of the rationale for each finding."
As stated in the CEQA Guidelines, the possible £mdings are:
(1)
Changes or alterations have been reqUired in, or incorporated into, the
Project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental
effect as identified in the Final EIR.
(2)
Such changes or alterations are within-the responsibility and jurisdiction
of another public agency and not the agency making the f'mding. Such
changes have been adopted by such other agency or can and should be
adopted by such other agency.
(3)
Specific economic, social, or other considerations make infeasible the
mitigation measures or Project altematives identified in the Final EIR.
A-1
The order in which the significant impacts are identified in the Statement of Findings
and Facts herein follows the order in which topical issues are addressed within EIR
94-01.
EARTH RESOURCES
A. Significant Effects - Potentially hazardous geologic conditions exist in'-
relation to the inherent weakness in several underlying geologic formations, and
the Newport Inglewood Fault and other regional faults. Buildout according to
the General Plan will expose more people to the effects of ground shaking from
regionally or locally generated earthquakes and to landslide hazards.
FINDING 1 - Changes or alternations have been required in, or incorporated
into, the Project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant
environmental effects as identified in the Final EIR.
Facts in Support of Finding. Mitigation measures are identified in both the
Final Environmental Impact Report and the Mitigation Monitoring Program to
reduce significant impacts related to earth resources. Through implementation
of the mitigation measures, proposed development projects will be reviewed for
potential geologic safety problems related to soils, seismic activity, landslides,
steep slopes, and erosion. The City will adopt and enforce the most current
Uniform Building, Administrative, Housing, Mechanical, Plumbing and National
Electrical Codes. Retrofitting and abatement ofunreinforced masonry structures
will be required by the City to ensure that the structural .design of proposed
buildings are shock resistant to the extent feasible. Earthquake preparedness
programs will reduce the potential for structural damage and injuries. All of the
mitigation measures for earth resource impacts correspond to specific
implementation programs in the General Plan.
All significant environmental impacts related to geologic conditions have been
eliminated or substantially lessened by virtue of mitigation measures identified
in the Final EIR and Mitigation Monitoring Program, and incorporated into the
project or future project approvals as set forth above.
AIR QUALITY
Significant Effects -Implementation of the City of Tustin General Plan will
result in increased levels of most air pollutants. Emissions will come from
incrdased mobile source~; (vehicle trips); on-site combustion of natural gas' for
A-2
heating and cooking; and off-site stationary sources (power plant emissions from
the generation of electricity for new development). Short-term air quality
impacts will result from construction activity.. The General Plan is consistent
with the South Coast Air Quality Management District's (SCAQMD) 1991 Air
Quality Management Plan and other regional plans. The increase in air
pollution from implementation of the General Plan is considered a long term
significant impact because the City will be increasing pollutant levels in a non-
attainment air basin.
FINDING 1 - Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated
into, the Project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant short term
environmental effect as identified in the Final EIR to the extent possible by the
City of Tustin. HoWever, cumulative long term air quality impacts remain
significant and unavoidable.
Facts in Support of Finding. Mitigation measures are identified in both the
Final Environmental Impact Report and the Mitigation Monitoring Program to
reduce significant 'impacts to air quality. The City will reduce vehicle trips
through the implementation of Transportation Demand Management measures
including tele-commuting, ridesharing, and park-and-ride lots. Projects that
facilitate pedestrian access will be encouraged. To reduce emissions from
consumption of electricity and natural gas, city-wide energy conservation will
be promoted and energy efficient building and site design will be encouraged
for new projects. All of the mitigation measures for air quality impacts
correspond to specific implementation programs in the General Plan.
The SCAQMD 1991 Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP) is an advisory
document which identifies a number of air pollution reduction goals, measures
and policies. Local jurisdictions have been mandated to reduce a fair share
proportion of vehicle generated air pollution through the adoption of a menu of
optional Transportation Control Measures (TCMs) which have been determined
by the local agency to be politically and economically feasible. The SCAQMD
is currently drafting a Backstop Measure to ensure that local agencies meet their
fair share allocation.
The Orange County League of Cities has provided each Orange County city
with a fair share trip reduction goal. The City of Tustin has been recently
recognized as having met 122 percent of its allocated vehicle trip reduction
goal. With continued achievement of the goal, the City will not need to adopt
any~hdditional Transpofiatioh Control Measures to comply with-the 1991
A-3
AQMP. Therefore. the mitigation measures identified in the Final EIR or other
measures acceptable to SCAQMD will be implemented with discretion by the
City. The City will have discretion to select Transportation Control Measures
that are economically feasible and will achieve compliance with the 1991
AQMP. ..
FINDING 2 - Some changes or alterations are within the responsibility and '-
jurisdiction of another public agency and not the agency making the finding.
Such changes have been adopted by such other agency or can and should be
adopted by such other agency.
Facts in Support of Finding. The South Coast Air Quality Management District
and the California Air Resources Bofird (CARB) have jurisdiction 'over air
quality regulation within the basin and over vehicular emissions, respectively.
Both agencies are continuing to implement the regional Air Quality
Management Plan and adopted regulations. The SCAQMD and CARB will
ensure that all applicable regulations pertaining to the project are enforced.
~FINDING 3- Specific economic, social, or other considerations make infeasible
the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the Final EIR.
Facts in Support of Finding. Regional ambient air quality conditions, combined
with regional traffic, contribute to the non-attainment of daily State and Federal
standards for several air pollutants. All feasible mitigation measures to reduce
air quality emissions for the project have been applied and State and Federal
standards will be exceeded with or without the prdposed project. All project
alternatives, including the No Project altemative, will also result in emission
standards being exceeded within the basin.
The remaining, unavoidable significant effect is acceptable when balanced
against facts set forth above and in the Statement of Overriding Considerations
contained in Exhibit B.
WATER RESOURCES
Significant Effects - Implementation of the General Plan will result in increased
amounts of impervious surfaces and groundwater recharge rates will decrease.
Non-point source pollutant levels will increase in surface water and
gro.u, ndwater. Erosion and sedimentation could occur during grading and
A-4
construction.
flood plain.
The General Plan identifies some land uses within the 100-year
FINDING 1 - Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated
into, the Project which avoid or substantially lessen the .. significant
environmental effect as identified in the Final EIR.
Facts in Support of Finding. Mitigation measures are identified in both the
Final Environmental Impact Report and the Mitigation Monitoring Program to
reduce significant impacts to water resources. Development projects will 'be
required to implement erosion and sedimentation control measures whe/~e
necessary. The City will promote improved water quality by supporting local
programs and regulations' and working with industrial operations within the City
to reduce potential water contamination. The City will also support efforts for
environmentally sensitive improvements to floodplains including maintenance
of the Peter's Canyon Wash as an open natural channel. A number of programs
will be implemented to increase City-wide water conservation efforts. All of
the mitigation' measures for water resource impacts correspond to specific
implementatiOn programs in the General Plan.
All significant environmental impacts to water resources have been eliminated
or substantially lessened by virtue of mitigation measures identified in the Final
EIR and Mitigation Monitoring Program, and incorporated into the project or
future project approvals as set forth above.
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
Significant Effects - The Tustin Planning Area is highly urbanized and natural
habitat with biological value is limited. Future development will primarily
occur in previously developed or disturbed areas. The most important natural
habitat exists in the Peters Canyon area and the General Plan prevents
development in the Peters Canyon area to minimize biological impacts. Other
isolated islands of natural habitat may be impacted and the eucalyptus and
redwood groves could be degraded by future development. The California
gnatcatcher is present in the coastal sage scrub of East Tustin. To maximize
protection of the California gnatcatcher, the City participates in the State of
California Resources Agency Natural Community Conservation Plan for Coastal
Sage Scrub.
A-5
FINDING 1 - Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated
into, the Project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant
environmental effect as identified in the Final EIR.
Facts in Support of Finding. Mitigation. measures are identified..in both the
Final Environmental Impact Report and the Mitigation Monitoring Pro,am to
reduce significant impacts to biological resources. The City will require
developers to perform biological surveys prior to project approval in areas
known or suspected to contain significant biological resources. Site-specific
mitigation measures will be incorporated into individual development projects
where necessary. The City will support environmentally sensitive flood plain
management and continue to participated in the State of California Resources
Agency Natural Community Conservation Plan for Coastal Sage Scrub. All of
the mitigation measures for biological resource impacts correspond to specific
implementation programs in the General Plan.
All significant environmental impacts to biological resources have been
eliminated or substantially lessened by virtue of mitigation' .measures identified
in the Final EIR and Mitigation Monitoring Program, and incorporated into the
project or future project approvals as set forth above.
NOISE
Significant Effects - Development according to the General Plan will result in
noise impacts adjacent to heavily traveled roadways in presently undeveloped
areas (such as East Tustin), along the Southern California Regional Rail
Authority right-of-way, and adjacent to the flight path of John Wayne Airport.
Short-term noise impacts will result from construction of planned development
identified in the General Plan.
FINDING 1 - Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated
into, _the Project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant
environmental effect as identified in the Final EIR.
Facts in Support of Finding. Mitigation measures are identified in both the
Final Environmental Impact Report and the Mitigation Monitoring Pro,am to
reduce significant noise impacts. The City will to the extent feasible ensure that
noise barriers are constructed along transportation corridors to minimize impacts
on surrounding sensitive land uses. To avoid increased noise exposure from
avia't'ion activities, the City will continue to participate in the planning-ProceSses
A-6
for John Wayne Airport, MCAS Tustin, and MCAS E1 Toro. Noise standards
will be applied to all new development proposals and measures to mitigate
potential impacts will be required to meet the standards. All of the mitigation
measures for noise impacts correspond to specific implementation programs in
the General Plan. ' "
All significant environmental noise impacts have been eliminated or
substantially lessened by virtue of mitigation measures identified in the Final
EIR and Mitigation Monitoring Program, and incorporated into the project or
future project approvals as set forth above.
LAND USE
Significant Effects - Future residential development anticipated by the land use
plan will result in a maximum increase of 7,479 dwelling units for a total of
35.891 dwelling units in the Planning Area. This will represent an increase of
approximately 26 percent in the number of residential dwelling units within the
Tustin Planning Area. The development of new housing will primarily occur
within the incorporated City of Tustin. Under buildout of the General Plan, the
number of dwelling units within the incorporated limits of the City of Tustin
will increase approximately 27 percent from 20,092 to 27,618 units. The
number of dwelling units in the County unincorporated area of the Planning
Area will remain relatively constant in future years under the Tustin General
Plan. The overall level of non-residential development in the Planning Area is
expected to increase approximately 37 percent from General Plan buildout, from
24.0 to 32.9 million square feet. Non-residential uses will increase by 34
percent in the incorporated City of Tustin, (from 22.5 to 30.1 million square
feet), and by 79 percent in the remainder of the Planning Area, (from 1.5 to 2.8
million square feet). The majority increase in the remainder of the Planning
Area occurs within the City of Irvine incorporated boundaries in an area
identified under a "Special Management Area" designation in the General Plan
(a 115 acre area at the southeasterly portion of the Planning Area east of an
existing City of Tustin corporate boundary).
FINDING 1 - Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated
into, the Project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant
environmental effect as identified in the Final EIR.
Facts in Support of Fin.ding. Mitigation measures are identified in both the
Final Environmental Impact ~eport and the Mitigation Monitoring PrograTM to
A-7
reduce significant impacts to land use. All development projects will be
assessed for impacts to public services and utilities and development fees will
be charged to offset impacts. Comprehensive development plans will be
required for large development proposals. To enhance community character, the
City will create visual linkages on major street corridors, preserve historic
properties, establish common design features for commercial areas, and
encourage the continuance of the beautification program. The City will
coordinate with adjacent and regional jurisdictions to coordinate traffic, air
quality and growth management efforts. All of the mitigation measures for land
use impacts correspond to specific implementation programs in the General
Plan.
All significant environmental impacts to land use have been eliminated or
substantially lessened by virtue of mitigation measures identified in the Final
EIR and Mitigation Monitoring Program, and incorporated into the project or
future project approvals as set forth above.
RISK OF UPSET/HUMAN HEALTH
Significant Effects - Implementation of the General Plan will increase the
number of people residing in the Tustin Planning Area and subsequently
increase the number of people at risk to seismic hazards, flooding,
wildland/urban fires, and aircraft overflight.
FINDING 1 -Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated
into, the Project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant
environmental effect as identified in the Final EIR. The land uses established
by the General Plan are compatible with the surrounding natural and urban
environment and minimize risk of upset hazards.
Facts in Support of Finding. Mitigation measures are identified in both the
Final Environmental Impact Report and the Mitigation Monitoring Pro.am to
reduce significant impacts to risk of upset/human health. The City will
coordinate with the Airport Land Use Commission to protect and prevent the
construction of sensitive and residential land uses under air traffic corridors to
reduce the hazards-from potential aircraft accidents. New construction within
floodplain areas will be regulated through the City's Floodplain Management
Ordinance. Seismic hazards will be minimized by enforcing the provisions of
the C. ity's Grading Manu. al and requiring geological and/or engineering reports
in areas where hazardous get'logical conditions may exist.
A-8
Fire hazards shall be minimized through enlbrcement of the Uniform Fire Code,
ensurance of proper fire flows for new developmen~ and prevention programs.
The City will enforce the provisions of the City's Hazardous Waste Facilities
Ordinance to regulate and control the location and operation of the facilities and
guarantee public participation through a' public hearing process:~ All City
departments shall promote public agency responsiveness to emergency situations
through training and practice with the City's Emergency Operation Plan. All
of the mitigation measures for risk of upsevhuman health impacts correspond
to specific implementation programs in the General Plan.
All significant environmental impacts to risk of upset and human health have
been eliminated or substantially lessened by virtue of mitigation measures
identified in the Final EIR and Mitigation Monitoring Program, and
incorporated into the project or future project approvals as set forth above.
POPULATION/HOUSING
Significant Effects - Buildout of the Planning Area according to the General
Plan will result in the addition of a maximum of 7,479 dwelling units and 8.9
million square feet of non-residential uses. The population of the Planning Area
is projected to increase approximately 16 percent fi.om 79,365 to 94,754
persons. Housing in the Planning Area is projected to increase approximately
21 percent from 28,412 to 35,891 dwelling units. The projected population for
the incorporated part of the Planning Area at 68,732 is consistent with the
County' population growth projections. In the unincorporated portion of the
Planning Area population is projected to increase approximately 17 percent to
26,381.
FINDING 1 - Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated
into, the Project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant
environmental effect as identified in the Final EIR.
Facts in Support of Finding. Mitigation measures are identified in both the
Final Environmental Impact Report and the Mitigation Monitoring Program to
reduce significant impacts to population/housing. The City will implement
programs to (1) ensure that a broad range of housing ~pes are provided to meet
the needs of both existing and future residents; (2)provide 'equal housing
opportunities for all City residents; (3) ensure a reasonable balance between
rental and owner occu. pied. housing; (4)preserve existing housing and
neig'l~borhoods; and (5) ensure housing is sensitive to the existing natural and
A-9
built environment. All of the mitigation measures for population/housing
impacts correspond to specific implementation programs in the General Plan
Housing Element.
All significant environmental impacts to-population and housing-, have been
eliminated or substantially lessened' by virtue of mitigation measures identified
in the Final EIR and Mitigation Monitoring Program, and incorporated into the '-
project or future project approvals as set forth above.
TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION
Significant Effects -Buildout of the General Plan will increase traffic trips
generated by the Planning Area by approximately 44 percent, (from 577,505 to
831,681 trips). Of these trips approximately 85 percent (707,277 trips) at
buildout will be generated by the City. Actual traffic volumes will be greater
due to substantial regional traffic. The Level of Service for many existing
roadways will exceed acceptable levels. To accommodate future traffic
'volumes, the General Plan Circulation Element contains an Arterial Highway.
Plan. The Circulation Element is consistent with the County Master Plan of
Arterial Highways. The Circulation Element also contains a City Bikeway Plan
to facilitate bicycle transportation.
FINDING 1 - Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated
into, the Project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant
environmental effect as identified in the Final EIR.
Facts in Support of Finding. Mitigation measures are identified in both the
Final Environmental Impact Report and the Mitigation Monitoring Program to
reduce significant impacts to transportation/circulation. The City will
implement the Arterial Highway Plan to accommodate increased traffic levels
from new development. The City will ensure that growth and development is
based on the City's ability to provide an adequate traffic circulation system
pursuant to the Orange County Division, League of California Cities
"Countywide Traffic Improvement and Growth Management Plan Component."
All proposed projects will be reviewed for potential impacts and mitigation
measures will be required as appropriate.
To improve intercity and regional transportation, the City will work with the
powers of the Interjurisdi.ctional Planning Forums and Joint Powers Agreements
to d~scuss and evaluate new' development proposals which may have traffic
A-10
impacts related to the City of Tustin. The efficiency of the City's circulation
system will be maximized by the use of Transportation SystemDemand
Management strategies. Alternative transportation modes will be promoted to
reduce local trips. All of the mitigation measures for transportation/circulation
impacts correspond to specific implementation.programs in the General Plan.
All significant environmental impacts to transportation and circulation haVe
been eliminated or substantially lessened by virtue of mitigation measures
identified, in the Final EIR and Mitigation Monitoring Program, and
incorporated into the project or future project approvals as set forth above.
FINDING 2 - Some changes or alterations are within, the responsibility and
jurisdiction of another public agency and not the agency making the £mding.
Facts in Support of Finding. Agencies adjacent to the City have jurisdiction
over development and transportation facilities within their boundaries ~hat may
impact the City of Tustin's transportation facilities. Such transportation
facilities include the I-5 and .SR-55 fi'eeway widening construct/on, the
construction of the Foothill Transportation Corridor and improvement projects
in adjacent cities. To reduce inter-city and regional transportation impacts, the
City of Tustin will work with adjacent agencies to .review and evaluate
development proposals within those agencies which may have impacts to the
City of Tustin. In addition, the City of Tustin will be affected by changes in
transportation funding sources and programs.
PUBLIC SERVICES
Significant Effects - Increased development in Tustin will result in ~.creased
risk of structural fires and increased demand for fire protection services from
the Orange County Fire Department. Implementation of the General Plan will
result in larger student enrollment and increase the demand for schools.
Additional students will further aggravate overcrowded conditions in Tustin
schools.
FINDING 1 - Changes or alterations have been required in. or incorporated
into, the Project which avoid or substantially lessen the si~ificant
environmental effect as identified in the Final EIR.
Facts in Support of Finding.. Mitigation measures are identified in both the
Fina~ Environmental Impact Report and the Mitigation Monitoring Pro,am to
A-Il
reduce significant impacts to public services. Impacts on law en/brcement
service have been determined not to be significant. To reduce impacts to fire
protection services, the City will promote fire prevention and continue to require
dedication of right-of-way and improvements of streets and infrastructure
consistent with the Tustin City Code and the Orange County Fire Department.
To reduce impact to schools, the City will continue to require dedication and/or
reservation of school sites, a fee in lieu thereof, or a combination of both as a
condition of new residential development. All of the mitigation measures for
public se.rvice impacts correspond to specific implementation programs in the
General Plan.
All significant environmental impacts to fire protection services and schools
have been eliminated or substantially lessened by virtue of mitigation measures
identified in the Final EIR and Mitigation Monitoring Program. and
incorporated into the project or future project approvals as set forth above.
ENERGY/UTILITIES
Significant Effects - Implementation of the General Plan will cause increases
in the demand for electricity and natural gas. Electrical use will increase by
approximately nine percent in the incorporated City of Tustin and 11 percent in
the Planning Area. Natural gas uses will increase by 27 percent in the Planning
Area and six percent in the unincorporated County area. Water service
infrastructure must be extended into presently vacant acres before they are
developed. Buildout of the General Plan will increase daily water consumption
by 27 percent in the Planning Area and two percent in the unincorporated area..
Planned development will impact the local wastewater collection system, the
trunk line delivery system, and the wastewater treatment plant, (i.e., Huntington
Beach Plant). Daily sewer generation flows will increase by approximately 35
percent in the incorporated City of Tustin and three percent in the
unincorporated County area. Buildout .of the development allowed by the
General Plan will increase the City's daily solid waste generation rate by.31
percent in the incorporated City of Tustin and eight percent in the
unincorporated County area. The City's collection services can accommodate
the increased solid waste generation. However, landfill capacity in the region
is limited. Implementation of State Assembly Bill 939 in Tustin could reduce
the solid waste generation rate by 50 percent by the year 2000 and the impact
to regional landfills could be consequently reduced.
A-12
FINDING 1 -Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated
into, the Project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant
environmental effect as identified in the Final EIR.
Facts in Support of Findine. Mitigation'measures are identified'in both the
Final Environmental Impact Report and the Mitigation Monitoring Program to
reduce significant impacts to energy and utilities. To reduce impacts to energy
service and use, the City will enforce the requirements of State Title 24 Energy
Regulations and consider adopting an energy efficiency ordinance. During the
development review process, energy efficient building and site design will be
encouraged. The C i~; will also provide information about methods to maximize
structural energy efficiency. -1-o reduce impacts to water service, the City will
practice the efficient use of water supplies arid water conservation through'a
variety of methods. Ail water infrastructure improvements identified in the
City's Capital Improvement Pro,am must be consistent with the General Plan.
To reduce impacts to sewer service fi.om new development projects, the City
will continue to require the dedication of right-of-way and sewer infrastructure
improvements. To reduce impacts to solid waste, the City will implement its
adopted Source Reduction and Recycling Element pursuant to Assembly Bill
939. All of the mitigation measures for energy and utility impacts correspond
to specific implementation pro,ams in the General Plan.
·
All significant environmental energy and utilities have been eliminated or
substantially lessened by virtue of mitigation measures identified in the Final
EIR and Mitigation Monitoring Program, and incorporated into the project or
future project approvals as set tbrth above.
RECREATION
Significant Effects - Based upon the City's current parkland standard, the City
presently lacks sufficient existing and planned parkland to adequately serve the
present population. Planned development according to the General Plan will
increase the City population and the parkland deficit will subsequently further
increase. While the proposed County regional park will add 243 acres of
parkland to the Planning Area. regional parks are not included in calculations
for City parkland. The additional 243 acres of regional parkland will, however,
partially offset the recreation impacts of the General Plan.
A-13
FINDING 1 - Changes or alterations have been required in. or incorporated
into, the Project which avoid or substantially, lessen the si~ificant
environmental effect as identified in the Final EIR.
Facts in Support of Finding. Mitigation-measures are identified in both the
Final Environmental Impact Report and the Mitigation Monitoring Pro~m'am to
reduce significant impacts to recreation. The City will identi~, and obtain new
parkland through a variety of methods including continued enforcement of the
Quimby Act Ordinance provisions for residential development. Through joint-
use agreements, the City will enhance the use of school facilities for public
recreational use.
The maintenance of existing parks will be emphasized to maximize public use.
The City will coordinate with other community service providers on a regx~lar
basis to ensure that programs and services are not being duplicated or
competing against each other in the City. All of the mitigation measures for
recreation impacts correspond to specific implementation programs ha the
General Plan.
Ail significant environmental impacts to recreation have been elimina.:ed or
substantially lessened by virtue of mitigation measures identified in the Final
EIR and Mitigation Monitoring Program, and incorporated into the pro_iect or
future project approvals as set forth ~ibove.
ARCHAEOLOGICAL/HISTORICAL/PALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCES
Significant Effects - Significant archaeological and paleontological resources
could be disturbed during earthwork required for ne~v development projects.
Historic structures may be removed and replaced with planned land us~.
FINDING 1 - Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated
into, the Project which avoid or substantially lessen the sign21cant
environmental effect as identified in the Final EIR.
Facts in Support of Finding. Mitigation measures are identified in both the
Final Environmental Impact Report and the Mitigation Monitoring Pro~m'am to
reduce significant impacts to archaeological, historical, and paleontological
resources. The City will require all developers to perform archaeological and
paleontological surveys prior to grading in areas known or suspected to contains
such'resources. The City ~;ill also enforce the provisions of the California
A-14
Environmental Quality Act regarding preservation or salvage of significant
historic, archaeological and paleontological sites discovered during construction
activities.
Historic resources will be protected by pursuing historic survey md research
opportunities; pursuing historic desi~ation opportunities for historic properties;
utilizing the guidelines established by the National Register, Office of Historic
Preservation, and Tustin City Code; continuing to enforce zoning ordinance
provisions, for the Cultural Resources District; and ensuring that design and
development standards are enforced. All of the mitigation measures for impacts
to archaeological, historical, and paleontological resources correspond to
specific implementation pro.ams in the General Plan.
All significant environmental impacts to archaeological, historical, and
paleontological resources have been eliminated or substantially lessened by
virtue of mitigation measures identified in the Final EIR and Mitigation
Monitoring Program, and incorporated into the project or future project
approvals as set forth above.
PROJECT ALTERNATIVES
The following project alternatives ~vere considered in the EIR: No Project, Existing
General Plan, Decreased Industrial Development,. Decreased Residential Development,
and Greater Mixed Use Development. The alternatives were developed to reduce the
environmental effects of the project including the unavoidable significant air quality
impacts.
No Project
Under the No Project altemative, no further development will occur in the Tustin
Planning Area beyond existing land uses and approved projects. None of the 1,298
acres of presently' vacant land will be developed with the exception of approved
p,rojects. The No Project altemative will eliminate the benefits of long-range planning
for the City of Tustin.
Because no further development will occur in the Tustin Planning Area under the No
Project alternative, most of the significant environmental impacts of the proposed
General Plan will be eliminated by the implementation of the No Project altemative.
However, the No Project alternative will result in population and housing impacts that
are more s{~,nificant than the p6pulation and housing impacts of the proposed General
A-15
Plan. Regional growth will not be accommodated within the Planning Area and
surrounding jurisdictions may experience development and population growth that
exceeds anticipated levels.
While the No Project altemative is considered environmentally superior to the
proposed General Plan, it is rejected because it is infeasible. The City of Tustin must
update and adopt its Housing Element every five years pursuant to State law.
However, a comprehensive update of the entire Plan should also be undertaken every
five years to ensure the Plan accurately reflects City policy, State law and the changing
community. In addition, no new tax revenue will be generated in future years under
the No Project alternative. The City will subsequently have very limited financial
resources to fund public service, utility, and circulation improvements which are
required-to mitigate the effects of regional growth. Implementation of the No Project
altemative will prohibit property owners in Tustin from developing their land and may
represent a legal "taking without compensation."
Existing General Plan
Under the Existing General Plan alternative,' the proposed General Plan will not be
adopted or implemented and the existing General Plan will continue to be used as the
City's primary land use planning document. Buildout of the existing General Plan will
generally result in similar levels of development as the proposed General Plan.' The
existing General Plan, however, allows for the development of less residential uses and
more non-residential uses than the proposed General Plan. Because the existing
General Plan has not been comprehensively updated for a number of years, it lacks
strong policies and programs to effectively protect the quality of the natural and built
environment in Tustin.
While the existing General Plan and the proposed General Plan generally allow for'the
same levels of development, the environmental impact of buildout of the existing
General Plan could be more substantial. The existing General Plan lacks updated
implementatiofl programs to effectively reduce environmental impacts. Implementation
of the existing General Plan will not reduce any of the environmental impacts
~ssociated with the proposed General Plan. In regards to air quality impacts, buildout
of the existing General Plan will exacerbate regional air quality p.roblems than the
proposed General Plan. The existing General Plan will allow decreased number of
dwelling units and increased number of non-residential uses and the jobs-to-housing
ratio will be greater than the ratio under the proposed General Plan.
A-16
The Existing General Plan alternative is rejected because it is not environmentally
superior to the proposed General Plan. In addition, the existing General Plan does not
fulfill the project objectives and is not feasible. The City of Tustin must update and
adopt its Housing Element eve~' five years pursuant to State law. However, a
comprehensive update of the entire Plan should also be undertaken every- five years
to ensure the Plan accmrately reflects Ci~? policy, State law and the changing
community.
Decreased Industrial Development
Under the Decreased Industrial Development alternative, the amount of land planned
for industrial uses is decreased. Buildout of this alternative will result in less
industrial development than the proposed General Plan, (854,000 versus 3,149,000
square feet) but more commercial and business development excluding professional
office than the proposed General Plato (19,039,000 versus 17,265,000). In total, the
Decreased Industrial Development alternative will result in approximately 2.5 percent
less non-residential development at buildout. Approximately 2.0 percent less housing
will be developed under this alternative.
Because the total buildout potential of the Decreased Industrial Development
altemative is very similar to the total buildout potential of the proposed General Plan,
the environmental impacts from implementation will be very similar. The Decreased
Industrial Development alternative is not considered environmentally superior to the
proposed General Plan.
Decreased Residential Development
Under the Decreased Residential Development altemative, the amount of land planned
for residential uses is decreased. Buildout of this alternative will result in 34,595
dwelling units, which is 3.7 percent less than the 35,891 dwelling units identified in
the proposed General Plan. However, approximately 2.0 percent more non-residential
uses will -be constructed.
l~ecause the total buildout potential of the Decreased Residential Development
alternative is very similar to the total buildout potential of the proposed General Plan,
the environmental impacts from implementation will be very similar with the exception
of greater population/housing impacts. Due to the decreased number of residential
units to be developed under this alternative, sufficient housing stock may not be
available to meet the projected .housing demand fi'om regional population growth.. In
particular, fiffordable housing may not be available to meet the needs of lower income
A-17
groups. Due to the decreased number of dwelling units and the increased number of
non-residential uses, the jobs-to-housing ratio will be greater than the ratio under the
proposed General Plan. Because Tustin is located in two jobs-rich subregions, the
increased jobs-to-housing ratio will be a significant and unmitigable impact. The
greater jobs-to-housing ratio will result exacerbate rogional air quality problems.
The Decreased Residential Development altemative is rejected because it is not
considered environmentally superior to the proposed General Plan.
Greater Mixed-Use Development
Under this alternative, the General Plan will include a Mixed-Use designation in parts
of Old Town and in older, developed portions of the City north of Interstate 5. The
Mixed-Use designation will allow the integration of high density residential uses and
neighborhood commercial and office uses. The commercial and office uses will be
located on the street level and the residential uses will be located in the upper stories.
Buildout of the Greater Mixed-Use Development altemative will result in the same
amount of residential and non-residential development as buildout of the proposed
General Plan.
Because the total buildout potential of the Greater Mixed-Use Development alternative
is the' same as the total buildout potential of the proposed General Plan, the
environmental impacts from implementation will be very similar with the exception
of reduced transportation/circulation and air quality impacts. The juxtaposition of
residential, commercial, and office uses in mixed use development w-ill provide the
opportunity to work and shop without driving to nearby residents. The reduction in
driving from the Greater Mixed-Use Development alternative will decrease some of
the traffic within the Planning Area and the circulation impacts will be less significant
than the circulation impacts of the proposed General Plan. The circulation impacts of
this alternative can be mitigated to less than significant.
Due to the reduction in traffic under the Greater Mixed-Use Development alternative,
less emissions will be generated by automobiles. The air quality impacts of this
~tltemative will be less significant than the impacts of the proposed General Plan.
Because State and Federal air quality standards are exceeded in the. South Coast Air
Basin, the cumulative impact to air quality under this alternative is considered
significant and cannot be mitigated to less than significant.
The Greater Mixed-Use Dev.eloPment
superior tO'the proposed General Plan.
altemative is considered environmentally
Impacts to circulation and air quality will be
A-18
less significant than the impacts of the proposed General Plan. However, most of the
other environmental impacts resulting from this alternative xviI1 be similar to the
impacts of the proposed General Plan. This alternative is feasible and 'fulfills the
objectives of the proposed project. The Greater Mixed-Use Development alternative,
however, is rejected. Mixed-use development is 'a new planning concept tn southern
California and the economic viability of mixed-use development has not been
successfully proven. The City cannot realistically assume tha~ financing will be
available /hr proposed mixed-use development proposals at this time.
RW:kbcMxhbta
A-19
EXHIBIT B OF RESOLUTION NO. 94-18
STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS
EIR 94-01 (SCH 1192101104) FOR THE CITY OF TUSTIN GENERAL PLAN
BACKGROUND
The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the CEQA EIR Guidelines
promulgated pursuant thereto provide:
"(a) CEQA requires the decision maker to balance the benefits of a proposed
project against its unavoidable environmental risks in determining whether to
approve the project. If the benefits of the proposed project outweigh the
unavoidable adverse environmental effects, the adverse environmental effects
may be considered 'acceptable'.
(b) Where the decision of the public agency allows the occurrence of significant
effects which are identified in the Final EIR but are not mitigated, the agency
must state in writing the reasons to support its action based on the Final EIR
and/or other information in the record. This statement may be necessary if the
agency also makes the finding under Section 15091 (a)(2) or (a)(3).
(c) If an agency makes a Statement of Overriding Considerations, the statement
should be included in the record of the project approval and should be
mentioned in the Notice of Determination. (Section 15093 of the Guidelines.)
After balancing the benefits of the proposed project against its unavoidable
environmental risks, the City of Tustin specifically finds and makes this Statement of
Overriding Considerations that this project has eliminated or substantially lessened all
significant effects on the environment where feasible, and has determined that any
remaining, significant effects on the environment such as; cumulative long term air
,quality impacts, changes or alterations within the responsibility and jurisdiction of
another public agency, specific economic, social, or other considerations make
infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives in the Final EIR in the
category of Air Quality are found to be unavoidable as identified in Exhibit A are
acceptable due to the overriding concerns.
The SCAQMD 1991 Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP) is an advisory document
which identifies a number of air pollution reduction goals, measures and policies.
B-1
Local jurisdictions have been mandated to reduce a fair share proportion of vehicle
generated air pollution through adoption of a menu of optional Transportation Control
Measures (TCMs) which have been determined by the local agency to be politically
correct and economically feasible. The SCAQMD is currently drafting a Backstop
Measure to ensure that local agencies meet their' fair 'share allocation. "
The Orange County League of Cities has provided each Orange County city its fair
share trip reduction goal. The City of Tustin has been recently recognized as having
met 122 percent.of its allocated vehicle trip reduction goal. Therefore, it is currently
assumed that the City will not need to adopt any additional Transportation Control
Measures to comply with the 1991 AQMP. In addition, the City closely monitors air
quality matters with the intent of complying with future revisions of the AQMP.
Because the City is in substantial compliance with regional air quality goals, the
unavoidable air quality impact is minimized to the greatest degree possible and is
balanced by the overriding concerns described below:
le
The City of Tustin General Plan provides a comprehensive and coordinated
approach to manage anticipated growth, address current economic social and
economic conditions, and protect environmental quality. The General Plan is
a reasonable approach to allocating land for future development and establishing
programs to achieve the City's social, economic, and environmental goals. The
benefits of implementing the Tustin General Plan include balanced development
of compatible land uses; preservation of Tustin's unique community heritage;
infrastructure improvements and expanded public services to meet existing and
projected needs; transportation management; housing opportunities for all Tustin
residents; protection of Tustin's natural resources; increased tax revenues to
fund needed programs; and participation in regional efforts to manage air
quality, transportation, and biological resources. These local and regional
benefits outweigh unavoidable significant air quality impacts, which have been
reduced to the extent possible by the City with mitigation programs.
.
According to regional projections, the population of the City of Tustin will
continue to increase in the future. To accommodate the anticipated population
growth, housing development must continue and more local jobs must be
generated. The General Plan is a reasonable approach to accommodate growth
while recognizing local and regional efforts to improve air quality. The General
Plan incorporates measures that have been identified in the South Coast Air
Quality Management District 1991 .Air Quality Management Plan. Regional
implementation of the AQMP.measures is necessary to obtain State and Federal
air q~ality standards. As described below in items three through six, the City
B-2
ge
o
of Tustin has effectively balanced air quality concems with other community
needs for housing, jobs, transportation, and economic development.
The 1991 AQMP identifies land use controls to improve regional air quality.
The goal of the land use controls is to establish 'a region-wide efforr-to alleviate
the current imbalance that exists between jobs and available housing and to
reduce vehicle miles traveled. Congestion of the regional freeways is
exacerbated by the this imbalance because it leads to numerous long commutes
between areas with abundant housing and areas with abundant industrial,
commercial, and office uses. Increased integration of housing and land uses
that generate jobs can contribute to shorter commutes and lower emissions."
The city of Tustin is located in a region that is considered "jobs rich." Through
the General Plan update, the City has adjusted the relationship between planned
residential and job-generating uses in the Planning Area to improve the jobs-to-
housing balance. The proposed General Plan identifies more residential uses
and less commercial and business uses than the existing General Plan.
Implementation of the proposed General Plan will improve the long-term
regional jobs-to-housing balance.
The 1991 AQMP also identifies transportation control measures to improve
regional air quality. The transportation control measures fall into four
categories: demand management, system management, facility .improvements,
and technological advancements. Demand management is the effort to change
motorists' behavior, and includes such measures as ridesharing and alternative
work schedules. System management addresses improvements in the
transportation system, such as traffic signal synchronization, to .make the system
function more efficiently. Facility improvements are capital expenditures, for
such things as freeway widening and construction of new facilities to improve
traffic flow and reduce congestion. Technological measures rely on the
development of new vehicles, fuel, or power systems.
The Circulation, Conservation/Open Space/Recreation, Growth Management
Elements of the General Plan contain specific demand management, system
management, and facility improvement measures that are .identified in the
AQMP. Implementation of the corresponding General Plan measures will result
in the efficient operation of the local circulation system as planned development
proceeds and consequently reduce production of emissions. The measures will
also result in reduced vehicle miles and emissions through ridesharing and use
of a~temative transportation schedules and modes. The Conservation/Open
B-3
o
Se
Space/Recreation Element contains technology-based measures related to
alternative fuel sources for vehicles. The City of Tustin General Plan espouses
the AQMP transportation control measures to reduce air quality impacts from
existing and planned development to the extent feasible.
Energy conservation is another method to obtain State and Federal air quality
standards in the South Coast Air Basin, Air pollutants are produced by the
generation of electrical power and by the combustion of natural gas. Reducing
the consumption of electricity and natural gas will decrease pollutant levels in
the basin. The General Plan Conservation/Open Space/Recreation Element
contains programs that the City of Tustin will implement to conserve energy.
Implementation of the energy conservation programs will reduce the amount of
energy consumed in both existing and planned development and consequently
lessen air quality impacts.
The General Plan Conservation/Open Space/Recreation Element also contains
programs to continue city-wide efforts to recycle waste glass, paper, plastic, and
aluminum. Substantial energy is required to produce these materials and
resultant pollutants from energy consumption contribute to regional air quality
problems. Recycling and re-using glass, paper, plastic, and aluminum will
avoid substantial energy expenditures during production and resultant air
pollutants. The City of Tustin will continue the recycling programs to further
reduce air quality impacts from General Plan implementation.
Dust and other particulate matter levels exceed the State and Federal standards
in the South Coast Air Bash. Grading activity, building, and road construction
result in particulate emissions from both the materials used and construction
methods. The City of Tustin General Plan Conservation/Open Space/Recreation
Element contains a program to reduce particulate emissions from the storage
and transport of fine particulate matter and from unpaved areas used for vehicle
maneuvering. Through this program, the City of Tustin will reduce particulate
emissions associated with the planned development identified in the General'
Plan.
RW:kbc\exhbtb
B-4
ATTACHMENT III
1
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
RESOLUTION NO. 94-19
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING GENERAL PLAN
AMENDMENT 94-01. UPDATING ALL ELEMENTS OF THE
TUSTIN AREA GENERAL PLAN. ,
The City Council of the .City of Tustm does hereby resolve as follows:
The City Council finds and determines as follows:
mo
Government Code Section 65358 provides that when it is deemed to be in the
public interest, the legislative body may amend all or part of an adopted Gener,al
Plan.
B°
C,
Government Code Section 65358(b) states that no mandatory element of a
General Plan shall be mended more frequently than 4 times during any calendar
year. However, each amendment may include more than 1 change to the
General Plan. Appropriately in conjunction with General Plan Amendment 94-
01, while all elements aze being amended the action shall be considered as one
amendment per Section 65358(b).
The Planning Comm~ion at a regular meeting on January 10, 1994
recommended to the City Council approval of General Plan Amendment 94-01.
D,
Eo
In accordance with Government Code Section 65353, a public hearing was duly
noticed, called, and held on the proposed amendment by the City Council on
January 17, 1994.
General Plan Amendment 94-01 has been reviewed in accordance with the
California Environmenul Quality Act and Final Environmental Impact Report
(EIR) 94-01, which adequately addresses the general environmental setting of
the proposed project, irs significant environmental impacts and the project
alternatives and mitigation measures related to each significant environmental
effect for the proposed project has been reviewed and considered by the
Planning Commission and it is determined that any remaining significant effects
on the environment found to be unavoidable have been balanced against the
benefits of the project and against the project alternatives and those benefits
have been found to be overriding on each significant impact identified in the
EIR. -
Uo
General Plan Amendment 94-01 is in the best interest of the public based on the
following:
1. The comprehensive update of the General Plan ensures that the City
conforms to changes in State law, reflects current court decisions and
provides an int~zrated and internally consistent set of goals and policies
designed to reflect the changing characteristics and growth of the
community.
2. The updated General Plan will project and direct future growth and
development in the City of Tustin.
3. The updated General Plan reflects community input on goals and
objectives through the public participation process.
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
Resolution No. 94-19
Page 2
._
25
26
27
28
.
The updated goals, policies and implementation programs v,411 ensure that
the City of Tustin has an adequate General Plan.
II. The City Council does hereby approve the following:
General Plan Amendment 94-01 amending all Elements of the Tustin Area General Plan
conditioned upon certain textual and map changes being made to the General Plan
Elements identified as Errata to General Plan Documents. and attached as Exhibit A arid
B, incorporated herein by reference. Said textual and map changes will be made in the
printing of the Final document.
PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Tustin at a regular m~ting held
on the 7th day of February, 1994.
JIM POTTS
Mayor
MARY E. WYNN
City Clerk
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF ORANGE )
CITY OF TUSTIN )
CERTIFICATION FOR RESOLUTION NO. 94-19
MARY E. WYNN, City Clerk and ex-officio Clerk of the City Council of the Ci~' 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 Resolution No. 94-19 was duly and
regularly introduced, passed, and adopted at a regular meeting of the Tustin CiW Council. held
on the 7th day of February, 1994.
COUNCILMEMBER AYES:
COUNCILMEMBER NOES:
COUNCILMEMBER ABSTAINED:
COUNCILMEMBER:AB SENT:
MARY E. WYNN
City Clerk
EXHIBIT A
ERRATA NO. 1
EXHi3 iT 7_
ERRATA TO GENE~mL Pi_~N DOCUMENTS
RESOLUTION NO. 94-19
JANUARY 17, '994
Additions to and deleted text in the Errata are identified as:
Deletions: st
Additions:
LAND USE ELEMENT
1. Certain Figures in the Land Use Element do not contain
streets that are shown on the other figure exhibits. FOr
consistency with other Figares and the DEIR, the following
Land Use Figures shall be revise5 as follow~:
a. Add Yorba Stree5, sou5h of Seventeenth Street to
Figure LU-2.
b. Add Myford Road -o the Figure LU-3.
o
o
c. Add Valencia Avenue tc the Figure LU-3.
Page 45 - Figure LU-6, Special Management Areas. MCAS, Tustin
legend does not match graphics delineating the MCAS area. The
legend and the MCAS Specific Plan Study Area shall be
reconciled.
On all city exhibit maps, chanres_ shall be made to show -
Santa Clara at the top of mad=-~ Fairhaven. Santa Clara is
located to the south and wcul~ be moved down to the next major
street as shown on the at5ached example Attachment (A.1) .
Corrections will be made ~o the following Exhibits:
Figures
I-l, Page 2, Introduction
LU-1, Page 26
LU-2, Page 27
-LU-5, Page 41
LU-6, Page 45
LU-7, Page 46
o
Page 48 discussion of Nornh Tus5in Specific Plan Management
Area shall be modified to read: North Tustin Specific Plan:
The North Tustin Specific Plan applies to portions of the
unincorporated area of Nor5h Tus%in in the general vicinity of
17th Street and Newport Avenue. Ail development activities
within this area of the County are subject to provisions of
the-North Tustin Specific Plan. A more lengthy discussion'of
the plan can be found in nhe Lan~ Use Technical Memorandum.
:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: :~:~:::::~:?:: ~:::~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:F<:~:~:~:~:~:~:~::~:~:::~:~$~$~::($~:~::~$~9:~:~:~:~:~:~<~<+:<:<< ....... :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: :::::::::: :::::::::::::::::::::: :?....~..+.:..~.........:..,....:~.:.:....`..............::::::~s:::::::::::::~::::::~ ::::::
:.v.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.-.:.-.-.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:-:.:.:.:¢.:.:.: :-:.:.:.:.:.:.~:.:.~ :.~.:-:.: ;.:.:.:.:.-.:.:.:-:. : :.:-:-:-:- ============================================================================ :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: :-:.:. :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
..................................... ~a~a~ ~; ~ ~.~**~ ~;~;?,~ ;;,?,~R~f ......... :
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: :::~:F::: ::::::::::::::::::::: ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
v.v.-...-. ............. ..........-.......-.v.-.-.-...-....-...v..-..... : - .:.:.: -:.:.:.:.:.:.:... ..... +..:+ ........ -...:. +:.- ::.:.- - :.:.:~:-:.:-:.:-- --:-:.: :.:: :.~ :: :~-' - - :::<:: :-: :-::::::: ::: : :-: :-:-: :-:::-:-:::.- ' ::: ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: ::: :-:: :.: :~: :-'.:-:.' '.:::::~::-:-:-::
~i'~¢~!~i~ ~ h.. ~:... ~ ~' ;;.., ~ .....; ..... ~, ~': ;!~ ~;.....-:~l~!..!.!.~,...~...!(:,...:!.:..:L !~¢.!~. +~...:.. ~.,. :; ~ ~ ~:.~L %:,. L !~ ...... ~ ~:.;~::. ~!L ~:... ~.:.:.. :. !~ .:.:. ~.:!:! ~:~!~:~:~$:.:.::~.:.: :~::: ::::::: ::::
:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: ':::"-::::;:~. ::::::::::::::::::::: :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: :::.. ::::::::::::::::::::::::: ~ -:-:-:.:+:::-' -~.x~.~.~.:~:.~?~.~2~::::~-::~.:.~.~.~.::~.~.~:~.~:~::::~...~...~....~....~..~.....~.~..~.....~. ................
:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: :::.:::::-:.::: .:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.: .?:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:+:.:.:4<+:.:4.:.: ........ ..-.->:4~-:-:-:+:-:-:-:-:- :.~-~+:.~+~<.~.~.~:.~.~.~.~:~.:.:~:.:~:.~.~.~+>~.~:.~<.~.:.~4.~.~.~+~.~.:
: ::~:: :::::~:: :::::::::::::::::::::: :::: :~: - ;:~(: ~ ~: : .-- : -- :
r.'.': ............................ ' ======================= ~* .......... *~:::*.": ':':: ":': ::"':""*~:**;¢~
:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: f'-:::;:::::. : ::;::::;:::::~.::: :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
.
===================================================== :::~::'."::: ======================= ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: =============================================================================== ===================================================================================================================== ':~:
~**~ ~:~,~~:. ...... ;........ ~ ................................................................................................................................................. ; ..................................................................................
........ }..:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.;.-.-.:.:i.:+:.:-:.:.:.-~.:~:.:.'.-================================================================================= :.:~.:.;->:.:e.;..:+x<~;+:-:e}:+:.:.:.:-:-:.:+;c+:+}:-:~-:+:-:-:-:-:-:-. ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
....... ::::::::::::::::::::::: ........... ~:~::~:~:-:.::~::; ::<:::::::::~. :~:::::~:~:::::~::~:::~¢~Fa~¢~::F~::::::::s:~:~:::~g~¢:~:s:~:::Fs:s:~?~¢~::. :~j~¢::s:~:~:*~:~:::~:::~F::::::~:?s:~:::~:::~::::::~?~i?~:::~s::~:~?F~:::~?~:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
-': :~:~:~: :~::: :::-' '::::: :::' ~ ::::::::~::::: ~: ::: ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: =============================== =================================== '-:.:-:-:.:c<-:-:-: '-:.:- ?:~:~:~:~:+:~:~:~:~:~>:~:+~:-~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~x~:~:~:~:~:::~:~:::~: ·:
- ::::~.>¢~:;':':' - ;::::::6: : :.:.:::::::¢¢¢:....-.-...-.v...~-.v.-.v.v -.::: .:.:.::::: :~:: :~::::: :~:::::: :::: :::¢::::.::
2
.
The last two paragraphs on Page 49 shall be modified to read
as follows: , .
The unincorporated portion of the planning area is comprised
of the North Tustin area. These areas are included in the
City's planning area because they relate to the long range
planning efforts undertaken by the City. The North Tustin
area lies within' the City's Sphere of Influence (SOI) a~d
portions or all of this area could potentially be annexed to
Tustin within the next 20 years.
3
o
The two smaller areas
........... '~'"~'"R"~'~"; .......... %"~'"'"'i~'~'~"'~ .......... ~;~'~'~"~ ........ ~ ............................ ~ -- --
a~ ......... - .... , ....... , .epresent ar~as ch=_ are presently
included in the City of Irvine SO1. The 5wo incorporated
:~::~:%::::'.::::' =====================
areas will both lie ~,::~e,~ northwest or ~,~~ of the
futurc alignment of ~:~:=~:~e Road which_ w'~=_ '~'~h'iy recently..
ext ended south of ~ ~~~n~:~??:~{~:
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: line between the czCies of Tustin
A new section shall be added on page lC to resi as follows:
~:~:~:~:~:~:~:N:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:N:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:k~::~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~::~:~:: :: :: $ :~: ~:~:~:~:~:N:{:~:~:L:.~:N:~:~:~
The following policies shall be modified to read as follows:
"Policy 1.6 Encourage ~~~e2~?~°~2~;~~ infill of
previously by-passed p~::~:~:~:~:'~ .......... ~:~:' :'~:~:'~:'~':' ~:~::~'~:~:d-:':':':::~:~'~:dominantly
developed."
"Policy 1.7. Ensure-an adequate supply of commercial and
:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: :::::::::::::::::::::::: ..:::::. '"'::!:::i::::::::' ::::~i:{:::'
industrial land ~i~`~i~/~{~i~{{i~i~:~i~:~t~i::ii~:i:~:~i~:~ii::::?;7~i~::~::n for potential
commercial and in~'~:'E:E:~'~T':':':':~:2~'a'~'~i6h'"'"'"a'hd""a'~V~'l spment."
.
"Policy 1.13 Evaluate all future annexation proposals within
the City's sphere of influence for their potential financial,
social and environmental impacts on the City of Tustin. and
....... ~tal .... ~ .......... t~ ncccssar~- ~n anncxcd arca~ on
~:~:~:::~::~:~:::::::::~:~~:~~:~$::~:~:~$:::::;~s:::::~:~:~:::%~:[:~:::~:::~:~:~::::%:::::s:::::~::::::~::~:::~::~%~:::%::::::::%:::::~:::::::::::::::..:::....::::::~:::::~::$~:~:~:~:~:~$~:~:~:~:~$~::.::::::::::::::::::::::::~:~:::~
Page 33 of second paragraph, second sentence under discussion
of Low Density Residential Designation shall be modified flu
read as follows:
This designation allows a maximum of seven single f~ily units
per net ac~e of lan~. ~~!i~i~~ii~i~]~~~!ii~i~!iiii~
~:~~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~ensity character with building
heights generally not exceeding 30 feet.
.
Page 6 under "Balanced Development in Tustin" shall be
modified to read:
There is a lack of commercial services in geographic
~ ~~ Tuut~ ~ ~ the Irvine Business
areas such as ............. ~ ~
Center, which warrants consideration of additional
commercial designations. (Bullet #1)
The annexation of certain areas in North Tustin could
...................... agrccmcnt ..........
-^~^-~ bli h 1 gic 1 ity b d i
.......... esta s more o a c oun ar es.
(Bullet #5)
Hillside areas within the City's Sphere of Influence may
be subject to slope i~stability. In the event of
annexation, significa~ ..... infrastructure deficiencies,
' ":':':-:-:+ -:-:. - · - -:-:-:-:.:-:-:-'+: ' '-:-:.:+:-:-:.:-:-x-:-:-:-:-:-:-:.:-:-:.:-:.:.~ - - +x.~ ..... :-:.:.:.:.:-x-:-:-: ':: :-:::: ..... ...:.~ ............ . ..:.- -.~- .~ ........... .- - - - v - -.v.v.-...-...v.... ~.. . ........................
10. A new Goal and Policies shall be added on Page 23. of the Land
Use Element Goals and Policies section to read as follows:
! ........... ~::..i.!:~!~...i~...:.!... ii i.:.: i i~...:i, i!ii~.:.:~i: .:!i. ~i::.....':'.:~:.:~::i..:. ......... !::.:.:i:.:.:.:::.-..i~iii~i~iii~i .......... ~ ...... t.: "~-:~ ..... ~: - "~ ~:-~ ~:: :i::~:::: :~ ~i~i~ii:::: ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: ........... !'-: :~
:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::. ::.?~:::::::::.: . :::::::::..:. ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
11.. Figure LU-6 (Special Management Areas) _:hall be corrected to
delete the northwest corner of 3amboree and Edinger and the
southeast corner of Red Hill and --dinger from the MCAS Tustin
Specific Plan Study Area bound:_ry as _~hcwn on the attached
example (Attachment A-2) .
12. Policy 7.2 shall be amended nc-- fc:--=__~ ..... .Capitalize on
Tustin's office and hotel marke5s 5hr:ugh' encouraging the
development of these uses.
13. Policy 7.5 shall be amended as fo!lcws- iii~i~i~i!i Focus retail
development into consolidate/ eccn~-:c~'!Iy viable and
attractive centers of adequate s=ze=-hi scale which offer a
variety 6f retail goals and amenz-ies; {b>- reinforce quality
highWay and scenic development ~ijacenn ~o the City's major
transportation corridors; iii~!~i) discourage typical strip
commercial development.
14. Table LU-3 shall be revised to sk0w 1539 dwelling units under'
the Military Land Use designaticn. Touals on Table LU-3 shall
be revised accordingly. Ail tex5 where /welling unit counts
appear shall be revised to reflecn the .,e-' total Planning Area
and city dwelling unit count.
Circulation Element
I .
Corrections to Page 24, ParagraFh 1, 2-d Sentence shall be
made to read: "Superstreets" kave been renamed to "Smart
Streets".
o
Figure C-5 (Bikeway P~an): The Sounty Regional Trail legend
(Jamboree Road at Portola Parkway no Peter's Canyon Regional
Park) should be shown as continuing into Peter's Canyon
Regional Park and within Tustin City limits. At the far
northerly alignment, the trail should be shown to the east of
the City of Tustin boundary as indicated on the attached
example (Attachment A-3).
3. Policy 1.9 shall be amended as follQws:
4. Policy'l.17 shall be amended as follows:
.
Policy 7.4 shall be. amended as follows: Reduce use of
arterial streets for on-street parking in an effort to
maximize traffic flow characteristics of roadways.
.
The following statement shall be added to the end of paragraph
.
The statement, "many of these augmentation features are
currently in place along this section of Newport Avenue,"
shall be removed from page 30 under discussion of Newport
Avenue roadway section.
.
On Page 3, under the discussion South Coast Air Basin and Air
0uality Manaqement Plan, the following text shall be added to
end of the existing paragraph:
.
Policy .3.9 shall be amended as follows: Work with the
Southern California ~~ Rail Authority, the Orange Counsy
Transportation Aut~:~:~:'~'~:' ............... '(OCTA and AT&SF) to reduce or
eliminate current traffic interruptions due to rail crossinCs
along arterials.
Housinq Element
I .
Page 14 - Second paragraph under Military Personnel should be
amended to delete reference to family housing. Delete the
following sentences: ~ t .......~..~ I~..~ ~v..o~.~.. 2
~"4 ~ ~ at ,~"~ae-,~o m"~t4 ~~ ~o ~. ~~ pl~,~o ..... ~ for ~0', "~4 ts~,,~ to be
.
On Page 24 under the Financing subsection, revise the first
paragraph, to read as follows: Financing: Wkilc i~nterest
.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.. :.:.:.:.:
...... ~ k4--~ 4~ ~k .... 1.. ~AoA-- ~ .... ~411 ....................... ha ......
..-.-.....-.-.....-.-. :<.:.:.:.:
substantial impact on housing costs which is !~iiiiiiii~ felt'by
renters, purchasers and developers. Some mor~:S~:~*:::*~inanclng
is variable rate, which offers an initial lower interest ra5e
than fixed financing. The ability of lending institutions -o
raise rates to adjust for inflation will cause many existing
households to overextend themselves financially, as well as a
return to a situation where high financing costs substantially
constrain the housing market. An additional obstacle for the
f i r s t - time home ~ ............. ~:':'::~:~':~":~:~:~:' ~:q ~- ~ ~ .....~ ~ ~ ~
buyer ~~~ ............ o be the ~ ~0
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
percent ~i~~downpa~:~:~':'~:~red by lending institutions'
Table H-3 shall be corrected to reflect 1539 dwelling unins
for MCAS, Tustin. Both exiSting'and maximum build°ut totals
shall be revised accordingly. All text where dwelling unit
counts appears shall be revised to reflect, the new total
Planning Area and city dwelling unit count.
Conservation/Open Space/Recreation Element
1. On all city exhibit maps, Santa Clara at the top of map shall
be labeled Fairhaven. Santa Clara moves down to the next
o
o
.
o
.
.
o
major street. Corrections shall be made to the following
Exhibits as shown on the attached example (Attachment A-i) :
Figures:
COSR-2, Page 33
COSR-3, Page 38
COSR-4, Page 39
COSR-5, Page 46
Page 34, second paragraph, second sentence shall be amended as
follows: The two wclls ~i~ at the City's Seventeenth Street
->~>¥~-~:> -.-.-.-.. v.- -.-.-.-.-.v.-.-.- --- -.-.-.-.-.v.-. .................. .v -.: :i:: :::::::::::::::::::::: :':.". ¥':':': :'Yr.' ':::'.' :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
Plant ~i::~i~iii::ii~~::~i::i~.~.~iii~ii~i~::ii::i?:~::~ are closed due to high
nitrat~'"~':':~:~:~:~':~':':':':'~:~:¥:¥~:~:~:~::¥::::~::~:~:~:~:~ ¥ :~:'~':°:':~°:~:'~:'~':~1 dissolved solids.
Certain information in Table COSR-2 shall be corrected ~s
follows:
Clifton Miller Center .10 acres
Tustin Area Senior Center .40 acres
Total Areas 47.2 acres.
Table COSR-2 shall be retitled from Existing Parks and
'Recreational Facilities to: Existing i~i~ Parks and
Recreational Facilities.
Table COSR-3 shall be retitled from Proposed Parks and
Recreational Facilities, to: Proposed ~i~ Parks and
Recreational Facilities.
On Page 54, Item 9: "Public Works" shall be added to the list
of Responsible Agencies.
On Figure COSR-3, Page 38 shall be revised -to include the
address next to each Historic Resource property outside the
Old Town Area.
On Page 51, under the discussion of the Air Quality
Implementation Program, Paragraph Two shall be deleted and
replaced with the following text:
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
.
Page 53, Implementa%ion Program No. 6 shall be revised to
read: ,,....T..raf:.f. ic Flow Improvements. ~:...."_.~i~i~~i:i~ii~i~~:~i~!i!~!:i~i~~ '
10. On Page 54, Implemen:ation program No. 7 shall be revised to
=================================================================================
read: Develop intergovernmental agreements and ~iiiiii!i~i~iiiiiii........~Y
~.~!~.ii~ adopt a local ordinance to attaintarget'~:~':':':'~'~:~':~'8~
~:'×'~:~le Miles Traveled and growth management goals of the
Growth Management Plan (implements Tier 1 Measure 17 of the
1991 AQMP).
11. On Page 54 ImplemenSation Program No. 8 shall be revised to
read: ~i!~ii~~iii!iiiii~i~i~ili!ilili~!~iiiii!i!i~~!~i!!~i~ adopt an ordinance
restric~:~::::~:::::::~'~:~ ...... ~::~:~g'~ ............... ~:~ ............... ~::~ ........... particulate matter,
requiring liners for truck beds and covering of loads, and
controlling construction acsivities and emissions from unpaved
areas, and paving areas used for vehicle maneuvering or areas
otherwise identified by the Air Resources Board (implements
Tier 1 Measures 12.a and 12.b of the 1991 AQMP) .
Public Safety Element
o
Page 27 = Table PS-4. Identify responsible agency/department
for recovery operatSons. Finance Department will have the
primary responsibility for Recovery Operations, all other city
departments and agencies will provide support functions.
o
On Page 26, Figure PS-1. Revise Exhibit to show correct
location of Fairhaven and Santa Clara (see examples in
Attachment 1).
!0
Noise Element
1. On Page ~4, Figure N-1. Revise Exhibit to show correct
location of Fairhaven and Santa Clara (see examples in
Attachmen5 1) .
RW: br: kbc\er rata
11
A~ ~i~iACHMEN"-" A I
NORTH HALF
(see Figure LU-2)
SOUTH HALF
(See Figure LU-3)
P R O G R A M
Figure LU-1
Land Use Plan Policy Map Key
26
'IATTACHMEI~'T A 2
·
·
00000000000000000000q
-..
P R 0 G R A M
#
#
#
EXISTING SPECIRC PLANS
~ First Street
~ East Tustin
~ Pacific Center East
E$.::i:i:] No~h mason
SPECIFIC PLAN STUDY AREAS
l."."-'".l MCAS Tustin
DI;; LETE' FR. oM
tgUre LU-6
Special Management Areas
Specific Plans
45
AT
~orTtdor ~ent to
d~qrL~n~&~c only.
Ii~ Cl~.s I --..0 City Bo~d-~-'~J'i
i Cowry Reg. Tr~ /
D~shed ll~e l~dic~tes pote~al ~o~te. I
37
Figure C-5
CITY. OF TUSTIN
BII<:EWAY PLAN
C1 RCULATION ~'T
SE~BER 1993
EXHIBIT B
ERRATA
NO.
2
EXHIBIT B
ERRATA TO GENERAL PLAN DOCUMENTS
RESOLUTION NO. 94-19
FEBRUARY 7, 1994
Public Safety Element (Policy 7.6)
Noise Element (Policy 1.5)
Mitiqation Measure (#1, Bullet 7)
Plan
Implementation Proqram Noise #4
Errata to General Plan Documents
Resolution No. 94-19
January 17, 1994
Page 2
Implementation Proqram Public Safety 1 (g
Environmental Impact Report
Page 5.9-15 - Figure 5-15. Figure 5-15 has been revised to reflect
Transportation Corridor Agency's projected volumes on the Eastern
Transportation Corridor (Attachment 1 - Exhibit B).
General Plan Traffic Analysis
Page IV - 5 - Figure IV-3. Fi~dre IV - 3 has been revised to
reflect Transportation Corridor Agency's projected volumes on the
Eastern Transportation Corridor (Attachment 2 - Exhibit B).
RW: kbc\elem, mis
FAIRHAV[N
~ANTA
: 30
50
3o
ST
lO
15
35
30
'-' ~[~ NORTH
not to scale
SOURCE: Austin-Foust Associates, Inc.
BNVI]tONMBNTAL IMPACT UBI~OI[T
,'
· ..~o City Boundary
--- Planning Area Boundary
Figure 5-15 -
General Plan Buildout
(2010 +) Volumes (Thousands)
5.9-15
ATTACHN'~.NT B 2
AVE
3O
FAIRHAV[N
3O
35
30
LEGEND
Ci%y Boundary
Planning Area
Boundary
Figure IV--3
POST--2010 ADT VOLUMES (O00's)
Tustin, Gcncral Plan Traffic Analysis
IV-$
Ausfin-Fotul A..taociatc~ Inc.
171007.GP