Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
P.H. 2 GEN'L PLAN REV 01-17-94
PUBLIC HEARING NO. 2 DATE: JANUARY 17, 1994 Inter-Corn , TO: FROM: SUBJECT: WILLIAM A. HUSTON, CITY MANAGER COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT CITY OF TUSTIN GENERAL PLAN REVISION AND FINAL 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 pub~fc hearing on the Draft EIR was closed after receipt of 'public testimony, the hearing on the General Plan was continued 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.Commission adopted Resolution No. 3222 recommending that the City Council certify the Final~Environmental Impact Report 94-01 for the TustinArea 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 Planwith incorporation of an Errata (Resolutions 3222 and 3223 are included as Attachment I). In 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 activities 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 all agencies, organizations, and/or individuals who commented on the General Plan and Environmental Impact Report during the public comment 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 to open the hearing for purposes of hearing from a representative of Foothill ~Final Program Environmental Impact Report January 17, 1994 Page 2 Communities Association (FCA) but instructed.staff'to~accept 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 provide~, 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 that is being considered tonight was transmitted to the City Council in September 1993. During the public hearings..and .45da~ review period on the General Plan required by State law, there were .~a~"number of issues on the' General Plan. .. Perhaps .~the most (irs~ignificant issues~;raised were concerns expressed ~during"t~e ~iP%anning Commission'I public hearings on. October 25, 1993 ,.a~d ~November 22,~'1993 "from a number of North Tustin residents-and '0rganizationS~' (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 'character 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~;~ubstantial revisions that resulted':from inputyfrom : North' Tustin"'~eSidents. :~;:'~ . ' ~ · ..: . :ti-. :::.,.. '~3''~-'' :U ~ ~'~':'~'"~" ~'~'~'~" ' ~" ? .: .... - .... :' ~'~ ~.~? As noted 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 ':'~":i.,:.:~:efforts and ~generally~.agreed with~:~the~:t~xt":'.-changes't~shown".~n'~he '-:-/~roposed-General:Plan'Errata ,ih~their~:letter'-.SUbmitted-'~oncJand~y 10,' 1994, they':are stillnot::in ~ull~.~agreement'~with the'~revisions. ...... ~'In their January.10t-h~-tetter, .the Foothill Communities:Association :"~?has again expressed':'.that.' they: .believe the .~revised .text:i.in -'Errata:~ does not fully deal with their concerns.'-' Primarily"'they 'take -exception to- -:~ ~the?:use~..:'' of 'the-.:i:term' ' comptementa~ .-~when ' _ . Considering - if new -~infill:~.development -is.~.appropriate ~-in l~North ~stin. City staff believes that the changes in the Errata fully l-protect the North ~stin~ Community by~ ~using the .iNorth' Tustin ~-Specific Plan and the. VCommunity Profiles, adopted by the county as .... 'L ' .',..'-~a re~latory' tool--tomensure that. in the event of .annexation~the -:~'~,~.?':~ "~,.North 'Tustin Specific:Plan-prevails. ':,Also':. policy changes and ~a"?,New L.~J~?:' ~-' City Council Report General Plan Revision and Final' Program Environmental' Page 3 Goal No. 12 on the~ Land Use Element, as .shown in the"Errata, further provide protection tc the character and' development densities in North Tustin in the event of annexation. The Foothill Communities Associazion letter als° makes reference to items not responded to in the proposed General Plan. On November 11,'1993 FCA'transmitted uo Cit~' staff;~'specific written~comments to 'the Draft General Plan.~'~ Ai!':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 Commissicn.d!d not agree with all of their 'recommendations as originally transmitted'to the City. A copy ~f ~'a portion of "the November~' Planning Commission repQrt",'~'which 'respondedto'the requestsfrom the Foothill Communities AsSociation '.is attached l for ' the City Counci~ 's information (Attachment V) As a separate issue, the Planning Commission has requested that any final determination in the General 'Plan on the City's policy position on commercializauion of MCAS, E1 Toro be directed to the City Council. As the Council is aware, decisions relative to E1 Toro will be made as part of reuse planning efforts for the site. There have been a number of concerns expressed as to whether the City .would be unbiased in par:icipation on an E1 Toro Reuse subcommittee if the General Plan policy explicitly took a position. '~he'-following' pages and policies- in the General Plan and Environmental Impact Report make --~reference commercialization. Public Safety Element Po~ :":'":"~Stin .... f6r '~commercial .... air 'operations or ~genera!:/a~iation operations." publ'~"~s~f&ty·Eiement ':'~i~pi:-ementati~n Program"'f~: (g);' 'p'age' 30 ~':::"Continue'to op~0s6::66~6'~t~1- o~'~&gal aviati~ USe~f'M~ E1 Toro and M~S, Tustin." ' 'Noise Elem t - ic 'I 5, paqe 8 ,, Continue "-to oppose any future do~ercial or ge~eral:-~viati°n use of E1 Toro Marine Co~s Air Station' ~nd M~ Tustin." Noise Element - Implementation Proqram No: 4', paqe 24 "The City will conuinue uo 'participate. in -the planning processes for John Wa~e At:port, MC~, Tustin"~':and MC~, 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, Page 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, ak minimum, oppose future reuse at MCAS, Tustin for comgercial ail 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, ~ Toro.. Staff will be prepared to offer a number of alternatiwe 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 languagein the recommended Final.Environmental Impact ..Report, the corrected language will also appear in' the Final. Environmental .Impact Report ............... Environmental ImDact 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. :',~:,:~:') ' · c ' ,-' · iii The Program EIR for the Tustin General Plan Update focuses..°n the environmental impacts that are likely to result"from long-term implementation of the Plan and addresses the following issue areas: 1. Earth Resources 2. Air Quality 3. Water Resources 4. .Biological Resources 5. ,.Noise . 6. Land Use City Council Report General Plan Revision and Final Program Environment%!~Impag~.Report January 17, 1994 Page 5 7. Risk of Upset/Human Health .... 8. Population/Mousing 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 Dhe EIR cab reduce environmental impacts to a level less than significant. The mitigation measures identified in the EIR will be achieved b.y implementation programs which are part of the General Plan. Wh~le 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 hearingand 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 comments. · 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 pDrsons, organizations and public agencies that submitted comments. City Council Report General Plan Revision and Final Program Environmental Impact Report January 17, 1994 Page 6 While the City Council is the final appr~oving authority on the General Plan and must "certify" the Final EIR, the Planning Commission at 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 completedin compliance ~with CEQA and that~it has also reviewed and considered the information within' the EIR prior to acting on the General Plan. In addition, where potential significant impacts of a project have 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 ha~ responded to significant effects identified in the EIR. The second finding is a "Statement of Overriding Consideration". For ~each potential significant impact identified in the EIR, t~e 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; 2. That the City lacks jurisdiction to make the changes, but that another agency does have such authority; and/or · 3. That specific economiC,~ social or other 'considerations make infeasible the mitigation or project alternatives identified in the Final EIR. .- ~ Each of these findings j-must ~.be supp°rted~iby evidence in . the administrative record. CEQA Findings and a .Statement of Facts have been attached for the City Council. In 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 ~environmenta! effects, the adverse environmental · effects ~may .be~ considered acceptable,. (CEQA Guidelines, Section 15093 (a) ~ ~-~.~? }{owever, 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 respect 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 which is less than evaluated in the EIR, therefore the EIR examined the worst case scenario and no changes to the EIR are required. Corrected tables and text with City Council Report General Plan Revision Final Program Environment~~~.~aePort January 17, 1994 Page 7 respect to-the corrected unit count will be incorporated into the Final General Plan. ' .... · CONCLUSION ' ' ' ...... · .. In proceeding with the public kearing on the General Plan, it is recommended that the City CouncSl: i . Provide information to the public requesting that they. limit their public hearing input :o issues in the General Plan only. The public record and testimony on the EIR has been close~. CEQA requires one public hearing on an EIR, which wDs held a~d closed on October 25, 1993; .............. "-' -- ' . . Open the public hearing and receive testimony, and 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 theirissues 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~ .... ..?.'~-~.re~uire. clarification or direction.. In the event, th~ity c°U'~c~'~Sshes 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 · . "~:LEnvironmental 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 Janua~ 17, 1994 Page 8 -If .the 'Environmental:Impact Report. for_~the_ project has been certified by adoption of Resolution No. 94r18, 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. · ~ ~AssiStan~ ,Director. Christine- A.] Sh~leton .~ .~ ........ ~ :::... Assistant..city. Manager,·. Community Development Department :'~ii. : i~.'. ~,..~:i.3~:~:: ~.--. :?.~., . RW: kbc\genpt an. #4 Attachments: ATTACHMENT I -PC Resolutions No. 322 and No. 3223 ATTACHMENT II -Chronology of Public Participation, -Workshops and Hearings , ATTACHMENT III -Foothill Communities Association, ' · Inc. letter'of January 10, 1994 ATTACHMENT IV -Summary of General Plan Elements ATTACHMENT V -Responses to Foothill Communities Association, Inc. an North Tustin. ~ ........ .. '~ ......... ' ' ' Community AssOCiation' Comment,' ~ . · ........ November 11, 1993 ~: . . .. RESOLUTION NO. 94-18 2 A RESOLUTION OF T~..C][TY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN, CALIFOKN~lX, .... FINDING THAT , THE 3 ~-'"- '~ .... ENVIRONMENTAL .... ~IMPACT ' 'REPORT ~'94-01' ' (SCH "~ '~:':"" ::?~-.:#92101104)-~'~'~PREPARED ~ FOR' '~'"'THE 'CITY ~:"OF': TUSTIN , 4 .... " 'GENERAL PLAN IS ADEQUATE 'WITH' THE INCORPORATION OF ALL RESPONSES TO COMMENTS, 5 CERTIFYING FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT · 94-01 AND ADOPTING A MITIGATION'MONITORING 6 :' ~'"": '" PROGRAM. '~" 7 ;I~ ~i ::'The City coUncil f'mds and determines as foliows:''i: ...."~ :'"'~: '~ 8 :;' ' :A.' As part .of the implementatiOn of State planning regulations and in recognition · :::~:~:' ~:,C 2~:.,~..,.:3~:? of current City land use issues, the City of Tusfin General Plan has been updated " 9 '~'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 '10 Report and within the proposed General Plan are collectively referred to hereafter as the "Project." '"' 11 ' ' ' - B. '' An Environmental Impact Report' (hereinafter referred m as "EIR") was 12 ' '; determined to be necessary for the Project due :to the potential effects identified in an Initial Study prepared for the Project; and ' . :., 13 C. An EIR and its associated mitigation m°nitoring program, have been prepared .- 14 for the Project and circulated to interested Public and private agencies with a solicitation of comments and evaluation pursuant to the requirements of the 15 California Environmental Quality Act of 1970 (hereinafter "CEQA"); and 16 D. A public hearing on the Draft EIR was duly called, noticed, and held on October 25, 1993; and 17 '": .... "ET" :!~:LXhe public.review period for,the Draft EIR officially commenced 'On'September 18 22, 1993 :and :ended on November 4, '1993."-~ IncOrporated within~the Final EIR :are comments of the public, Planning Commission, and other individuals and · ~,',.,.: .,;.. ~ 19 : :;'; ~7-- ........ .-' ';-agencies, and a'esponses thereto; :and .................. ...... , 20" :?:<i:-F,;.~::, .(~;'-p~'<.:,'commissio~' :at,:a~:,regular.!-:meefing: :on :~Ianu~:':::.:10, 1994 .,'recommended that'the City Council'certify EIR'94-01 as adequate and complete, ' ~'"'"' "'~:' '"~":'>and adopt the. associated mitigation monitoring program.: . 21 ;! .i,. : ....... , ...... 22 :':';:" '~'~' Gi ..... 'In aCCord'With the State. Guidelines for th& implementation of th8"California Environmental Quality Act, the.EIR has been prepared-as a'Program EIR to 23 .evaluate the impacts of implementing the General Plan. The .Program EIR :~,~ analyzes direct and .secondary .effects lhat could occur'from 'conceptual buildout 24 "of the~' General :Plan and will be used'.'to determine when-subsequent . environmental review is needed for a speCific development proposal that is 25 consistent with the General Plan. The degree of specificity used to analyze the potential impacts is in proportion to the broad nature of the policy 26 recommendations contained in the General Plan; arid ~ " ~ 27 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 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. Ve 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 significant 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 be&n 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 found to be unavoidable have t~e'n 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 by 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 '' 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 i2 13 14 15 16 17 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 TUStin~CitY CounCil, held-on the 17th MARY E. WYNN City ~Clerk . - sTATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF ORANGE ) CITY OF oTUSTIN · ) 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 introduce& passed, and adopted at a regular meeting of the Tustin City Council, held on the 17th day of' January, 1994. "; :i. ? '~ (~./i:';~d73'~;3'?~ ' - ~,.'!: '.'i, COUNCILMEMBER'[AYES: · COUNCILMEMBER NOES: . · COLrNCILMEMBER ABSTAINED: · COUNCILMEMBEPcAB SENT: 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 California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the State CEQA Guidelinex (Guidelines) provide: - "No public agency shall approve or carry out a Project for which a,n 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 findings 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 finding. 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 alternatives 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 hazardo.u.s 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 implementatiort of the mitigation measures, proposed development projects will be reviewed'¥or 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 increased mobile sources (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 si~ificant short term environmental effect as identified in the Final EIR to the extent possible by the ,;:City of Tustin. :;However, cumulative,~.long term air quali~' impacts' remain significant and unavoidable. Facts in Support of Finding. Mitigation measures are identified in both tl~ Final Environmenta! Impact Report and the Mitigation :Monitorirrg Program to reduce significant impacts to air quality.~ The Ci,ry will reduce vehicle trips through the implementation of Transportation Demand Management measure,,s 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 ener~' 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. i;The.~,SCAQMD -1-991 Air-Quality .Managementr?lan:~(AQMP) is:an'advisory · dOcument which identifies a number of air-pollution reduction goals', measures and policies. Local jurisdicfions :. have :been mandated-to reduce ~ ,: fair share proportion of vehicle generated air pollution throu~'.the adoption of a menu of :;,~optional .Transportation Control Measures (TCMs) xvhich havebeendetermined .... .,j the .local agency to.be politically and-~'~conomically::~easible2 The SCAQMD ils,currently dmf~g a Backstop Measure to ensure 'that local agencies :meet their fair share allocation, .. The Orange County League of Cities has provided each Orange. COtmtYi~ity with a fair share trip reduction goal. The City of Tustin has been recently .,.: recognized as having met~ 122 percent::ofits allocated:~vehicle :. trip . :reduction goal. With continued achievement.of the goal, the City will not need to adopt any additional Transportation Control .Measures ~ to :comply with :the 1991 AQMP. Therefore, the mitigation measures identified in the Final EIR or other measures acceptable to SCAQMQ. will be implemented with discretion by the City. The City will have d~ei~8:~"~'~t~'~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 Board (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 wilt ensure that all applicable regulations pertaining to the project are enforced. FINDING 3 - Specific economic, social, or other considerations make infeasibl, e 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 proposed project. All project alternatives, including the No Project alternative, 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 groundwater. Erosion and sedimentation could occur during grading and A-4 construction. The General Plan identifies some land uses within the 100-year flood plain. 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 where necessary. The City will promote improved water quality by supporting local programs and regulations and working with industrial operations within the Citxr 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 Findine. Mitigation measures are identified in both the Final Environmental Impact Report and the Mitigation Monitoring Program to reduce significant impacts to biological resou.rces. 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 necessao'. The Citv will support environmentally sensitive flood plain management and continue to participated in the State of California Resources Agency Natural Communitx 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 beeh eliminated or substantially lessened by virtue of mitigation measures identified in the Final EIR and Mitigation Monitoring Program, and incorporated into th, e 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 fight-of-way, and adjacent to the flight path of John Wayne Airport. 'Short-term noise impacts will result fi.om 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 Findin_o. Mitigation measures are identified inboth the Final Environmental Impact Report and the Mitigation Monitoring Program 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 fi'om aviation activities, the City will continue to participate, in the planning processes A-6 for John Wayne Airport, MCAS Tustin, and MCAS El 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 si~ificant environmental noise impact.5.., have been eliminated or substantially lessened by virtue of mitigation measures identified in the Final EIR and Mitigation Monitoring Program, and incorporated ifito 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 ~ 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 Tus'tin 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 Iustin corporate boundary). FINDENG 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 £nvironmental Impact Report and the Mitigation Monitoring Program 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/IiUMAN HEALTH Significant Effects - Implementation of the General Plan will increase 'tl~e 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 Program 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 fi.om 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 City's Grading Manual and requiring geological and/or engineering reports in areas where hazardous geological conditions may .exist. A-8 Fire hazards shall be minimized through enforcement of the Uniform Fire Code, ensurance of proper fu'e flows for new development, and prevention programs. The City will enforce the provisions of the Cit3."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 upset/human 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 from 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 leben 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 t3.'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 occupied housing; (4) preserve existing housing and neighborhoods; 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 Progr..am, 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 9f Arterial Highways. The Circulation Element also contains a City Bikeway Plan to facilitate bicycle transportation. FINDU~IG 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 "Coun .tywide 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 Interjurisdictional Planning Forums and Joint Powers Agreements to di~uss 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 System/Demand 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 finding. Facts in Support of Finding. Agencies adjacent to the City have jurisdiction over development and transportation facilities within their boundaries that may impact the City of Tustin's transportation facilities. Such transportation facilities include the 1-5 and SR-55 freeway widening construction, the construction of the Foothill Transportation Corridor and improvement projec,ts 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 Iustin. 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 increased risk of su-uctural 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 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 A-11 ...... reduce significant impacts to public services.-.,.Impacts on ~law ~enforcement service have been determined not to be significant. To reduce impacts to fire protection services, the City~ill,!.Prom~ 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 service impacts correspond to specific implementation programs in the · General Plan. .... ,~All significant environmental ,impacts to fu'e 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 increase, s in the demand for electricity and natural gas. Electrical use will increase-.'by approximately nine percent in the incorporated City of Tustin and 30 percent in the Planning Area. Natural gas uses will increase by 35 percent in the incorporated 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 35 percent in the incorporated City of Tustin and two percent. in the unincorporated area. .'-'. Planned development will impact the local wastewater collecti0n, system, :the mink line ,delivery system, and the wastewater treatment plant, (i.e., Huntington :Beach Plant):~aily sewer generation flows ~will increase'~ by:~approximately 35 .-:percent~';in'~:.~e incorporated ~. City of Tustin~-.~nd ~,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 unincorp0mted :County area.~ ~_~e 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 Finding. Mitigation measures are .identified in both the Final Environmental Impact Report and the Mitigation Monitoring Program to reduce significant impacts to ener~' 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 ener~' efficiency ordinance. During the development review process, ener~ efficient building and site design will be encouraged. The City will also provide information about methods to maximize structural energy efficiency. To reduce impacts to water service, the City will practice the efficient use of water supplies and water conservation through a variety of methods. All 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 from new development projects, the City will continue to require the dedication of right-of-way and sewer infrastructure improvements, ro reduce impacts to solid waste, the City will implement ~ adopted Source Reduction and Recycling Element pursuant to Assembly Bill 939. All of the mitigation measures for ener~ and utility impacts correspond to specific implementation programs in the General Plan. All significant environmental ener~ 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 forth above. RECREATION Significant Effects -Based upon the Cit3"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 par'k, land 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 significant environmental effect as identified'in'~e 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 recreation. The Ci..ty .will identify 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 regular 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 in the General Plan. All significant environmental impacts to recreation have been eliminated-'~r 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. ARCHAEOLOGICAL/HISTORICAL/PALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCES Significant Effects - Significant archaeological and paleontological resources could be disturbed during earthwork required for new development projects. Historic structures may be removed and replaced with planned land uses. 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 EI1L 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 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 will 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 and research opportunities; pursuing historic designation 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 programs 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 Mitigatio~ Monitoring Program, and incorporated into the project or future project approvals as set forth above. PROJECT ALTERNATIVES The following project alternatives were 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 alternative, 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 projects. The No Project alternative 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 alternative. However, the No Project altemative will result in population and housing impacts that are more significant than the population 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 alternative 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 altemative, the proposed General Plan will not b.e 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 implementation programs to effectively reduce environmental impacts. Implementation of the existing General Plan will not reduce any of the environmental impacts associated with the proposed General Plan. In regards to air qualiB' impacts, buildout of the existing General Plan'will exacerbate regional air quality problems 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 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. ... Decreased Industrial Development Under the Decreased Industrial Development altemative, 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 Plan, (19,039,000 versus 17,265,000). In total, the Decreased Industrial Development alternative will result in approximately 2.5 percem'' less non-residential development at buildout. Approximately 2.0 percent less housing will be developed under this alternative. Because the toutl buildout potential of the Decreased Industrial Developmc*r~t alternative is ver~' 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 alternative, 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 comqructed. -- Because the total buildout potential of the Decreased Residential Development alternative is vet,.- 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 from regional population growth. In particular, affordable 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 regional air quality problems. The Decreased Residential Development alternative 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 storiose. Buildout of the Greater Mixed-Use Development alternative 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 will 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 alternative 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 Development alternative is considered environmentally superior 'to the proposed General Plan. Impacts to circulation and air quality will be A-18 ,less .significant than the impacts of the :proposed General Plan,~.,However,'~ most ofthe other environmental impacts resulting ~from ~this,;alternative ~will 'be'similar to the impacts .of the proposed General ~Plan. ;.:~,This alternative is feasib le '. , and fulfills, the · objectives'of the proposed project. ~ The :Greater Mixed-Use Development alternative, howex~er;:'is rejected. 'Mixed-use development is a new planning concept in southern California and the economic viability of mixed-use development has not been successfully proven. The'City cannot realistically ~assume that financing ~ill be available for proposed mixed-use development proposils at this time.' ~ '~A-19 EXHIBIT B OF RESOLUTION NO. 94-18 STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS EIR 94-01 (SCH #92101104) 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'. '-' Co) 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 altematives 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 throu~ 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 eac. h 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' 1. 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 ~s a reasonable approach to allocating land for future development and establish~fig 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 quality standards. As described below in items three through six, the City B-2 t e of Tustin has effectively balanced air quality concerns 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 effort 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 SpacedRecreati0n, 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 alternative transportation schedules and modes.. The Conservation/Open B-3 o ° 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 contairrs 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 Basin. 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 f'me 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 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. 94-19 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 Tustin does hereby resolve as fOllows: I. The City Council finds and determines as follows: A. g. 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 General Plan. Government Code Section 65358(b) states that no mandatory element of a General Plan shall be amended 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 are being amended the action shall be considered as one amendment per Section 65358(b). C. Do The' Planning Commission at a regular meeting on January 10, 1994 recommended to the City Council approval of General Plan Amendment 94-01. In accordance ;,vith 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. E. Ee General Plan Amendment 94-01 has been reviewed in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act and Final Environmental Impact Report (EIR) 94-01, which adequately addresses the general environmental setting of the proposed project, its 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 bal~anced 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. General Plan Amendment 94-01 is in ihe 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 integrated and internally consistent set of goals and policies designed to reflect the changing characteristics ,and growth of the commu,rdty. e The updated General Plan will project ani:l direct future growth and development in the City of Tustin. . The updated General Plan reflects community input on goals and objectives through the public participation process. 2 , 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. 94-19 Page 2 II. 4. The updated goals, policies and implementation programs will ensure that the City .of Tustin has .an adequate General Plan. 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 and 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 meeting held on the 17th day of January, 1994. " JIM POTTS Mayor MARY E. WYNN City Clerk STATE OF CALIFORNIA~:;: ,;~ .)'~:v," 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 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:'94-19 was duly and regularly introduced, passed, and adopted at a regular meeting of the Tustin City Council, held on the 17th day of January, 1994. :COUNCILMEMBER% AYES:'::: 5 ~: ,,,, ::!. COUNCILMEMBER: NOES:" . -COUNCILMEMBER':ABSTAINED: :"~' COUNCILMEMBER:ABSENT: · o :MARY E. WYNN, City Clerk EXHIBIT A ERRATA TO GENERAL PLAN DOCUMENTS RESOL .UT!ON~ NO. 94-19 JANUARY 17, 1994 Additions to and deleted text in the Errata are identified as: Deletions: Addit ions: ~~ .... ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: LAND USE ELEMENT Certain Figures in the Land Use Element do not contain streets that are shown on the other figure exhibits. For consistency .with other Figures and the DEIR, the following Land.Use Figures shall be revised as follows: a , be Add Yorba Street, south of Seventeenth Street to Figur~ LU-2. Add Myford Road to the Figure LU-3. . · c. Add'Valencia Avenue to the Figure LU-3. Page 45 - Figure LU-6, Special Management Areas. MCAS, TusCan 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, changes shall be made to show - Santa Clara at the top of map as Fairhaven. Santa Clara is located to the south and would be moved down to the next major street as shown on the attached example Attachment (A.1). Corrections will be made to the following Exhibits: · ~Figures I-.l, Page '3, Introduction LU-1, Page 26 LU-2, Page 27 LU-5, Page 41 LU-6, Page 45 LU-7, Page .46 ~- Page 48 discussion of North Tustin 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 North Tustin in the general vicinity of 17th Street and Newport Avenue. All 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 the Land Use TeChnical Memorandum. · 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) and portions or all of"this area could potentially be annexed to Tustin within the next 20 years. , , ~ ......... -~, ~us~n, represen~ areas ~hat are presentl"y included in the City of Irvine S©I. The two incorporated areas ~ .bctk lie ~i~i~!~ northwest or ~~!~i of the futur~c alignment of J~'~"~'&e Road which ~'~:~' ........... 6~°~: .......... recent~ ~S~S~!~iiiii~:...~i~!~iiii~i~i:':':'S'~eat e a t rs f f ic cor~'Y:~:~'~':':':'~'~'~:':':':~:~'S~'~';~'~'~: ~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:?:~:~:~:~:~ndary line between the cities of Tus~in p'xC f~ ~ '~'"' '~%'~'"'~ '"~' ~'"'"'~ ~";'"'"c"~'-'2'-'"-"~-';':-;'z .'.'.' %'-'~'.':~':':~ :':'~':~ ':':':':~:'~':'~':':':':~:'~'~':':':':~ ':':R%:'~':.~ .......... ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: A new section shall be added on page 10 to read as follows: · .'.'.'.:::::::::::::..::'.::::' ===================================================================== :.........::~::::::~:%:::....::::::f:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::~:::::::::::~:::::..~::~::::::::::f.. :::::::::::::::::::::: ::::::'.:::::::: '.:::~ :::::::::::::::::::::::: :::::~::...':::::: :::::..:: ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: ::::..::::::::: ::::::: ::.'::::: :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: ~!:!i:i:i!iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii!i!iiiI:~:~: :!:~:!:!'!:~:~:~:~:~:i ~iiiii!~i~~ ~~!ii~ ~ii!~!~i~ ~! i i~ ~ ~iii!~iiii~iiii{~i~iiii!~ ~ ~i~ ~ ~ ~"'"' ================================================================================================ ::: %:" ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: °.:.:+ o:.. +:.:. o: ..... ..'°. o::o -:o:+: ' '.:.' ' '.:o:.:.:o:.' ' :.:-:.'+:o:+x+:.' ' :.'+?.°.°+°.:.'.°.'+' · :: :::..::::.' ::::::::::::~:.'.. ========================================================================================= · :.:::.>:.:::.:.:.: .. :.:......-..-..:.:.:~..:.- · :.:.:°:.:.:.:.:....:.:.:.:% :.:...:.:°:+:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.~.:.:.:.:.:.:....:.:....:.:.:.:.:.:.~.:.....wo..+°..oO.......:::: ·: ·: ........ 0.....o..o.~..o..OoO....o......o.o.o.....o...o.o............o......O°Oo°°.o...°..°o..°...°.o. The following policies shall be modified to read as follows: "Policy 1.6 Encourage ~~~~!iiii!~'"."~~~~~ infill of previously by-passed :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: developed." "Policy 1.7. Ensure an ade~ate sup..pl~ of commercial and industrial land ~!~iiiii!i!ii~!i?~iiiiiii~~i!iiiiiii~iiiiiiiiiii~i~i~i~i for potential commercial and ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::"":::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: ,, "Policy 1.13 Evaluate all~future annexation proposals within the City's Sphere of Influence for their potential ~financial, social and environmental..imDacts on the ~ty~ cf /~tin ~nd ~~ii.~iii~~~~~:..~.::::ii::ii~ii~!ii~....~.~.~.:~~i!!~~..~..~..~...~...~.~.~..~...~`.....~.....:......~.~:.~:..~.~.~.%~.~..~..~/.~.~.~.~.~.. ~..~.~: :~:~-~ ~ .~_ ~ ~:.:<.:.:.~:.~::~ ======================================= ~:.:.:.~:~.:' ':::'~ ~:~.' ? '~:f::.:..~:~ :. · . · :.:.:<:~:::: - ~-~ ~.~ ~ {:~%%:~%~-;~:'-:~;:~:::.~:.:e:-~:.:~.:,~:.:.:.:.:-~:.:' :-:~.:-:~:.:-:.:f~' ".:-:.:-:-:.:<.:.:.:-:.:-~ > · :.:-:-:.:'~":-:':':::~-2-'-:':<<':-:~ . ':':':.':':::::'::%x::'::~::%::~::~:~:~::~'''' ..... · :.:.:::::.:.:.:..~,...~:~:~:-.---.:.:~::.x.:.. ~$~-:~:~$~l~:...:.:Kf~:::"::. ... ============================================================================ .~:~:~::.:.....~:.:.::~a:~::.:.:.~:?:?::~?:.~.~:.:. :.:.~::.:~:~.>:.::>:-.~:.:.:.~:~{i............~. ....... ., ........................ x · Page 33 of second paragraph, second s~tence under discussion of Low Density Residential Designation shall 'be modified to read as follows: This designation allows a maximum of seven-single family., units per net acre of lan..d.'. ~ ~i~::~::!i!ii~ii~!~i~iiii!~~i~ii~i! DeveIopment in 5h~s':'""~an~ use :~:.~:~.:~.~.~.~:.:.:.~:~..:~.~:~..:....~.~..~.{..~.[.~......~........~..~.~....~.~ens i ty charact er wi th buil ding heights generally not exceeding 30 feet. 9. Page 6 under "Balanced Development in Tustin". shall b~ modified to read: There is a lack of commercial services '_'n geographic areas such as ~- ~'^~*~ ~"~- ~-~ ~'~ the Ir-.'ine Business Center, which?~'' warrants consideration of additional commercial designations. (Bullet ~!) The annexation of certain areas in North Tustin could ~ ~~~ ~ ~-~ - establish more logical city boundaries . (Bullet #5) Hillside areas within the City's Sphere of influence may be subject to slope i~stability. In the event of annexation, signi f ica~:~~ ..... infrastructure ~eficiencies, :.:.:~ ..:.:.:.:~..:.:~.:~...'.:~.: .:..'.::.~.~ .~.~:~.:.:.:.::..:.:~:'-:~.'..:~.~ x..'.:~.:.-~ ~:...~' .:.-..:." '.:" :.:~..'.:.~" .:.:..,~ ~.:.:..:..-.:..:.:.--.:.-..:.:.:~:.:.?. :+~..'....:.:.:..~.~.. -.:.:..~:~..:.:.-.:.:.. .:.:.:.:.:.-..~.~ .~: .. :~.~:.:.'.d:.~.:~.~..:..~.%~'.'..~ :~x .::~:: :~.::::~::'¥:::: . ,. ' . , 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: -'-'.?:-:-x~..:-'.~-~.~ ~...~' ".'-~...'::~'.~..'.,'.'.~.. -'.':-: .~... ~:~.¥~ .,. .~:~,. :~":'?',.~.:...:,:....,-...:.:....:.:.?..:.:.:.:.:.:.. "i · '.'.-'~:-'.-:>~-~r~.'.-.~:~~ '".~. '"~'~.*.:: ~.r..2 ..... :":'-.~::::~"::~.~:t:'.'.!:"~'~::::':~ ......... :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: .......... !~::i~:.~"::' ........... ~:F"'"'":.'~'ig~' ~"~ :::.::::::!~::~'.]:::::'..::'..~.:~:..::..:.-.:.. :.-..~~ ............................ · ' ......................... ~ ........... · ~...~ ...... .............:,.~.......,.....~ .....:.......,............:.........:- · -.-.-.-.-.-............ v.-...- · -..~...-...-.-+.. ,- ..:..~:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.~.- ...... ............. ........ ................. ..... ? .............. .... · . .:...:..:.,... .~.-..*,~.:..,.?, ..,.~::......:.%...::::..%..'-...~:.:.z.:.:.:.:..:....'..;.:.....:..~:~.~;~:~ ..... -.............. ......-~.-...... .... ...... ..-................ ........ ...: ..... ..:..... ..~.:...:..-.......: ....... ~:~:~~~.'..':~:i~-z.:.:.:-:.:::..::: .................. .' ........................................ ." ............................ "":':'-':':'~-: ..... ":.:--.:.:.:--'~.'.'..?.~.:.:.? ..... ~.~.~-~.~...?.:.....`.`.`:....:.:....:.:.:~.:.:.×`.~.`..:¢..`:~i:~::.....:....`..:..`:`.°:°::..~..:~`~:i:ii:!.:.¥.....· - : ~. · .. :.k,' ........... .'.' ~4:~.-.~¥.~...'..'~..~~~,~.~:.x~.-.,~.:~ ~.-..'~:. ::..,.'.:~..:-.':~-"..'.:-:.:.x.,,..<-.,.~.,?..~.~....:~:.:.:,..:::.:.:.:. ..:.:.:~..~-..:.:.:.:¢-::.:.:.::.:.?.- ~?-.:..--..:-:?...- ..,.: ~.~..~.~.~.~ ~.,.~.-.~.,: ......~..~..~.,..:~..,.,:l.:... ::,. ~. ":?.:.~:....: ....x ::.,'~ ?.:..: .-i:::::: .... -:~.:~:.".i:.'::$.~:~ ~.:e+~.:.:`:.::;:::.~:~..:::..;::::~.:iv~i::.%<:~:...~i~`~}}..~:.~::....;¥::;~;:; :~:~li~$;::;:.~x.':.....:;::::::x:~::::::~;;::~:i::;:::;i~;:~:.~:;::::::::. ==================================== .. 11. Figure LU-6 (Special Nanagemen~ Areas) ak. all be corrected to delete the northwest corner of Uamboree and Edinger and the §o~theast: corner ;of .Red Hill."and Edinger from: the,,MCAS 'Tustin ...... i"' ~, Specific 'Plan Study Area,'; boundary, as skown on t~he:~attached example (Attachment A-2) . 12. Policy 7.2 shall be amended as follows:' Capitalize on ~"~'~ 9h gi ........ office and hotel markets thrcu encoura n9 the development of these uses. ', ~' , 13. Policy 7.5 shall be amended as follows: i?~i~!i~i! Focus retail 'development into consolidated e conom"_ c~'T'~'~ viable aqd attractive centers of adequate ,size and scale which offer, a variety of retail goals and amenities; !!~,'--.! reinforce quality highway and scenic development adjacent -o the City's major transportation corridors; iii~i~i~i~ discourage typical strip ::::::::::::::::::::::: commercial development. 14. Table LU-3 shall be revised to show 1539 ~welling units under the Military Land Use designation. Totals on Table LU-3 shall be revised accordingly. All text where ~welling unit c~unts appear shall be revised to reflect the new total Planning Area and city dwelling unit count .Circulation Element~' ' . · -- ~'~ ~,, ,~'.,. 1. Corrections to Page 24, Paragraph.l, 2n~ 'Sentence shall be made to read: "Superstreets" have been renamed to "Smart Streets" . 2. '--- Figure :C-5 -,- (Bikeway Plan): The County iRegional-. ~Trail: legend (Jamboree Road at Portola Parkway to Peter's Canyon Regional Park) should be shown;'.as.;~'~contin~ing 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_indica=ed .on:~,~the .'attached example (Attachment A-3). Policy 1.9 shall be amended as follows: ~'~ ~i...~!...~~'"'"~[:' '~:f~?.~.~e.~ ................ ~':':' "'"~ ................. ~'~ ........... "' ' :'~'~'~ ........ ~' ~ ' '~ ....... ' ......... : ...... ~~~!i~~' ............ ~'~" ' '~ ............. : ............ '~ ......... ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: ....':'::::::-'.::'..':: ' :::'":'::- .':%.%..+:':':::::':':::"+:::' -- . · -.. ':%:' %L"~. ~'".%: ..9:::' "~:~.~::::~:::~:::~ .-.%':::' ".%.':' ========================================= :':!:":~:::[:!:~:~:.~[$i$[:~:~-~:i`gi:i:::~:~:!:::i:i: :!::: :i:~:~.'[:~!$~ ?::!:::i:[:: :i:.~!:~: :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: .~~.~.:~:.::.~:.~:::$~:i:!:.:::::~...:~8:.~: ·~...:.:~.m~..:.:.i~.~~:~.:,:.:~.:~.::~.:.-:~: :,..-' --.--::~ --.:--., ' --:. ~ ::.:::: :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: : ::::::: ::::::::::::::::: :::::::::: ::::::::::::::::::::::: ~, . ~..,~, ... · Policy 1.'17 shall be amended as follows: ~~~~i~ii:~ii~!~:~.~!~.' .................................................................................... ~ ............ i'~"'i ........... i ........... ~ ...... ~'~i .............. 5. Policy 7.4 -shall be amended as follows: Reduce use of k~=y ~arterial streets for on-street~ parkin~ .in an' effort to -:~i? ..... maximize'traffic flow characteristics-of-..roadways' ~ · · · The statement, "many of these augmentation feitures are currently in place alon~ this section of Newport Avenue," shall be removed from pa~e 30 under discussion of Newpor~ Avenue roadway section. ' ~. . · On Pa~e 3, under the discussion South Coast Air Basin and Air Quality Manaqement Plan, the followin~ text shall be added to end of the existin~ paragraph: .... ~..':~!~:::::~ ............. ~......~i:~:.!~i.....::::...~: .................. ::~.....~: ..~.....:......::,....::....:.:.....:~ .......... ,....:.::~....:, .......... ......i~::..~..,....:::::..i~.....:~,,.i~:......:. ~.~..~.~..~~~~~~i~~: .~.:.:.:+~::.:-:.:::.:.:-.'~:-:::.:-'. "."':.:+:.:.:q%:-:.:."'u.:¢:~:%~:.:.:.:-::~:~:~*:.:.:- ~.. :.¥~.:.:.;.:.:+"-:::.:.:.~.`9.:`9:..~.[[q:.:.::m:::-:.:.:.. '.' :.:~::.::.`.:~.:.....:.:.::~::.:.:.:.:.:....:::....`9::.u.:..`9:...::..::.:.:`9:...: [~ i :..:i .:.:~ ~i..::.~.:~,~ ~ ~~:.-.-:.x.:.' :.:::::::::::::~.~:- '.::.: .:.s':':::::':~ .':-.'-.'-'-'>m. .*" ':[:~'~%'.-':~::!:':~':.'~..':.~.~':'.~.~::.":';~$'?":::::'.-. :".~: .... "':!~::.~: .':':-":::i:"%::'.::':':':'.-:;.::~':'::~ '$ ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: .:.1.:....1:,.:.:....:.1.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.-.,.....:~..1.~.:.~ .. .1.~.~.... -...'..~..~..:..'.:.-.:.-..'.'.q-.. .:.:.:.:o.~:.'. ~[~.:.:.¥.'.~:~.1.... -~.-..:..~1:.¥.::1.......~:..~.:....~ ,..~.. · ~...::..~:~ '~..'.'. i ......... i:i:[~: ............... ~i~ -~: ':'~:"' ~ ..... '~: ~ ..... ~-~' "'"':~:::~:": ~.~:::~....~...~"...! --..:x..::!:i.-.:.......-.q.?..--~ .......... . ......%:. ..... g .'.:.'.'.[ ...... . [:'-':"'"'::'":~'..~""~,~.,.~.,. '"::`9 ~~'~'~:':"~? ~:.. . .'--.'. T~ ?.~: · Housing Element · · ' ' ' ~ ' ::::.<::': :' ~' "% ~' .~: ' :: · ' ' '::~.::~:: · · ' ' ' :: : ::. ::7 ' ':~:~:.<: · · . ,¥':'"'-~ '~:--':.<Z:'.'"'"7.:~'":':':'"..~'".~:'~.'×"_+.~.'."' .~ ~: :'" .¥.'..~:,¥' :~.."'~'"~' ':::*:~ ".'.. :::: ':~:::~:':*.--~. '-' :".':'$':~':'~:%'"~'"~': :*'" ~}{q//- :i.i ~:~ :~$'.'&:g&~::~::::~:~: ============================================================================= :'~ ~-.; ~,~ .... ~'. ~..:,,<~ ' · :" ' · '9. Policy 3.9 shall be amended as follows: Work with the Southern California ~~! Rail Authority, the Orange County Transportation Auth~'i'f~ ........ (OCTA and AT&SF) to reduce or ~,~i~ ~i,i'eliminate .current ,traffic interruptions due to rail crossings ~ .... along arterials Page 14 - Second paragraph under Military Personnel should be amended to delete reference ~to family, housing..:.;-Delete the f 11 i .......... ~'- o ow ng -sentences: "~'~ t .... ~: .... ~ ~.~ ~-~ ..... t ..... t~ ~t '' ' . ..... :'.':.r-;'.. ' " ~ .' '=,' . 2. On Page 24 under the Financing subsection, revise the first paragraph read follo Fi i ~ ~"~ ~ ~ ~nte ~t , to ,as wa: nanc n : . . ...... re substantial impact on housing costs which is' renters, purchasers .and developers. Some mor6~'~:~':~':':'~inancina is variable rate, which offers an initial lower interest rate than fixed financing. The ability of lending institutions to raise rates to adjust for inflation will cause many existing households to overextend ~hemselves financially, as well as a ..... return to.a situation where high financin~ costs s~stantially '~.,~.,~,~,~ ..constrain. the housin~ market. ~_: ~ additional obstacle for the .. first-time home buyer ~%~ ~ ............ . be the 10 20 .....~,.:., ~ ....... ~:~~ do~pa~ent .red.rea ~y lena~n~ institutions. %~-~:,: .... ::' for M~, ~stin .-. Both .:existing and 'maximum -buildout ..totals ~-?':?~.::.~ ...s~ll be revise~-.accor~i~gly. ~1 ~e~ where dwelling uni~ counts appears shall be revised to reflect the new total Pla~ing ~ea and city dwelling unit count. ..... '- .... , . ..~ . .,- --~ be l~eled Fairhaven., :Santa Clara moves do~ to the next .: ~ ~. major.~street. Corrections shall-be made to the following ---.. 'E~ibits .as sho~ :-on the attached example (Attac~ent A-l): ., . . _. · · Figures: COSR-2, Page 33 ~.~ '" COSR-3, ~Page 38 ~ COSR- 4 ,.. Page ,3 i-!ii~2" .~.~Page 34 ~.~second paragraph,'~ second.sentence ..shall be ~amended as follows: 'The t','c -~:clls ~'~!~i at the City's Seventeenth Street Plant ~~~~~~~ are closed due to high nitrat:~:.~..:~:~:~.~:.~.:.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~?~..~f~..~..~ dissolved solids. Certain information in Table CC£R-2 shall be corrected as follows: Clifton Miller Center .10 acres ~Tustin Area Senior Center .40 acres Total Areas 47.2 acres. ..... · , Table COSR-2 shall be retitled Recreational Facilities to: Recreational Facilities. from Existing Parks and Existing ~i~!~ Parks and '~5. Table COSR-3 shall be retitled from ~Proposed Parks and Recreational Facilities, to: Proposed ~ Parks and Recreational Facilities. · 6. 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, Implementation Program No. 6 shall be revised to read: ,,.=.T..raf...f. ic Flow Improvements. ~i~!~i~~i!iiii:i~i~:i~:!~!i~i~i~ 10. On Page 54, Implementation Program No. 7 shall be revised to read: Develop intergovernmental agreements and ~iiiiii~i~ii!i~ · .v.v .v.v.-.v...v...v.v...v.v.v.v :::.:.:::.:....:v.<::::::::::..v:-.....::..v:~:::::::::::..~v:v...~::: ~i~!~i~i!!ili!~ adopt a local ordinance t3 attain target~""'"~'~'~"~'~' ~=~==~===~=~le Miles Traveled and gro~h management ggals of the' Growth Management Plan (implements Tier 1 Measure 17 of the 1991 AQMP). 11. On Page 54 Implementation Program No. 8 shall be revised.,~o read: ~iiiiiiliiii~i~ilili~i~i~iiiiii~i~iii{iii~h~i~iiiii~i~ adopt an ordinance restric~=~=~ ......... ~~=~ .............. ~:~'~ ............... ~=~ ..... ~=~ ............ particulate matter, requiring liners for truck beds ~nd covering of loads, and controlling construction activities 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 <he 1991 AQMP). Public Safety Element . Page 27 - Table PS-4. Identify responsible agency/department for recovery operations. Finance Department will have the primary responsibility for Recove~,Operations, all other city departments and agencies will provide support functions. . On Page 26, _Figure PS-1. Revise Exhibit to show correct location of Fairhaven and Santa Clara (see examples in Attachment 1). Noise Element o On Page 14, Figure N-1. Revise Exhibit to show correct location of Fairhaven and Santa Clara (see examples in Attachment 1). ~W: br: kbc\errata 10 ATTACHMENT I January 10, 1994 Planning Commission Staff Report..~,.and Signed Resolutions No. 3222 and No. 3223 ITEM #4 Report to the Planning Commission DATE-. SUBJECT: APPLICANT: ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: JANUARY 10, 1994 CITY OF TUSTIN GENERAL PLAN REVISION AND FINAL PROGRAM ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT CITY OF TUSTiN 300 CENTENNIAL WAY TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA 92680 DRAFT PROGRAM ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (-SCH 92101104) -REVIEW PERIOD CLOSED . RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the Planning Commission: I , · Adopt Resolution No. 3222, 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 comments and recommending that the City Council certify Final Program Environmental Impact Report 94-01. Adopt Resolution No. 3223, recommending approval to :he Cit~ Council of General Plan Amendment 94-01, updating all Elements of the TUstin Area General Plan with incorporation of the Errata to General Plan documents. BACKGROUND The Planning Commission held an initial public hearing on the proposed Draft General Plan and Draft Environmental Impac: Report (EIR) for the project on October 25, 1993. While the public hearing on the Draft EIR was closed after receipt of public testimony, the hearing on the General Plan was continued 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. Final action by the Planning Commission on the General Plan was then scheduled for December 13, 1993. However, due to the volume and complexity of responses that were received during the public review Planning Commission Report City of Tustin General Plan January 10, 1994 , Page 2 period, additional consultant and staff"time was necessary to adequately respond to all comments on both the General Plan and Draft EIR and the' Planning Commission rescheduled anticipated actions on the documents from December 13, 1993 to January 10, 1994. The ~Planning Commission has previously received a copy of the Draft General Plan and Draft EIR. In addition, an Errata identifying recommended modifications to the General Plan has been distributed to the Commission and all agencies,, organizations and/or individuals who commented on the General Plan. A recommended Firu~l EIR has also been distributed to the Planning C'ommission and made available to agencies, organizations, and/or individuals who commented on the Environmental Impact Report. The following is a brief description of the recommended Final General Plan and Final EIR. ~' A. General Plan A brief highlight of each Element of the proposed Tustin General Plan is attached as Attachment I. During the public hearings and 45 day review period on the General Plan required by State law, there were a number 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 character was maintained in the ~event of annexation. Additional corrections requested to the General Plan 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 resultedfrom input from North Tustin'residents. After recommendation of the General Plan to the City Council and final action on the General Plan by the City Council, modifications/corrections shown in the Errata'to the General Plan and any other revisions to the documents requested by the City Council Will be finalized and printed in the final General Plan document. Planning Commission Report City of Tustin General Plan January 10, 1994 Page 3 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 1, 1993. The Program EIR for the Tustin General Plan Update focuses on the environmental impacts that are likely tc result fro~ long-term implementation of the Plan and addresses tke following issue areas: i , 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. Earth Resources Air Quality Water Resources Biological Resources Noise Land Use Risk of Upset/Human Health Population/Housing 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 ~he 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 Seneral Plan will result Planning Commission Report City of Tustin General Plan January 10, 1994 PaGe 4 in significant cumulative air quality impa6ts 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 th~ ~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 .~e left hand margin of th~,Final EIR showinG that the information is revised in response to comments. 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 persons, organizations and public agencies that submitted comments. While the City Council is the final approving authority on the General Plan and must "certify" the Final EIR, it is also recommended that prior to the Planning Commission recommending any action to the City Council on the General Plan, that they also ~"certifY"' the JFi~al-~EIR.~ Certification really has tw° important ~elements. ~-~ ~,-The ~-~PlanninG commission should Conclude that ~ the document has been completed in compliance with CEQA and that .'it .~has also reviewed and considered the information within the EIR prior to'recommendinG any actions on the General Plan. In addition, where potential ~significant imPacts of a project · have been ~identified and the City ~wishes to~ approve ~the project," the -AGency must issue at least two sets of --findinGs. ~'The first Set'' of findings specifically state how the City has responded to significant effects identified ~in ~the EIR. The seCond finding is a "Statement of Overriding Consideration" .~ -'.'-- For each Potential [significant impact identified in the EIR, the City' must make one or more of the following 'f~ndings: Planning Commission Report City of Tustin General Plan January 10, 1994 Page 5 That changes or alterations have been required or incorporated in the project that avoid or substantially lessen the effect; , That the City lacks jurisdiction to make the changes, but that another agency does have such authority; and/or . That specific economic, social or other considerations make infeasible the mitigation or project alternatives identified in the Final EIR. Each of these findings must be supported by evidence in the administrative record. CEQA Findings and a Statement of'Facts have been attached for Planning Commission consideration. In the case of unavoidable project impacts on air qual'.~t~ 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 Planning Commission consideration. CONCLUSION Pursuant to Section 65353 and 65354 of the California Government Code, the Planning Commission must review and recommend action to the City Council on the proposed General Plan. PriOr to its' action on the General Plan, it is recommended that the Planning Commission approve the Environmental Determination for the Project (Resolution No. 3222). Attached and incorporated into the Resolution 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° Planning Commission Report City of Tustin General Plan January 10, 1994 Page 6 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. Once the Environmental Determination for the project has been completed, it is recommended that the.Planning Commission recommend to the City Council approval of the Proposed General Pi~ (Resolution No. 3223) which incorporates the Errata which includes recommended modifications/corrections to the Draft General Plan. Following any final Commission recommended action on the EIR and General Plan, the Public Hearing Draft General Plan and Final ~R will be forwarded to the City Council. The public will have additional opportunities to comment on the General Plan at that time. The City Council is anticipated to hold a public hearing on the General Plan on January 17, 1994. Ri~a- West field[ Assistant Director Community Development Department Christine A. Sh~gleton Assistant City ~anager RW: kk: br \genp[ an. #2 ATTA~ T · LAND USE ELEMENT The element sets forth citywide policy for the general location and intensity of land uses. It describes important citywide land use objectives and establishes policies based on identified needs. The element serves as a tool for coordinating future development and revitalization plans of both the public and private sectors. The element has an all- encompassing goal to promote an economically balanced community with complimentary and buffered land uses. Implementation of the Land Use Policy Plan will permit additional development in the City of Tustin consistent with other General Plan Element goals and policies. Total housing units will increase in the City by 7,526 units. Approximately 80% of these new units will be located in the East Tustin area. .~ Non-residential land use in the City is e~pected to increase from 22,462,000 to 30,099,000 square feet of building flOor area. The City's population is expected to increase to approximately 68,372 persons by year 2010. · HOUSING ELEMENT The element sets forth policies to guide public and private housing investment to provide a variety of housing for all members of the community absent any discrimination. The element addresses the specific housing needs of the City's residents, particularly emphasizing the improvement of housing opportunities for low and moderate income households. Additionally, the element priorities programs such as the conservation and revitalization of existing housing. Quantified objectives incorporate the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) Regional Housing Needs Assessment (R3{NA) allocation as required by State law. CIRCULATION ELEMENT The element identifies traffic deficiencies and presents general guidelines for the improvement of circulation facilities within Tustin. The element's main objective is to provide a circulation system which serves the needs of the Community as well as a balanced transportation system and provide for safe, convenient and efficient movement of people and goods, and conforms to applicable e~vironmental quality standards. CONSERVATION/OPEN SPACE/RECREATION ELEME.%~ The element sets policy direction for the open space related resources of the City. These resources include land and water areas devoted to recreation, scenic beauty, conservation and use of natural resources and agriculture. The element's policies are based on the need to conserve amenities, protect against natural hazards, and meet the resident's desire for open space experiences. In addition~ tkis element aids the City Council, Planning Commission, and professional staff in providing current and future residents with a cost effective parks and recreation system. Apart from reconciling Tustin's growth with financial constraints, tke element provides appropriate policy-level input for the new development of the East Tustin Specific Plan area, satisfies the requirements of the Quimby Act to provide definite standards for park land dedication, evaluates joint-use site potentials and establishes a specific design developmen5 process for major recreation proposals. Air Quality is a sub-element of the Conseryation/Open Space/Recreation Element. The purpose of this sub-element is to reduce current and projected emission levels through land use, transportation and conservation measures. NOISE ELEMENT The element identifies noise related problems and issues, noise sources, noise measurement standards, establishes policy to address noise conditions that adversely affect the residents and provides guidelines for new development within the City. The element specifically discusses the issues resulting from the noise source impacts cf the I-5 and SR-55 freeways, the Browning Corridor and the John Wayne Airport over-flight pattern. SAFETY ELEMENT The element identifies preventive regulations of potential hazards within Tustin. The element establishes policy and direction for the reduction or elimination of potential hazards for the protection of 'Tustin residents from fires and geologic hazards including seismic activity. Features include the identification of evacuation routes, peak load water supply requirements, clearances around st~actures and geologic hazard mapping in areas of known geologic hazards. An additional General Plan element is required for cities in Orange County, the Growth Management Element. GROWTH MANAGEMENT ELEMENT This element is a result of the voters approval of Measure M, the Traffic Improvement and~'GrOwth Management Ordinance. The purpose of the element is to ensure that growth and development is ibased upon the 'City's ability to provide adequate traffic circulation. 1 RESOLUTION NO. 3222 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA, FINDING THAT FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT 94-01 (SCH #92101104) PREPARED FOR THE TUSTIN AREA GENERAL PLAN UPDATE IS ADEQUATE WITH THE INCORPORATION OF ALL RESPONSES TO COMMENTS AND RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY. COUNCIL CERTIFY FINAL PROGRAM ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT 94- 01 WITH CEQA FINDINGS AND STATEMENT OF FACTS AND A STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS. The Planning Commission of the City of Tustin does hereby resolve as follows: I · The Planning Commission finds and determines as follows: A· As part of the implementation of... the Statm.~ planning regulations and in recogDition of' current City land use issues, the City of Tustin General Plan has been updated and adoption is proposed. Discretionary actions considered as part of the "Project" an~ 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". m o Ce 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 An EIR has 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 D. A public hearing was duly called, noticed and held on the Draft EIR on October 25, 1993; and E . F · The public review period for the Draft EIR officially commenced on September 22, 1993 and ended on November 4, 1993. Incorporated within the EIR are comments of the public, Planning Commission, staff'and other agencies, and responses thereto; and In accord with the State Guidelines for the implementation of the California Environmental 10 11 12 13 15 16 17 19 21 22 23 24 26 28 Resolution No. 3222 Page 2 P~Ogram '~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 in proportion to the broad nature of the policy recommendations contained in the General Plan; and ~ The planning Commission has read and considered all environmental documentatio~ comprising the EIR including comments and responses, has found 'that the EIR considers all potentially significant environmental impacts 'of the proposed project, is adequat? with inclusion of all responses to comment~, and fully complies with all requirements of CEQA, and the State guidelines for implementation of CEQA; and H. It is 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.) that the City shall not approge a project unless there is no ~"~ ~ ~ . ~feasible way. to lessen ~or'avoid significant ....... ~ ............. effects;meaning all impacts have been avoided ....... 'to 'the extent feasible or substantially · lessened and any remaining unavoidable significant impacts are acceptable based on · CEQA, SectiOn 15093;~and I. 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 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 3 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 ~20 21 22 23 24 26 27 ResolutiOn No. 3222 Page 3 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 by reference; and II. Based on the Final Program~EIR 94-01, the Planning Commission has found that the~project involves no potential for any adverse effect, either individually or cumulatively, on wildlife resources and .therefore makes a De Minimis Impact Finding related to Assembly Bill 3158, Chapter 1706.~ Statutes of 1990. In~addition~ there will not be a significant effect on the environment as applicable mitigation measures identified in the Final' EIR have been incorporated into the project's approval which mitigate any potential significa~ environmental effects. III. The Planning Commission of the City of Tustin does hereby find that EIR 94-01 in its entirety with Responses to Comments and Technical Appendices is adequate and complete and recommends that the City Council certify Final Environmental Impact Report 94-01; and IV. The Planning Commission hereby fi'nds 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 Planning Commission ~recommends that all mitigation measures contained in Final EIR 94-01 be adopted and shall be incorporated where applicable as conditions of approval at subsequent · ~.~ .. discretionary actions at the appropriate level of .... project implementation; and · V. The Planning Commission hereby recommends that the City Council adopt 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. 28 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 .20 21 22 23 24 26 27 28 Resolution No. 3222 Page 4 ~PASSEDANDADOPTED by-the Plam~ing Commission of the~City of Tustin at a regular meeting held on the 10th day of January, 1994. Chairperson k~HLEEN CLANCY- /~ Recording Secretar~ STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF ORANGE ) CITY OF TUSTIN ) I, KATHLEEN CLANCY, the undersigned, hereby certify that I am the Recording Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Tustin, Califcrnia; that Resolution No. 3222 was duly passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the Tustin Planning Commission, held on the 10th day of. January., 1994 Recording ,Secretary EXHIBIT A OF RESOLUTION NO. 3222 CEQA FINDINGS AND STATEMENT OF FACTS EIR 94-01 (SCH 1192101104) 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 Guideline,s.-, (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 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 findings 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 EI1L .. · (2) Such 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. (3) Specific economic, social, or other considerations make infeasible the mitigation measures or Project alternatives 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 si~ificant impacts related to earth resources. Through implementation of the mitigation measures, proposed development projects will be reviewed fox: potential geologic safety problems r_elated 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 OUALITY Significant Effects - Implementation of the City of Tustin General' Plan will result in increased levels of most air pollutants. Emissions will come from increased mobile sources (vehicle trips); on-site combustion of natural gas for A-2 heatingand 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 tha{ 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 anadvisory' document which identifies a number of air pollution reduction goals, measures and policies. Local jurisdictions have 'been mandated to redu~,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 i,by the local agency to be politically and economically. :feasible. The SCAQMD :.is carrenfly drafting a.Baekstop Measure t0. 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 xeduction goal. With continued achievement of the goal, ;the CitY'will'n°t need to adopt ,any additional Transportation 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 discreti6ti'*t6~§elect 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 Board (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 proposed project. All project alternatives, including the No Project alternative, 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 groundwater. 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 measui:es 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 where necessary. The City will promote improved water quality by supporting local programs and regulations and working with industrial operations within the City to redul:e 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 Communi .ty 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 Program to reduce significant impacts to biological resources. The City will require developers to perform biolo~cal 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 fight-of-way, and adjacent to the flight path of John Wayne Airport. Short-term noise impacts will result fi.om 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 Program 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 fi'om aviation activities, the City will continue to participate in the planning processes A-6 for John Wayne Airport, MCAS Tustin, and MCAS El 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 Tustifi 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 furore years under the Tustin General Plan. The overall level of non-residential development in the Planning Area is expected to increase approximately 37 percent fi'om 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 Finding. Mitigation measures are identified in both the Final Environmental Impact Report and the Mitigation. Monitoring Program 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 impaets~ : '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 th[ 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 Program 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 City's Grading Manual and requiring geological and/or engineering reports in areas where hazardous geological conditions may exist. A-8 Fire hazards shall be minimized through enforcement of the Uniform Fire Code, ensurance of proper fire flows for new development, 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 heating 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 upset/humfin 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 A~.~i 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 iv. 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 types 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 occupied housing; (4) preserve existing housing and neighborhoods; 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 xvill 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 Hi.ways. The Circulation Element also contains a City Bikeway Plax] 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 si~ificant 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 pumuant to the Orange Count5' 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 Interjurisdictional Planning Forums and Joint Powers Agreements to discuss 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 System/Demand 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 finding. Facts in Support of Finding. Agencies adjacent to the City have jurisdiction over development and transportation facilities within their boundaries that ma~ impact the City of Tustin's transportation facilities. Such transportation' facilities include the 1-5 and SR-55 freeway widening construction, the construction of the Foothill Transportation Corridor and improvement projects in adjacent cities. To reduce inter-city and regional transportation impacts, th[ 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 increased 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 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 Mitigatio.n Monitoring Program to A-11 reduce significant impacts to public services. Impacts on law,enforcement service have been determined not to be significant. To .reduce impacts to fire protection services, the City Will Promote fu-e prevention and continue to require dedication of right-of-way and improvements of streets and infrasmleture ,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 ~f the mitigation measures for 'public service 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 approxim .ately nine percent in the incorporat~ City.OfTi~sfin and 11 percent the Planning Area. Natural gas uses will increase by 127 percent in the Plannin~ 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 Ar~ 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 3~ :~.-~ ..... ~:percent .... in the incorporated 5city:~of Tustin ~and 'lhree "::percent': in the "i,"' ..... 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.:.i~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 Finding. 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 City will also provide information about methods to maximize structural energy efficiency. To reduce impacts to water service, the City will practice the efficient use of water supplie-s::a~d water conservation through a variety of methods. All water infrastructure improvements identified in the City's Capital Improvement Program must be consistent with the General Plan. To reduce impacts to sewer service from new development projects, the City' will continue to require the dedication of right-of-way and sewer infrasmacture 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 programs 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 forth 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 hncrease the City population and the parkland deficit will subsequently further increase. While the proposed Count' 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 ,mill, 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 significant environmental effect as identified ~ 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 recreation. The City will identify 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 regular basis to ensure that programs .and services are not being duplicated or competing against each other in the City. All of the mitigation measures fo.r~ recreation impacts correspond to specific implementation programs in the' General Plan. All significant environmental impacts to recreation have been eliminated .~ substantially lessened by virtue of mitigation measures identifi.ed in the Final EIR and Mitigation Monitoring Program, and incorporated into the project or future project approvals as set forth above. ARCHAEOLOGICAL/HISTORICAL/PALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCES Significant Effects- Significant archaeological and paleontological resources could be disturbed during earthwork required for new development projects. Historic structures may be removed and replaced with planned land uses. 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 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 will 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 and research opportunities; pursuing historic designation 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 programs 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 MitigatiotL, Monitoring Program, and incorporated into the project or future project' approvals as set forth above. PROJECT ALTERNATIVES The following project alternatives were 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 alternative, 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 projects. The No Project alternative 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 alternative. However, the No Project alternative will result in population and housing impacts that are more significant than the population 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 alternative 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 sh6Uld 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 alternative will prohibit property owners in Tustin from developing their land and may represent a lc. gal "taking without compensation." Existing General Plan Under the Existing General Plan altemative, 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 3'ears, 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 implementation programs to effectively reduce environmental impacts.' Implementation of the existing General Plan will not reduce any of the environmental impacts associated with the proposed General Plan. In regards to air quality, i'mpacts, buildout of the existing General Plan will exacerbate regional air quality Problems 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 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. 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 Plan, (19,039,000 versus 17,265,000). In total, the Decreased Industrial Development alternative will result in approximately 2.5 perceoL 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 Developm.ent altemative is very similar to the total buildout potential of the proposed General Plan, the environmental impacts from implementation will be very similar. The D~reased Industrial Development alternative is not considered environmentally superior to the proposed General Plan. Decreased Residential Development Under the Decreased Residential Development alternative, 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. Because 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 decreascd number of residential units to be developed under this altemative, sufficient housing stock may not be available to meet the projected housing demand from regional population growth. In particular, affordable 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 regional air quality problems. The Decreased Residential Development. alternative 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.storie~.~ Buildout of the Greater Mixed-Use Development alternative 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 will 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 alternative will be !ess 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 Development superior to the proPosed General Plan. alternative 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 .will be similar to the impacts,of the proposed General Plan. This alternative is feasible and fulfills the "' -' i Objectivesi~ofthe proposed projeCt. ~:The Greater Mixed'Use DevelOpment altemative, :however, 'is rejected. Mixed-use development is .a new planning concept in southern , California and the economic .viability of mixed-use development has not been successfully~:proven.'. The City cannot realistically assume that financing' will be available for proposed ,mixed-use development proposals at this time. . RW:kb¢~exhbta A-19 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: 1. 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 establish~i 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 de'~elopm~'~t 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 quality standards. As described below in items three through six, the City B-2 EXHIBIT B OF RESOLUTION NO. 3222 STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS EIR 94-01 (SCH //92101104) 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 c}f 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 and/or other information in the record. This statement may be necessary if ~e 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 an3, 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 ELR 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 Ah' Quality Management Plan (AQMP) is an advisory document which identifies a number of air pollution reduction goals, measures and policies. B-1 ge . 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 qualit).'. The goal of the land use controls is to establish a region-wide effort 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 use. s_. and less commercial and business uses than the existing G.eneral 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 impro('e 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 managemenL 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 alternative transportation schedules and modes. The Conservation/Open B-3 Se o 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 ener~ 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 contain.s_~ 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 wa.'lI 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 Basin. 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 frae 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 10 11 12 13 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 26 ~_ 27 28 RESOLUTION NO. 3223 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF'THE CITY OF TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING APPROVAL TO THE CITY COUNCIL OF GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 94-01, UPDATING ALL ELEMENTS OF THE TUSTINAREA GENERAL PLAN. The Planning Commission of the City of Tustin does hereby resolve as follows: The Planning Commission finds and determines as follows: a. 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 General Plan. Government Code Section 65358(b) states no mandatory element of a General Plan shall be amended more frequently than 4 ti~es during any calendar year. However, each amendment may include more than 1 change to the General Plan. Appropriately, in conjunction wi~ General Plan Amendment 94-01, while all elements are being amended the action shall be considered as one amendment per Section 65358(b). C. In accordance with Government Code Section 65353, a public hearing was duly noticed, called, and held on the proposed amendment by. the Planning Commission on October 25., 1993. D. General Plan Amendment 94-01 has been reviewed in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act and Final Environmental Impact Report (EIR) 94-01, which adequately addresses the general environmental setting of the proposed project, its 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 an~ 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. 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Resolution No. 3223 Page 2 E . General Plan Amendment 94-01 is in the best interest of the public based on the following: The comprehensive, update of the General Plan ensures that the City conforms to changes in State law, reflects current court decisions and provides an integrated and internally consistent set of goals and policies designed to reflect the changing characteristics and growth of the community. . . The updated General Plan will project and direct future growth and development in the City of Tustin. .~ The updated General Plan reflects community input on goals and objectives through the public participation process: The updated goals, policies and implementation programs will ensure that the City of Tustin has an adequate General Plan. II. The Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that General Plan Amendment 94-01 be adopted 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 and incorporated herein by reference. Said textual and map changes will be made in the printing of the Final document. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Planning Commission of the City of %~snin a~ a regular meeting held on the 10th day of Januar%~', 1994. - K~THLEEN CLANCY Recording SecretarsC Chairperson 1 , 4 10 11 12 13 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 26 - 27 28 Resolution No. 3223 Page 3 STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF ORANGE ) CITY OF TUSTIN ) I, KATHLEEN CLANCY, the undersigned, hereby certify that I am the Recording Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Tustin, California; that Resolution No. 3223 was duly passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the Tustin Planning Commission, held on the 10th day of January, 1994. KATHLEEN CLANCY Recording Secretary~ EXHIBIT A ERRATA TO GENERAL PLAN DOCUMENTS RESOLUTION NO. 3223 JANUARY 10, 1994 Additions to and deleted text in the Errand are identified as: Deletions: Additions: :.:.:.:+:+:.~.:.:.:-:.:+:.:.~.:.:.:.:.: LAND USE ELEMENT Certain Figures in the Land Use Element do not contain streets that are shown on the other figure exhibits. For consistency with other Figures and the DEIR, the following Land Use Figures Shall be revised as follows: a o b, Add Yorba Street, south cf Seventeenth Street to Figure LU-2. Add Myford Road to the Fi?are LU-3. c. Add Valencia Avenue to the Figure LU-3. , Page 45 - Figure LU-6, Special Management Areas. MCAS, Tustin legend does not match graphics delineating the MCAS area. ~e legend and the MCAS Specific Plan Study Area shall be reconciled. , On all city exhibit maps, changes shall be made to show - Santa Clara at the top of map as Fairhaven. Santa Clara is located to the south and would be moved down to the next major street as shown on the attached exarrmle Attachment (A.1) . - Corrections will be made to the following Exhibits: Figures I-l, Page 3, Introduction LU-1, Page 26 LU-2, Page 27 LU-5, Page 41 LU-6, Page 45 LU-7, Page 46 Page 48 discussion of North Tustin 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 North Tustin 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 the Land Use Technical Memorandum. · 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) and portions or all of this area could potentially be annexed to Tustin within the next 20 years. o . ~'~'"~"~"~',~'['""""['5'"',~.~,CA'S~ ...... T'JS't'ii~'~ ...... ~'~Presen5 areas 5Hat are p. resenSIy included in the City of Irvine S01. The two incorporated areas '-' ~ ~ ~ ~^ ~ ~ lie' ~:~.'..e.:~::::::::?:::::::: :?:'~:::~:::::~ ::? northwest or ~~~::::::::::::::::":?:::::::?-:: '::~::::~ ........... ?i"?:~ of the futurc alignment of ~'~:'~:~e Road which W'~"~' ......... '~'~'T'~' .......... recently :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::...._........,................. ,.....................:.................,,,.......line between the cities of Tusti= ~.:~.~:.~.~ ...... ~.~:.~.:.~.:.:~.~.:.:...~.:~.......~...~..~.......¥.~.~.~...%..~..~...~....~..~........~..~.~.."...~..~..~.......¥....~.~..~.~ ..... ~.~.~.~;.;...~.-~.~-~.~.~.: ~ A new section shall be added on pa~e 10 to read as follows: .......................................... .. ............ · :.....:.......~ .-...v.- .,.:.,...,, ..:...,.:-.:,:.:.:::::...:.:.:+:.:.: :.:.:,;.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:... ,.:.:.:-:v:.:.:.:.;.:-:.:-:.:.:.:.:-:-:-:-: '-:.:-:-:.:.:.;.:-: · ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: :::;'-:::::.:::::: ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: :+>>>>'.>>. ,..<+>> >>>>:o>>>>>;+>>>:->>:: .+:.:+>>>>-.>>;-.+ The fo!lowin9- policies shall be modified to read as follows: .:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:+.+:.:.:~:-+>..:+:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.::.:.:+:. ::.:.:+~.:+:.:~:.:.:.:+:.:.~:.:~:::.:~:::.:>:.~.:.:.:.:.:~:.~.~.~:~:.:.:.~:.::~:. . ~ , ~ "Policy 1.6 Encourage ~~:~:~::~:::::~n~::::::~p~e:~:~ ~nz~l of previous ly by- pas ced p~::~:~:~::f:~' ..........~ ......... :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::t ly developed." "Policy 1.7. Ensure an adequate supply of commercial and industrial land ~~i~?~?~i~::~:~:~:i:~:i:~i~i?~i~::~:~:~:~::i!~!~ for potential commercial and :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: . . "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 .......................................................... Page 33 of second paragraph, second sentence under discussion of Low Density Residential Designation shall be modified to read as follows: This designation allows a maximu~ o~ seven single f~,~il.ym, units ~:.~:.~...~.~:~:.~:.:.:.~:~.~.~.:~:.:.`~.~.~..~:.~.~:~:.:.:.~:.:.:.:.]..`:~.~.:.~.~sens i ty chara ct e r wi th bui 1 ding heights generally not exceeding 30 feet. Page 6 under "Balanced Development in Tustin" shall b~~ modified to read: There is a lack of commercial services in geographic areas such as ~ ~~ ~"~ .... ~ ~ the Irvine Busine~ Center, which warrants consideration of additional commercial designations. (Bullet #1) The annexation of certain areas in North Tustin could n~~~ ~ ~"~ ~ ~ ~ agrccmcnt f af~~ ~csi~cnts establish more logical city boundaries. (Bullet ~5) Hillside areas within the City's Sphere of Influence may be subject to slope ~stability. In the event of annexation, significa~~:~:~: infrastructure deficiencies, .................... ............................................................................................................................................................................................ :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: 10. A new Gcal and Policies shall be added on Page 23 of the Land Use Element Goals and Policies section to read as follows: :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::~: 11. Figure LU-6 (Special Management Areas) shall be corrected to delete the northwest corner of Jamboree and Edinger and the southeast corner of Red Hill and Edinger from the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan Study Area boundary as shown on the attached example (Attachment A-2). 12. Policy 7.2 shall be amended as follows: Capitalize on Tustin's office and hotel markets through encouraging the development of these uses. '~ . 13. Policy 7.5 shall be amended as follows: iiii~.~!.i Focus retail development into consolidated economic~'lIy viable and attractive centers of adequate size and scale which offer a variety of retail goals and amenities; iii~i~ili reinforce qualf~y highway and scenic development adjacent to the City's major transportation corridors; ili~i~i~!ii discourage typical strip commercial development. 14. Table LU-3 shall be revised to show 1539 dwelling units under the Military Land Use designation. Totals on Table LU-3 shall be revised accordingly. All text where dwelling unit counts appear shall be revised to reflect the new total Planning Area and city dwelling unit count. Circulation Element · Corrections to Page 24, Paragraph 1, 2nd Sentence shall be made to read: "Superstreets" have been renamed to "Smart Streets". . Figure C-5 (Bikeway Plan) : The County Regional Trail legend (Jamboree' Rcsd at Portola Parkway to 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). . . o Policy 1.9 shall be amended as follows: Policy 1.i7 shall be amended as follows: · D.:~ ~:e. ~ .~:i! :::::::~ s ~::~ :.n..~i=:!i::iii~::~~::::!:=::=i!:=~ ~i~:=~ :::::::::::::::::::::::: ~: ::i::::!!i~::9~ ~::i:::::: :::::::::i~ ~::~ ~i~:= Policy ?.~ shall be amended as follows: :Reduce use of key arterial streets for on-street parking in an effort to maximize traffic flow characteristics of roadways. o . The following statement shall ~e adde~ to the end o~ 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. ~' o On Page 3, under the discussion South Coast Air Basin and Air Quality 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 County Transportation Aut~'~'~':~'~' ................ iOCTA and AT&SF) to reduce or eliminate current traffic interruptions due to rail crossings along arterials. ~ousinq Element · Page 14 - Second paragraph under Military Personnel should be amended to delete reference to family housing. Delete the sentences at ~ozzow~n~ : .............. ...... ~ MCA$ E1 Tcrc, all ' . · On'Page 24 under the Financing subsection, revise the first paragraph, to read as follows: Financing: Wkilc ~nterest rates kavc fal~ ...... ~ ~ .... ~ ~^~ ~^~'"~^~ ~ substantial impact on housing costs which is ...................... fel:~ renters, purchasers and developers. Some mor~'~'~':':':':'~inancing is variable rate, which offers an initial lower interest rate than fixed financing. The ability of lending institutions to 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' ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: ~ ~ ~ ~ ^~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ first-time home buyer ~a~i~i~i~i~i~ ........... t~ be the ~ ~ ..............,..../.,........,,.,...... ....... ....... ~ pcrccnt ~~ downpay~'~'~'"'"'~'~'~'ired by lending institutions· :.>:.>>:.:.>x.:-x.x.:,:.:.:+:.:.:.:+ :-: · Table H-3 shall be corrected to reflect 1539 dwelling units for MCAS, Tustin. Both existin~ and maximum buildout 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 · On all city exhibit maps, Santa Clara at the top of map shall be labeled Fairhaven. Santa Clara moves down to the next 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 t~c -~cll~ ~i~i at the City's Seventeenth Street Plant ~iiiii!~i~ili~ii~~iii~~iiiii~!~!iliiii~i~i are closed due to high nitrat!~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~::~:~:~::~:~:~ dissolved solids. .. Certain information in Table COSR-2 shall be corrected as 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 ~ii~i~~ Parks and Recreational Facilities. On Page 54, Item 9: "Public Works" shall be added to the li~t 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: 9. Page 53, Implementation Program No. 6 shall be revised to ! ! . ".' · '..".:.:..".:.:4" · :4 .'.."-: :.:.:.:.:.:.:.: < .:.:.: '.:.:.:. o .:.'. · · + · · +:.:.:.- - .-.- - :.¥..:..-..-. ·..: ...... ¥ ........... :-:4 "' read: Traffic Flow Improvements. ............................... ,, ............................................................................. ., ....... ................ .-.".:.:::.:.:.:.. :.:::.'.:4::-:-:::-:+:-:::-:-:.::~:-:::.:-::::::.':::;:;-;..'::.;.:.':::-;.: ............................................................. 10. On Page 54, Implementation Program No. 7 shall be revised to read: Develop intergovernmental agreements and ~!~iii!ili~ adopt a local ordinance to attain target'~:'~:':':':'~:~':~'~'~:~':~:'~~ ~:~*:~:~:~le Miles Traveled and growth management goals of th'~ Growth Management Plan (implements Tier 1 Measure-17 of the 1991 AQMP) . 11. On Page 54 Implementation Program No. 8 shall be revised t~ restricfi~~i~`~:~:!:!:i:i:~:~!~:~~:~:~:!:~:~:~:~:~:i:i:~:~:~:~:?~:~:~:~i:ip~rti~u~te matter, requiring liners for truck beds and covering of loads, and controlling construction activities 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 I . Page 27 - Table PS-4. Identify responsible agency/department for recovery opera~ions. Finance Department will have the primary responsibility for Recovery Operations, all other city departments and agencies will provide support functions. . On Page 26, Figure PS-1. Revise Exhibit to show correct location of Fairhaven and Santa Clara (see examples in Attachment 1). Noise Element o On Page 14, Figure N-1. Revise Exhibit to show correct location of Fairhaven and Santa Clara (see examples in Attachment 1) . R61: br: kbc\errata A-~ ~ ACHMENF I (EXHIBIT's,.,) NORTH HALF (see Figure LU-2) / i i i i SOUTH HALF (See Figure LU-3) GENERAL PLAN P R 0 G R A M Figure LU-1 Land Use Plan Policy Map Key 26 ATTACHMEI.~, 2 (EXHIBIT ~,) // II il !/ // fl .11 il I/ eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee # EX]STING SPECIFIC PLANS ~ First Street ~ East Tustin ~ Pacific Center East ~ North Tustin SPECIFIC PLAN STUDY AREAS ['-'-"-"-'t MCAS Tustin P R O G R A M DI; LETE' F'~oM ~gure LU-6 Special Management Areas Specific Plans 45 AT~Clil~'-~iT,3 (EXHIBIT~ II W Coz-rtdor ~$~4~r~en% Lo Figure C-5 CITY. OF. TUSTIN BIKEWAY PLAN 37 CIRCULATION ELEMENt' SEFI'E. MBER 1993 ATTACHMENT II CHRONOLOGY OF PUBLIC PARTICIPATION, WORKSHOPS AND HEARINGS ATTACI{MENT II Chronology of Public Participation, Workshops and Hearings In May 1991 a Community Attitude Survey was distributed to all households and businesses in the City in an effort to include important community issues that should be considered in the General Plan.. On May 22, 1991, a Community Workshop was held to introduce the General Plan revision process and preparation of the Draft EIR and to solicit additional community input. The Planning Commission reviewed the draft Goals and Policies in October, 1991. In November, 1991, a community workshop, with a joint meeting of the Planning Commission and City Council wa~ held to review and approve Draft Goals and Policies fo~ each General Plan Element, land use alternatives and select a preferred land use alternative. During the Spring, 1992, and Winter, 1993, articles w~re included in the Tustin Today Community Services Brochure explaining the General Plan updating process and providing upcoming workshop dates. A workshop for the Parks and Recreation Commission to review the Conservation/Open Space/Recreation goals and policies was held in June, 1992. In the fall of 1992, the Parks and Recreation Commission reviewed the preliminary of the Draft Conservation/Open Space/Recreation Element. In October, 1992, public notice was circulated in the Tustin News initiating the Notice of Preparation process for the Draft EIR, a required document to address the potential impacts to the public as a result of revising the General Plan. Comments were received and incorporated, where warranted and applicable into the Draft General Plan and/or Draft EIR. In October, 1992, the Planning Commission had their first in a series of workshops to begin the review of the draft elements. Throughout the months of October 1992 to August 1993, the Conservation/Open Space/Recreation, Public Safety, Housing, Land Use, Circulation and Noise Elements were reviewed by the Planning Commission in workshop sessions. Attachment II Page 2 In January 1993, the Planning Commission and City Council held a joint workshop on ~.the Ccnservatz~n/Open Space/Recreation, Land Use, Housing and Public Safety Elements. On September 16, 1993, notice in the Tustin News on the completion of the Draft General Plan and Draft EIR was provided. Resident notice letter published in TusSin Weekly and Tustin News advertising the release of documents and open house on October 12. Notice of circulation of the documents was also transmitted ~o 30 Coun~y/Eegiona~ agencies, 31 State agencies, 3 Federal agencies and over 66 public interest groups, private parties or homeowners associations. On September 20, 1993, residents and public were 'nform'~d that the Draft General Plan and Draft EIR were being released at a regular City Council meeting. Copies of the DEIR and Draft General Plan Elemen5s have been made available at Tustin City Hall, Community Development Department and at the Tustin Librar-f. Notice of the October 25, 1993 Planning Commissicn public hearing on the Draft EIR and General Plan was published with a 1/8 page display ad in the Tustin News and also mailed to all required agencies and interested ~arties. On October 11, 1993 the Planning Commission agen~ized a discussion of the Draft General Plan and EIR to orovide - an opportunity for staff to respond to quest~rns the Commission or audience might have prior ~o their formal public hearing on October 25, 1993. · On October 12, 1993, a public open house/workskop was conducted. The purpose of the Open House was for the consultant and City staff to make presentations to the public highlighting the key components cf each 3eneral Plan element and to respond to any community questions. Members of the Planning Commission were invz5ed to attend. On October 25, 1993,-the Planning Commission held a public hearing on both the Draft General Plan an~ Draft EIR. Attachment II Page 3 Between October 25 and November 22, city staff met twice witk different representatives from the Foothill Communities Association and North Tustin Community Asscciation and other interested North Tustin residents. On Xovember 22, 1993 the Planning Commission held a pub!~c hearing on the Draft General Plan. On January 10, 1994, the Planning Commission recommended tha% the City Council approve General Plan amendment 94- 01 and certified Environmental Impact Report 94-01 for the Seneral Plan Update. ATTACHMENT III Foothill Communities Association, Inc. letter, dated January 10, 1994 Foothill CommunitYes Association, Inc. P.O. Box 261 Tustin, CA 92680 January 10, 1994 Chairperson City Planning Commission CiD' of Tustin, CA Re: City of Tustin Draft General Plan Honorable Chairperson: We are in receipt of Ms. Westfield's letter of 29 December, 1993, regarding the above, which is in reply to our earlier letter of 11 November, 1993, providing the FCA's comments on the Draft Tustin General Plan regarding North Tustin. We appreciate the efforts of Ms. Westfield and the Community Development Department to accommodate the concerns we expressed in our letter. The original Draft General Plan had substantive defects and shortcomings with regard to the North Tustin Community, and would certainly have generated intense negative reactions in the community had it been thus promulgated. Your revised draft has corrected some of these defects. You have also included substantial language regarding the State-mandated Orange County Community Profile Maps, in particular, concerning the public process of finding consistency with these profiles. To these ends, we applaud and endorse the spirit of cooperation expressed therein. In that same spirit of cooperation, however, we wish to note with dismay that the City of Tustin has repeatedly diluted and emasculated the recommended text dealing with some of our major concerns. In other cases, you have omitted our comments entirely. Parts A and B of the attached list summarizes these issues. We are particularly concerned that the City has diluted some of the new text by introducing new language that is both inconsistent with the positive aspects of the above, and seems almost certain to lead to avoidable future controversy. This is in the change of a key action phrase in our original comments from "...compatible with...", to "...compatible and .complementary...". In context, the ordinary meaning of "compatible" is "similar to"; while 'cornplementary" means almost the opposite, providing some missing, i.e., different element. Thus the commercial development in the Tustin strip annexations along Newport Avenue can well be interpreted as "Complementary" to the residential development surrounding it. In our view, this is exactly the wrong approach to land use planning of a well established, homogeneous neighborhood such as North Tustin. While acknowledging generally the relevance of' the North Tustin Specific plan as a planning element for the sensitive Newport-Seventeenth buffer area, you have declined what we consider to be the very important and reasonable recommendation that the NTSP be incorporated by reference as a part of the Tustin General Plan, and replaced it with a vacuum of definition. In summary, we believe that both the editing and omission of our other comments still fail to address the valid and deeply rooted concerns of the vast majority of North Tustin residents. We prefer to be convinced that the City's actions and attitudes to date reflect a serious effort to deal with these concerns, rather than the mere exercising of process. Therefore, we confidently look forward to your further amending of the Draft General Plan along the lines of our original remarks. We can assure you that in this case, you will have the FCA's entire cooperation in supporting such a responsive Draft General Plan to the North Tustin Community. President, Foothill Community Association Attachments: 1 Copies: Ms. Rita Westfield, Community Development Department Mr. Jim Potts, Mayor and Chair of the City Councill Summary of Omissions and Revisions in the City ERRATA TO GENERAL PLAN DOCUMENTS ("ERRATA") Relative to Our 11 NOVF_~{B~ RECOMMENDATIONS TO THE DRAFT GENERAL PLAN ("Recommendations"). A. EXAMPL~ II,LUSTRATING SUBSTAN"YIAL EMASCULATION OF ~ RECO~~A~ONS. DII.UTION OR om;~o,.,,,s in the "ERRATA Omissions indicated thus '"~:"" Additions indicated thus ~ii~i~ in the 'ERRATA' p. 12. Policy 1.6: "Encourage compatible and ~::!~~ infill of previously bypassed parcels in areas already predominantly developed. In p. 12, Policy 1.9: Provide incentives to encourage lot consolidation and parcel assemblage to provide expanded opportunities for coordinated development and redevelopment, ~"'* ""~ ..... ~'""'~ ~'-",.,, '-"."""-'l-' ....... ,~,,., .,..,., ..... l~,,,,..,,, ,TIC '-"-""F .............. l''''''''~ .... t:, '"'""-'""'""' p. 13, Policy 1.13: Evaluate all future annexation proposals within the City's sphere of influence for their financial, social, and environmental impacts on the City of Tustin and assure that capital improvements I are. '~"~:-"'~ ~'" '~'~ "~';a~"'~ ..r ,... ~--.~ '~ paid · .,,.o,,,.,, ,,a ,,,,. ,,.o,,~,,,o .~ ..... arc .,, ....can and will be for by the residents or property owners of the annexed area. p. 14, Policy 3.5, "... of the hillside areas. 1., ,.., , ,.1,-,,. ,-,., d-,,~ p. 23 New Policy 12: +i., .... ~-; .... ,4 1,,.-,,..,,..., + ..... ;,..,,T.,i..,,.-.,,..1..,,.,.,-._,,1 ,,.,~.,,.,1..,;1;.,,, +,-, +I..,; .......... rcsidcn'fi"A a,"~_,,:- Review and consider the possible development' and adoption of pre-zoning designation for the North Tustin unincorporated area as a part of any annexation proposal. G~..,-,,,. -~. By' ,,, ...., ~.,,~,~..,~,~.r ...... Identify the North Tustin Specific Plan Area and entire North Tustin unincorporated area as a Special Management Area. p. 48 NTSP: This General Plan recognizes the continued need for stable specific designation for this area by · · * · ==================================== :.:.t .:.:.:.:.:.:.:.?' '.:.:+:.'.:.:.:.: :.:.:.:..........................?.:.?.:.?.:.:.:.?.:.'.:.:,?.:+:,:+:.:.:.:. :.:.:.'.:~-:.?.::.:. ................................................................ ~ ......................................................................... :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::..`~...::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::~::::::::::~:::::::::~::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: Tustin General Plan. 19) p. 27. Land Use Policy Map. l., ~I,.,.-...~,, .,~17 DTTDT IPllli, l("7"l'7'Tl~T*l_~r"llt,?ll '""' is ,,, 22 1 C3 ~,,~ . ~;~1. ~:1 .... B. ITEMS NOT RESPONDED TO IN' TODAY'S DOCUMENTS. Letter Item Page 3. Page 4. Items 1,2,4 and 5. Omitted Page 6. Items 8,11,12,13,14 and 15. Omitted. Page 5. Items 17,18 and 19. Omitted. ..-, Items 20,21,23 and 24. Omitted. Page 7. Item 26. Omitted. ATTACHMENT IV Summary of General Plan Elements ATTACHMENT IV Summary of General Plan Elements LAND USE ELEMENT The element sets forth citywide policy for the general location and intensity of land uses. It describes important citywide land use objectives and establishes policies based on identified needs. The element serves as a tool for coordinating future development and revitalization plans of both the public and private sectors. The element has an all- encompassing goal to promote an economically balanced community with complimentary and buffered land uses. Implementation of the Land Use Policy Plan will permit additional development in the City of Tustin consistent with other General Plan Element goals and policies. ® Total housing units will increase in the City by 7,526 units. Approximately 80% of these new units will be located in the East Tustin area. Non-residential land use in the City is expected ~o increase from 22,462,000 to 30,099,000 square feet of building floor area. The City's population is expected to increase to approximately 68,372 persons by year 2010. HOUSING ELEMENT The element sets forth policies to guide public and private housing investment to provide a variety of housing for all members of the community absent any discrimination. The element addresses the specific housing needs of the City's residents, particularly emphasizing the improvement of housing opportunities for low and moderate income households. Additionally, the element priorities programs such as the conservation and revitaliZation of existing housing. Quantified -objectives incorporate the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) allocation as required by State law. CIRCULATION ELEMENT The element identifies traffic deficiencies and presents general guidelines for the improvement of circulation facilities within Tustin. The element's main objective is to provide a circulation system which serves the needs of the Community as well as a balanced transportation system and provide for safe, convenient and efficient movement of people Attachment IV Page 2 and goods, and conforms to applicable environmental quality standards. CONSERVATION/OPEN SPACE/RECREATION ELEMENT The element sets policy direction for the open space related resources of the City. These resources include land and water areas devoted to recreation, scenic beauty, conservation and use of natural resources and agriculture. The element's policies are based on the need to conserve amenities, protect against natural hazards, and meet the resident's desire for open space experiences. In addition, this element aids the City Council, Planning Commission, and professional staff i~ providing current and future residents with a'cost effectiv~ parks and recreation system. Apart from reconciling Tustin's growth with financial constraints, the element provides appropriate policy-level input for the new development of th~ East Tustin Specific Plan area, satisfies the requirements~.~f the Quimby Act to provide definite standards for park land dedication, evaluates joint-use site potentials and establishes a specific design development process for major recreation proposals. Air Quality is a sub-element of the Conservation/Open Space/Recreation Element. The purpose of this sub-element is to reduce current and projected emission levels through land use, transportation and conservation measures. NOISE ELEMENT The element identifies noise related' problems and issues, noise sources, noise measurement standards, establishes policy to address noise conditions that adversely affect the residents and provides guidelines for new development within the City. The element specifically discu'sses the issues resulting from the noise source impacts of the IZ5 and SR-55 freeways, the Browning Corridor and the John Wayne Airport over-flight pattern. SAFETY ELEMENT The element identifies preventive regulations of potential hazards within Tustin. The element establishes policy and direction for the reduction or elimination of potential hazards for the protection of Tustin residents from fires and geologic hazards including seismic activity. Features include the identification of evacuation routes, peak load water Attachment IV Page 3 supply requirements, clearances around structures and geologic hazard mapping in areas of known geologic hazards. An additional General Plan element is required for cities in Orange County, the Growth Management Element. GROWTH MANAGEMENT ELEMENT This element is a result of the voters approval of Measure M, the Traffic Improvement and Growt'h Management Ordinance. The purpose of the element is to ensure that growth and development is based upon the City's ability 4to provide adequate traffic circulation. ATTACHMENT V Responses to Foothill Communities Association, Inc. and North Tustin Community Association Comments, dated November 11, 1993 ATTACHMENT V RESPONSES TO FOOTHILL COMMUNITIES ASSOCIATION COMMENTS (A) RESPONSES TO NORTH TUSTIN COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION (B) A1 A2 A3 A4 The /echnical Memorandum is a working document and not adopted with -he General Plan. Incorrect reference will be noted in the record for future revisions. .. No ckanges to the General Plan are recommended. The project population forecast applies to the entire planning area and does not isolate individual communities within the Planning Area. Second sentence regarding no greater population density expec:ed over present density is incorrect. The General Plan does ~roject a small 2-3% growth rate over present population due ts natural population growth and infill development. This is nc: the most appropriate section to place any qualifying statements; since heading deals with Previous Planning Effor:s. .~ Propcsed deletion of reference to North Tustin' regarding consiieration of additional commercial is acceptable. The text will be amended to read · /here is a lack of commercial services in geographic areas such as in ~~ ~"~ ~ ~ the Irvine Business ienter, which warrants consideration of additional sommercial designations. The second request is to add more text regarding North Tustin's repeated rejection of further commercial services. It is not appropriate to include this in section under Needs, Issues and Opportunities. If desired by the Commission, similar language could be included under the Special Manacement Area discussion in the Land Use Element. It is proposed that a new section be added on page 10 to read as fcilows: A5 Statement is already a broad introduction and not a goal. This Znformation regarding the residential character will be Attachment V Page 2 A6 provided in the new North Tustin (Unincorporated Area) section. No changes to this policy are recommended. This policy statement currently specifically states in areas of "Tustin" A7 Support adding "compatible and complementary" language to text. It is not recommended to specify a radius of 1000 feet to determine compatible land uses. The amended text will read as follows: "Policy 1.6 Encourage ~~i~i~?~i~ii~iiiiii~~~~ infill of previously by-passed deve 1 oped. A8 This policy is intended to apply to the City of Tustin. It is recommended that text be amended to read: "Policy 1.7. Ensure an adequate supply of commercial and industrial land ~!~i~i~i~!iliiiiiii!i~i~iliiiiiiiiii~iiiiiiiiiiii~iiiiiiiili~!~i~ for potential commercial and A9 Change as proposed is not recommended given the North Tustin Specific Plan encourages lot consolidation and parcel assemblage. Compatibility issues are dealt with in other goals and policies in Land Use Element. Al0 Amend policy 1.13 to read: "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 Staff recommends against adding statement about capital improvements desired by residents. The city will make decisions regarding needed capital improvements. There is potential major liability that necessitates that these decisions be left to future City Councils. Ail Proposed new policy is acceptable with the addition of the word "Zoned". · o Pol· cy 1.14 ~r~:~r~ ......... ::::::::::::::::::.t-.'.'::::::::::::::::r~:::::::::::~::::::::: ........... Aztachment V Page 3 Ai2 No changes to this policy are recommended. Protection of topographical features and vistas concerns already addressed in Open Space/Conservation Element, and Goal 8 Implementation Program No. 23 deals with sensitive siting and grading issues. The City's Hillside Review process addresses colors of buildings and building bulk/mass through the Hillside Grading Ordinance and Grading Manual. A!3 No changes to text recommended. This policy applies to City of Tustin. Concerns regarding extension of commercial corridors in Land Use Element is.addressed by incorporation of North Tustin Specific Plan into the Special Management Area discussion of the LUE. .~ This section discussion applies to East Tustin. The East Tustin Specific Plan Hillside Grading Ordinance and Grading Manual regulates setbacks, buffering, building heights. N? change to text is recommended. ~ Al5 No additional policy is recommended, this section of policies applies to East Tustin only. The East Tustin Specific Plan is a regulating document. Ridgelines to be preserved are addressed in the Plan and guidelines and standards for grading all hillside areas in the City are also subject to the Hillside Grading Ordinance and Grading Manual. This section applies to the Pacific Center East Specific Plan Area. There is only ! billboard at present and it is currently in the acquisition process by the City. The City is restricted by law regarding removal of billboards. Billboards can not be eliminated without providing complete compensation. Our existing sign code is extremely strong regarding billboards. No future billboards are authorized. A new Goal and Policies will be added on Page 23 of the Land Use Element Goals and Policies section to read: Attachment V Page 4 Al8 A New Land Use Issue component titled North Uusti~ (Unincorporated Area) will be added to Table LU-1 title~ Lan~ Use Related Goals and Policies by Element. Al9 No change recommended. See comments under A20. . A20 Land Use Policy Map - No additional land use categzry is recommended. The Low Density Residential Category permits densities of 1-7 dwelling units per acre. The exist[n9 low density character of North Tustin is adequately refleczed in this category. If the Commission desires, page 33 of the Land Use Element under discussion of Low Density Residential Designation (second paragraph) can be revised to read- This designation allows a maximum of seven single family units per net ac~e of land. ~~'~iiii:~ii~~iiii~i~!ii~i!ii~::~i~'~i~h~'ca~iiiiiii~:: Tustin'.s Professional Office designation permits medical/dental, it would be unacceptable to exclude medical and dental uses. The PC designation with Special Management Policy Map.designation and narrative refers specifically to properties of North Tustin giving North Tustin more protection. A21 See comments under A20. A22 No changes are recommended. The City has a process in place that provides notification to property owners within 30C feet. No special process is necessary for North Tustin. A23 See comments under A20. A24 See comments under A20. Attachment V Page 5 A25 See comments under A22. A26 Amend discussion of North Tustin Specific Plan Management Area to read: North Tustin Specific Plan: The North Tustin Specific Plan applies to portions of the unincorporated area of North Tustin in the general vicinity of 17th Street and Newport Avenue. All 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 the Land Use Technical Memorandum. ~:::ii!'::~':'~:::~:~'i::?~i~::q':'!'~;7'i'7?~ ~ "i'i'?~'~':~?~.S ~:~i~.~ ...... ............ corot ~': ~:~i ":.!_ o~ ~1 :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::.~ .................. .~:~.~.~ i~R~ ................... ~.~ .................... ~ ................... ~~:. ~ ~[~ ~ ~ ~ ~;.~:.~ ~::~::~::~::::~:;::~[- .~- -:-: ..... :.:.~ ...... '. -x.:. - .: · ?:. · :.:.:-:.:.:.:.:.:-:.;.: :-:.:.:.:.:-: ~ ~ ::~::~;:~::~:.: -:.:.;.::: ~ :.:-:-:.:-;.:-:.;+:.:.: ·: ~ ~ ~::~::::::~::~ ~ ~ ~::~ ~ ~::~::::~ ~::::::~:::::::::: ~ ~ ~ ~ ::~ ~ ~::::~:j~::~ ~2~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~::~::~::~ ~' ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: '+>>>>: '+>>>>>>' ' >>>>: · >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>?m+>>>>>>>>?>.+:~ .+'+ >>.+..:..+>>>>>..x+.+.+.+.. -.....+k+.+>.+>...........+.....-..,,.-.,-., A27 Land Use Elemen- - Pa~e 49 - Chan~e last two paragraphs on page 49 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) and portions or all of this area could potentially be annexed to Tustin within tke next 20 years. Attachment V Page 6 Aztachment V Page 7 represent areas 'E'KE'E'"'""E'~'~'"'"'"~'~'~'~'~"E"E'i'"~'"'"'"E"EE'iuOeO in the. City of l=~i~e ............¢~ The two incorporated areas ...4 ~ ~ ~h lie ...................... e~~': ................... northwest or :.:<.:<.;.;,2,:+;.;<,:.;+;.:.;.;.;.;,:. so;~~ of the futurc alignment of Oa~oree R6~'d'"'~hich was only pr6~~[~~[~:~i~'""'"~'reate a traf f ic corrfd'6~'""[h~'~ ..... ~'~6Vi'd'eS ..... ~' snf0n'~ .......... ~'6'~"~'~'~"f'~"i ........ b'~U'hdary line between the cities of Tustin and -- . :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: ============================================================================================================================================================================================================================ '.:¥ r:[:::' ~ h~=========================================================================================================================================================================================~ ......... ~: ~:~ .......... ~::::::::~:~:~:::~:::~:~:~:~:~::~:~E:~:~:~':~:~:~::~ ~:~[~:~ ::::~:~ ~ S ~:~ ~:~ :E:~:?::~':':'~:~:" ~'?~:~:E:E :'::?::~:E:?:':'F'~'::::':'F ~[?'+?:'::>::~:+:'::F': ~[~?:':'L':?:'::':'~'¥':'::k'{" :': ~L'"" ......... ..... '~ ~'~'~'~ ' · :...:.:..: :< :.:.............<.:.:.:.:.............~:......:...+>....:+:+:<....:......:<+:.....~...~..~..~...~...:..~.~...~.....~.......~:..<..~.~....~..........v..~..~.:~...........~.~.........~...~.....~..~ ........-......................:v...............,.........-...-............-........-...-...-.-.-.-....-............ · ...-...~.....-...-. _ _ ~..q...A.~........~...~........L.~..~.........~..~?~.~....~...X..~....J...~...~..2.......%..~..~........J..~..%~......~....~.~.%.~ ........... ~..~.~..~...~..~..~........~.2.~..~..g...~....2.~...... ~_~ 4 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Attachment V Page 8 Bi B2 B3 B4 B5 B6 B7 See correction on A1 Delete Bullets 5 & 6 and move the following bullets to North Tustin (Unincorporated Area) Page 10: The annexation of certain areas in North Tustin could · rcsidcnt~ establish more logical city boundaries. Hillside areas within the City's Sphere of Influence may be subject to slope i~stability. In the event of annexation, significanf" infrastructure deficiencies~ No changes to Policy 1.5 are needed. State law provides process for annexations that include affected residents and hearing processes. See corrections on A9. See corrections on Al0. Policy 3.3 applies to East Tustin Specific Plan which permits clustering in hillside areas. Policy 9.7 applies to East Tustin Specific Plan which permits clustering in hillside areas. RW: kbc\ fcantcom, exa ATTACHMENT 1 Foothill Communities Association, Inc. P.O. Box 261 Tustin, CA 92680 November 11, 199_: Ms. Rim Westfield, Planning Dept City of Tustin 300 S. Centennial Tustin, CA 92680 SUBJECT: 'SPECIFIC COMNEENTS ON THE DR_q_wr TUS'IIN GENERAL PLAN REGARDING NORTH TUSTIN Dear Ms. Westfield: We appreciate the time and attention you and Ms. Shin~on and members of the Commission have given to our concerns about 'the draft general plan. Your invitation to comment specifically on suggested changes is welcome and has led to a number of suggestions detailed herein. · In the very short week available for this, there has not b.~_n time to communicate with any large segment of our constituency. Nevertheless, the FCA is confident the following recommendations represent the views of a substantial majority of North Tustin residents. A small handful of residents, we believe less than 5 %, n,Sght oppose these recommendations. If there is doubt in your mind as to the accuracy of this representation, the way to resolve it is for you to take the time to hold wide spread, well announced, community participation briefings and workshops in the North Tustin area and hear for .~urself first hand. It is unfortunate that this was not done in the beginning, and we would sill so recommend. Nevertheless we appreciate the urgency for you to receive and und~ the broad scope and the specifics of our concerns about the plan and therefore we submit ~ recommendations. BACKGROUND BASIS It is useful to review the general princ;.ples that shoulC ~'uide the preparation of-a new General Plan for unincorporated North Tustin. 1. The North Tustin community is better than 98% b,,:..2: out. Less than 67 acres out of 383 l remain vacant or agricultural. (Ref Land Use Techn~-.~l- Memorandum, August 1991, Table LUTM-5.) 2. The area is predominantly zoned and built 100-F_.~ uith quarter acre minimum lots (4 du/ac max) and 100 foot frontages. The average density of t/re built out residential area is 2.3 du/ac. (Ref. Draft EIR, Table 3-1, Existing land use). The pr~ominant existing housing stock is single family, single-story, in the 1800-3500 sq ft range. 3. The community has a distinct rural and semi-rural character. Many streets have neither sidewalks nor street lights in accordance with the wishes of the residents. Deep setbacks, low walls, and wide separations are the norm. 4. Retail and commercial needs of the residents are well served by surrounding development in Tustin, Orange, and Santa Ana. There is no need for any further commercial or professional office area. Most residents have chosen to buy and live here precisely because it does not have such development, and without exception, have actively opposed any such development. 5. We understand that the primary purpose of a General Plan is to enbourage the orderly development of neighborhoods and discourage unplanned, oppomunistic, incompatible, growth and mixes of land use. When the County's general plan was adopted, North Tustin was still a largely undeveloped area whose character had not yet emerged. At that time, broadly defined land use designations within which all required infrastructure, services, and development densities could be planned and .-, developed were therefore appropriate. Since then, a well defined North Tustin character has emerged. It is almost entirely a low- density, semi-rural residential area, 4 du/ac max, 2.3 alu/ac average. Large areas are developed.: as 1/2 to 1 acre and larger lots. The general plan needs are now quite different. What is needed now is for a general plan which will preserve and protect this character from rampant, opportunistic infill of the few small lots that remain or are created, e.g. by school closures. There is no need, and in the view of the residents, only negative value to i.nfl.ll development at anything higher than prevailing surrounding residential density. 6. Planned Community CPC) designation is inappropriate for this area. The concept of Planned Community development is valid for undeveloped land on a scale of hundreds or thousands of acres as in East Tustin where significant commercial, residential and buffer segments are each measured in hundreds of acres· PC designation is inappropriate as applied to the relatively small one to five or ten acre plots that are, or may become available in North Tustin. · 7. The lowest density currently defined in the Tustin General Plan is 7 alu/ac. This is inappropriate for an area having predominant maximum density standards of 4 alu/ac and existing overall average of 2.3 alu/ac. The possibility, of modifying the 7 alu/ac to r. more appropriate level on the order of 3.5-4 alu/ac was discussed in the workshop on 4 November. The strongest argumcn! raised at that time against doing so was the administrative inconvenience. This is a minor cost as compared to the loss of neighborhood quality and home values for all the neighbors that would be adversely affected by infill at twice the densiD' standard of the existing neighborhood. RECO~ATIONS The following specific recommendations follow logically from the above gener"E principles. Strikeouts are indicated thus: ~'~kcout. Additions are indicated thus: ...:.....:..:.....:.:. ;:;:.:.:..... Instructions and rationale comments are indicated thus: commerux A1 A2 Aa A4 A5 A6 RF~O~N'T)ATIONS TO THE LAND USE~TECt'INICAL MZF-~IORAN~DUM (1991) 1) p.53, Next to last paragraph: ~ ~ e~o~o~. ~ere is no retail development in No~h T~tin. Delete semence. tLF_X2OMIMY_NI)ATIONS FOR THE DRAFT GF_2X~L PLAN Intro. p, 5., add to end of middle paragraph: · ..., ...,.,w e...-.-.:,..-.- ..,>??:..:..,e.:.:.' - ¥.:.: .?:-:-:-:-:-:.' · :.:-:. :-:-~+:-:-:.:...' ' '.:-. ~.'-:.:.:.:-: ..'.'.~-: .:+:..'-:.:.: .~.-'..:-' '.>::":': 5-:':::~:':-: 2) Land Use Element, p. 6 Under 'Balanked Development', first bullet. Delete '.... areas such as ..................... the Irvine Business Center...~ "' (To consider more commercial in low densio' residential North Tusrin in the same breath with the Irvine Business 'Center reveals an insensitivity to sound community development). Add to end of same paragraph: .... ~ :.-, .,.., :~!~,.. :....,~.., ~ :~ ...,..,..,..-.., :~ !:-- ~:.~.~ ::...-~!~.~:-.-~ ~:~ ::~¢!--.-.-~ x.-.~:~ ,:.-..-. ! .-..: :.:-.-. ::-. ~.~. ::.::! .-'. ~-.-.,. ?~:.'::.:. :.x.-::.::;- ~: :~ ×: :,. :.-~: ..: x~:~-~.'.:~.' '! !!~; :. ~."*'.-'~ ~ ~-'.-'.: ::: ~.'~~ x~ :- ' :."'~' 'i'.~?~':':: 3) p.] O, Add new section: 4) p.J ] Land Use Elemem Goals a~d Policies, odd: :;;-;:;qgi;:::;:;:;::-;:;;:;::;:;:;:;,.......-..'- ---..- .... ............:.'.:........:....:;;:::....: .,..........: ..;... ...;;,...,.. :.......;...: ...,.. ..... .........: ,. :.......:..:.: . ......;.::....... ,;.~............~;.;...;:......:.:...........~:.:~.:::.:...:+>?..;~%:o~o c.~e co .+... ov..o.e...v.- ·e v 5) p. ]2, Policy J. 2 add ' underserved b, such .-. ) ,'.! ..... P.:i:..~ii .................... i: ...... : : ........ ......: ..... : ..... : .......................... :?..~°-.? ~-~.-.--:-:.? <:ti?'.7<.: .'-: :-' · '.- ':t :.t N.'-?.:-:.:: ~:: .... .--:.1.?:.:.:.:.: :.~.-.:.:.-.t.:-?-?.>. Pp~.s...~..i...s.'.u:..c.....h.i.?..e....s.:~·~([9.r:.i~::e.:[~p~.:~.~N...~p.rt. hi::~usu, n): Encoura=e the .... 8 6j j~.J2. PoliO, 1.6, Addition: "Encourage ~'~'~5~i'db:l~ infdl of previously bypassed parcels in areas already predominantly developed, t/~:i:.!~::~'~"~:?~i~~bi~'i!i~l~il;~!;;~'::;~i~'i~i~'~:i;~iii~ .................. ~-?' ~"?5"'"~"~'~':':~:"":'~::'?'~'~'"'f'''''~''':''''''''''''''''''''''~:': '""'"'"'":?:" ' ' "?: ':::~:?':"""?":"'"": .... ":':"": '::':' :: ::':::'15:'.: ' ::::::: :::::::::::::::::::::::::::: :::'> '-'::- :' ':::;"?::. ·" '"'"'::~i. ' "::::::::> :{¢: b: f' i: ' 'Lqk>>: :q: :>. xq T: ' ::!:¥ >k':Ui!!::T '::>: :> · ·:. 65:+:::¥ '"i 7J p. 12, Policy J. 7, add: ~:::..-.-.~:-;.~. -.-.:~.~.-.::%?.>?;-.<-.~,'~>..?--:-:<-.--....~:->....<.-...~..:..,-.;-:.:.:.x.;.:<-:-.,-:-::;:.~..,x:.::o.,:.>x,,-.,,,-,:.:.:.:.:.:~',':.:.-.:.:.:..-.-:-:-:-;~'-. -.<<.~ .-:.>:-:-:-:-~,:.~<<<-.<-:->;-.-,->.-:?x:.;. ~..-.-.-.,.~...,,.:..,~..,.>...... "... and deve~pment~wIiere:~..su.~h~:~cmme~*~:.~s~c~m¢~ub~e~..~.~i;the?surr~un~dmg~:area.7". 9 lO '9) p.13, Policy 1.13. Eliminate the offensive words: ..... .,., .... oppo,~un cs to mposc ............... --'-v.. ,..~.,.,,,~ and add in their place: ~ ~St~ .~.'~:..'~,..*.~':~Rg, .'~-~g,.~g..~ ..........................,~..'~....~?.¢-..'fi,..x~...-'~ .: .'x-.?~.·'::~...~:~::..:,~..~..~...~:~.:~. ~.~·~:.~.-'.-~C~xgq~g::~'~.:~.~g~:~-X::~'5-'i.:.:.>:-'::. :~'~..~fxr:::..~:~x.-'..:::.-5~-.:.~:~ .~/,..:.: ' ' 5. ' ::;~ ::: · .::: ' .:: ' ' ::-. ' '" .... ' ' .::- :::! . ::!':i: ' '::::: :: !:" ' ::~ :. ' 2. " '' ' ~ ....... ·, .$.>.:,.-, .............. ....~ .... ~, ....... ,.~........~.. , .. ~.~ .~,· ....· ..... ............ ,, , . ,.·.,.,., ·,.,,.,,·,· ... .... ......... · ......, .... , . . ...o,,.-q..............,:...,,........... . .'2.,,~.. -'.:'U'"":'.~..,..~..i~)?:~:.ili .' ' ~":' :. ~:-.-:-: c..-..:.:~.~:.'.'.:-:c-_.:-:. ;/· i.....i~Li..ili~::i~ ~.i~ii~i~ ~ii!.~ ~::ii~i~ ~ ~i}!}i!i~ riii~}ii~,l~ ~i~.i~:d ~ ~h 16r~:iiiS ~.~ffgi::~ ~,...., .:.....>:.:.:.~:.. :.:.:.:c.:.~ .:.....:.......~:...:.:.:.:. :;.~:......:.. 4.....:.:., .,:.:.:<.:.:..:....::.>>:.;........:.:..;2.:......:....:...:..;..:....:...%,.?......:4..:.:.....:. 4. -.,.k.. · :.:. · .>;. · ...:..:.:. ·..: ...... :....>..>:.I, ...:.:...:.~...>:.:.:,:.:...:.:....:.>:.:.: :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: ~ . .:ooo.~.x o:~.~...~>:,.~.~.~.:.:.~,,~.x< .~ .~..c.:.~.:~k;.~.:..;.;~:, x~-,~;~e~kk~:;:~.~.;.:q.:.:.:~..~.~.:.:.~:--.;. :;:;g:.:.24:::;:::~m;..c;.~k~:~..:.*:`:~:'.~;:;~*.:~:.:~:.~.c~x.t~.~:.:~:.~<<e~.:~:~;:~:~·.~.~.:.~:.. ..~:;.;:.:;:~,:~::: 10) p. 13, add new policy: .~i:~: ~-!:!::~:!.'.':!:::::' - · :i.'.'-'.'-'.':i::'::'-!:::::::". ::i:~.': ~ ".::". ~ ::~ ........ '..' :.,x~ 'cc~::.:,x.,~o,~-.x::;:...2i:~:~c~ cc-~;;:xccc.:,.';:..;,q;::.'::..-'q-x.~:,xc,~,:.:.X4.,:::;:;:.::;,x:::x~;:.:¢~c¢ ~ C ~;:~:~·:4:~¢ ~:~.. x~<~¥::~;x:~x:>...:: 12 ~3 22jp. 14 16, Policy 5.2, add: .~,~.x~,..~..~..~:,~ ..~:....~,~..<:-J~ ::.':: ;:-'.':S::::: : i i::: i:i; ;: : · :: :5 --;-::. > ::::::::::::::::::::: .:..:::. :::-: .:.:--.:..:.:: 13J t~.20 Add after last sentence: ~ :"",-~-.X.~-~.~'-'5.''.'' ''' :;~" ;g:::~-~--"~?~-~-':.-:'X-X".-.~...:.'.:--':' "~."::"' L~..::.~'~.:' :::?:' % ,.'~.:~,' '-: .~.::::.~.:' :.:-~..":-.'q.,'.'-:-:~ t::' '~'?.':t~' ~:'.'-':::f' ": ': .'>:-' ' '-' '..":-: ~.--~. :'~>.":.:e'~' ,'~'~:....'~...-~- ~?.- .".'- ~."."~-:-:-:.' ' · t..:'~:::.:~ ~.'->~>?:->~:.:-:.:~ '-'.~'.~:-:~.~t.:-~.:.:- > 1-;...1.;.1.1.1.;.2...;.;. ,:.....: : :.;....- ./1.:....1,1.;.;.2-2.;,;.;.:. ;.;.1.2.;,;~.;.??, .;.;.;.;.;.;~.~.;...~.;....~qi,..q~..-..~ ...i..~....., ....,..... ,~;... ..... ...,., ..,. ,.. ·.....,.. ,. q~ .......... · ...... · .................. , .. ,, ........... ........... .... ,. ..... ... '.:':::':" '-!t:';';.,':':: '-' :':".:-:-:ii:::' ' :':'.'--:-:t:':':-:':-:' "':':":':":::i:i:' ":':' ' "::i;:- ~1 ......................................................................................... ' .......................... · ........... 1 5 !4) p.21 Add new policy: ~B~.~':'..'":9"?:l O' ?:~i!;}i$~?i~'i:'~'~i~::i5 '6'~::~i '~a-i~'~6:i~}i$"-'::p r e ven t :?stro ii'~' i~"i5 t D~i'~ $ h ~i !]ih'i 6'~:.~' ~::.i: ~'~ ~'~ ~G~!~]iihm i!;~h:~,~!!}iilh~:!: : . ............................................... . ............................................................................ 1 6 22, ]6) p. 23. Add new section: ~.<: :5 ::x.< ::::::: :S::::::': :'::: ....-:,': :::::::::::::::::::::: ~P-.~ :::::::::::::::::::::::::::: .<.:i::.'::~::: ..:¢ ~: :x:[:i:!~:: ::.; ·. :~: :::: :.< .-.'::~ ::: :::;-: :::-'",..'::: ::: :~: :::.<: .'.::(~ ¥ :" ,' ::.'..'.::::-'l g'.~ .*:.':,-::::~: '"!?:'.-.5 :::: 2 ':"" ~::: :-'.~:: :¢:~-: :"'" "": :5: r: ' ~' ~ ..+............... ..... . ·...;~:........::; ,* ..;.;.. ......~ .~ .. :.:.. .....;. ..... :; ....:. . .....: :::; ..:.. .:<.:.:..... A18 ~!!~~~.>..!!~~i~!~~i!;j,..~!~ii:.>.'~~~!g~9~~&.'' ... ,...-..,. 7. -.-..........q.;... . · . ......... . -..- .....: ...~,; . ..... .-.; .;... ..;. ..... ..,.:... ~...........-, ...........~ ............................:................,:......................~ ~ .. ,~................~.~...-:.......... ~...............- .......................-......... ....... .::; '-:::.' ..... ., .:;. - .. . .::;: .... :~;:. cor~.er~lon.xto.~.:'.commo~.~¢matmn~:.4area~ 17J p. 24. Add a new row category entitled, A19 18) p. 25, Last paragraph, change as follows: 'The Land Use Element provides for six major land use groupings divided into 4-4 ~5 categories or designations as listed in Table LU-2. ~ B~ of these designations are established for residential development, rang;.ng from semi-tara! single family to l,figh- density multiple fmnily...' A20 19) p. 2Z Land Use Policy Map. b. Show all PUBLIC/INSTITUTIONAL as is. c. Change all Community Commercial North of La Colina from PC Commercial/Business to Professional Office with a footnote, that medical/dental facilities are excluded. d. Show the rest of the unincorporated area, including that presently designated PC Residential as SUB URBAN RESIDENTIAL. 2 20) p.29 Table LU-2. Add row to RESIDENTIAL category: ..... b2 Under Effective du/ac: :..2..i}}!.}::~ c. Under Land Use Designation and Summao' Description ' ............................................................................................................................................... . ............ !2 >.3 21) p.30 Mid next ~o Iaxt paragraph. The terms, 'exceptional design quality', and "important public 'amenities' are subjective and undefinable. Either eliminate these e_xceptior~ or add: ..... : ................ , ......................... -<.-: .............. -'"'?:~ ........ .~:"~::'"'~ ................. ~:: ........ i:'''~' ......... :::'":il ........ ! ......... 22) p.33, under Residential Designations, add: ., ....... . ........... . ........................... . .................. , ........ : ........ . ............................ .'-' ........... ~"" ~[~?:'"' ~d~':::.~;:se'~i~:*::::~ ~:::~ rtumties;:~6::::ou ~oor'.:: :hmng:::::::Slfl~~i 2 4 23~ F.40 T~Ie LU-3 ~dd row ~er r~idemiai: ~ ~ve all ~inco~or~ed area ~rese~ly in Low De~i~ R~idemial ~ PC ~w De~io' R~ide~ial i~o th~ c~ego~. 25 26 24) p.43, end paragraph J: The term.r, °minimal conxtraints', 'exceptional de. sign qualit),', and 'important public amenities' are subjective and undefinable. Either eliminate these exceptions or add: ...... - -.-~.-.. -,.-.-.., ,.-.-.-.-...-.-.-. ,......~.............,:...:.....:.:.:.:.....:.:.:,:..;. ~:...:...: .....:,~.~,.:~.?.: ¢.:~...: .~..~:.x ..................~.: ,:..: ~ ..~..~.,:.: ~ ^ ~..:,:.:,.-.~?..: ~..-... -.:.~...:.~. '...-..? ..~.'-'.t..:.:.~ :.:.:-~.:->' '.' · '-'-' ' '-' ' '-'~ '. ~... density/intensity. Th.~::d e t~..~i na~ :~:i:~:he.~er.:i:~r..i::r..`.~..t~:a~:p.r..p~:;:e. .~ b`..~s::~ y.:.~.f...:~e-.,e ~ .......... ~ ..................... :-:->.,.--: ....... . .' · ...' .2: .. 21:.' .%-..1:.'..:1..i.;,.':.;..'-.-'."2111 .*ilil;-i;:::;.. ~l:;:~l;.:::: ...::'['..:;:~'.?;;:-'"-::;:::'l~:~'~..::';:':: W' :"': :'..': ' "::.1',' .:' ;'l -:il;' .' .o ::".:~':':"'"':::' ....................... · ....... · ........ :~:::: .......... :~.........:::L.q~:~i:::::~.6:.~::~.:~::~e~te~.::b....:.suc~:.:t~v~.m~n~:..::Tne:maJontv pro.~y:..:o~,nero::~c~.::r ....... :::. :...:::::: ....... :..... .... a::,: .......... ::: ............ . ....................... :.:.~:::: .............. ...,..:::: ............ :::.: .............................. : ......... :::::::::::::::::::::::::::.::.:::....:::..:.:..: ~. :. ::-'::. i':':::::...~':::::: . :.. :'": ~c..:.:.:.:.: .~..;;¢ :< '-..- ,, :..>-. <. 4:> .,.-. ,<<.-. ~. < ~ .... :..:....:.:.....+:.>: ..:::<.:.:.::..,.:. -..;.:.:.:.:.:.:... x.....<,~>, x.:<q,~;.>..;.x.:.:.: . .-;-~-.- ................ ..-.-.-... ~.......- ..... ...-..'. · -'. ............ ...;.;~.:........:.....;.;......:-.....v .-......-.-...:.:-.+. 25) p. 48, North Tustin Specific Plan Area. Delete after "... end of paragraph, and replace with (starting new paragraph): Land Use Memorandum." to A2 in ."esporae to'a ~Yalid perCepdon that-thi~ area"formSla':sensifiv¢ buffer.zone:between co mmerci ~ d evel opm en t!::.tO :the;so u th.. i...and .West .:and. :low: i:d en si [M~ resi den tial..:..to ? th¢..inorlrh and. east. A carefully..:defined.:sPecifie:!:plan;! that .w0Uld:.Pmvide~10ng:!.term~.~tabili~?0r · th e.. area'~'z,S, r ..eqUired iii~i~ii.t.u~ fil~nt;~;i:~jing :blight'i ~6n~:!~.~:t6i:bei 7 26) Modificarior~ :o revised p. 49 ~ handed out at mee:ing of November 4. a. Second garagraph, delete and add, II An ' ' · ,:,',"":'~:.';:"" ".:C: y annexauons of pomons of unmc...o, rPomted land ~.!¢reqmre P..r.~:~;:i~9...U....[,~..n..g:::::.~.~..S....t..~g ,~.:.~g..,,.~?p..,:~...e.~t.:~:: ....... ,3 ........................ .~. ..... :~.... ,~...,~.,... ,~...-..: ..... ;,.,^.,, ~ ..... ~ r,, ....~....: .... event there is ":"':~' ~""'~ .... ..'.S',..t.. ig no ............... auc~:i~:const ent~:~zonmg::;: des nation in Tusfin, an :-:-:.:;:;:-:-:;:-:-:.:;5:;:;:.:.~;-:.'.:-:.'-:.:;'.'.'.' .;:,:.:.:-:-:-'-:;:;'::;t.:-:.:-:;%';:-:.'-','...;':: · appropriate Gencrv.! PI"~n and Zoning modification will be neces b. Third p:,ragraph, first bullet, add: c. Third paragraph, third bullet, add: d. Second gage, first paragraph, add: SUMM_A~Y These are signifi -m.nt, but in our view necessary and feasible changes. 'They lie at the root of issues that have .~parated the City of Tusfin and the residents of North Tustin in the past. Substanfizl agreement on these recommendations would go a lo, g way toward resolving those past differences. We see this as an important opportunity and hope that you will as well. Sincerely, CC: Members of the Tustin Planning commission Members of the Tustin City Council Further Endorsements to FCA letter to Rim Westfield, November 11, 1993 I~~/' £~ IY(I P- I£/ ~ NORTH TUSTIN COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION ,,. P.O. BOX 427'-179 · TUSTtN, CA92681-0427 Novcmbcr 12, 1993 Attention: Rita Wcstfield Community Development Department City of Tustin VIA FAX 573-3113 Pages: 6 RE: Comments on the Text of the General Plan The Board of Directors of the North Tustin Community Association CNTCA") approved last night the recommendation to the City of Tustin of the attached proposed text changes within the General Plan for the City of Tustin. We would encourage the City. Tustin's consideration of these changes. These changes are within the Land Use Element portion of the General Plan. We would hope that the intent of these statements if adopted be reflected in the,remaining portj, rms or the General Plan not specifically commented upon by NTCA. Thank you for our meeting with staff to discuss our concerns. Very trul~~(~.~ J'~m~s 'C. Brooks dent ! SUMJVlARY OF ISSUES, NEEDS, OPPORTUNTrlES AND CONSTRAINTS Thc Land Use Element establishes policy which is reflcctcd in all the other Gcneral Plan clements. The follow/ag land usc issues, needs, opportunities, and constraints have been identified in Tustin~ and arc addressed in thc goals and policics which follow in thc next section. BA.IJ~CED DEVELOPMENT IN_..TU.. STIN .... ~ . areas, such as ia N_e.".ht .'D. ze.'-i.=:m-~-'v'in thc Irvinc Business ~' Center, which warrants consideration of additional commercial designations. Land usc pattcrm.encouragc Tustin r~idcnt~ to rely on the automobile to commute lo work and shopping_ Thc City has thc opportunity to purchase surplus freeway parcels and develop them with uses which capitalize on thc& freeway acccssibLlity. With MCAS Tustin designated for closure, thc City ha~ a significant opportunity for futurc planning and development on this 1,500 acre sac ' ' ' - --~. 1~ ;....., _~ ~ ..... ~...~.....~ ..... slope stability and ~ infrastructure The intermixing of land uses in some areas without adequate buffering has resulted in land usc incompatibilities, such as those related to physical scale, noise, and traffic. Specific N0~-~2--~3 10,S2 FROH, ; ID, "7! ? ~:~1:~ P~CT' ~ B3 GOAL l: Provide for a well balanced land use pattern that accommodates exis41ng: :and~ flu'ute needs for housing, corn_inertial and industrial land, open space and community facilities and services, while maintaining a healthy, dlversHied economy adequate to provide future City services. Policy LI: Preserve thc low-density quality of Tustin's existing sln~Ic-f, mily neighborhoods whilc permitting compaliblc multi-family development to mcct rcglonal homing needs where best suited from thc standpoint of current development, acccssib~ty, transportation and public facilities. Policy 1.2: Provide for and encourage thc development of neighborhood-serving commercial uses in areas of Tustin presently undcrserve~l by such uses. Encourage thc integration of retail or scrvice cornrncrcial uses on thc strcct lcvcl of office projects Policy 1.3: Facilitate the development of vacant and underutilized freeway paxc¢Is with commercial uses .where appropriate and compatible with surrounding uses to capitalize on their free. ray access and visibility. Policy 1.4: Designate the Marine Corps Aix Station Tustin zz a specific ~.udy ar~a to provide' for future pl~nning and development for thc closure of !blt tnfl!tary haze. Policy 1.5: Consider modification of present Ci~ boundaries in unincorl~r~tcd zxeaz within the City of Tustln they arc irregulzx and create inefficiencies. Poli~ 1,6: Encouragc inFfll of previously by-passed parccl~ in · areas ~.ady predominately developed. · Policy' '1.~: Ensure an adequa~ supply o£ co~erdaI and industrial land for potential commercial and induztrlal expansion and development. Policy 1./5: As part of the CAges zttraction to b ~usincss end industry, provide r~lccluate sites to house future employees. Policy IH: Provide L-~ccntivcs to encourage lot consolidation and p~cc! assemblage to provide cxp~dcd opportuni~es for coordinated development and rcdcvclopmcnkco~h~ ~ ,.~ [~";"'2 (~'~' Policy 1.10: Provide development of light industri~ and busi.ncss p~rk uses under strict performance development standards. q0V-12-93 10:S3 FROM, ~ ID, ?~ q~ ~513 ~ACE 4 ~ncouraie industrial and business parks ~ the preferred method "' of accommodating/ndustrial growlh. Policy 1.1I: t~nsurc that ~h¢ distribmion and intendty of land uses m~: consi-~tcnt with thc Land Usc Plan and di~sdfication system. Policy LI~: Where feadble, increase the mount and network of public and private open space and recreational facilities which will be adequate in size and location to be useable for active or passive recreation as well as for visual relief. ~ ~.~ ~ ~(% .., ,~ · B5 C/vf'$ sphere of influence/or ~¢/r potency2 ~an~, soc~ an . . ~ , .. xmprovemen~ necessary in ~n~_exed are~st~.property[owners within each annexation arc%. .-' GOAL 2: Ensure that future land use decldons are the resul! of ~ound and comprehensive planning. Policy 2.1: Consider ali General PLan go~l~ and policics, including those in other General Plan elements, in evaluating proposed development projccu for Crcncral Plan consismncy. Policy ;l.Z: M~intain consistency Element, Zoning Ordinances, and regulations and standards. between the Land Use ot~cr C/ty ordi~nce.~, Policy :7.3: Endeavor to promote public interest in, and undcrztanding of, thc General Plan and rcgul~tionz relating to it. Policy 2.4: Encour~c citizen pmicil~tion in planning and development of land usc progrsr--~. Policy ~..$: Fo~tcr inter-govcrnmcnud cooperation and coordinsfion in crdcr :o maximize the cff¢c'dvenc~ of land usc policic.s. Policy ?.6: M:~in~:~in consistency with thc Ccun.'y of Orange Airport Environs Land Usc Plan in terms of maximum allowablc building height, noise lev¢ls, safety arcl~s, and othcr ~,pplicabl¢ standards. · · ID, 7' ~7 ~313 PAGE CO~A~-~-A]~:) COMP~ARY DEVELOP~ Intermixing of different land use~ can result ia iacompadbLLides attributable to diffcrcn~s in traffic loyola, noiac loyola, physical scale, and hour~ of operation, lncompau'bility can also occur when the characteriztic~ of a ~p¢cific land uzc do not match thc phyaical charactcristica of availabl¢ land (such as iate~ivc development in hil~de areas). B6 GOAL 3: Ensure that new development is compatible with surrounding land uses in the community, the CAty's circulation network, availability of public faellitie.% existing development constraints ~,,d the City's unique characterL~tics ~ud resom-c~s. Policy 3.1: Coordinate and monitor the impact and iatemity of land uses in adjaeent.~risdictiom on Tustia's tra~portadon and circulation ayatema to provide for the efficient movement of people and good$ with thc least interference. . Policy 3.2: Locate major commercial uses in areas that arc cagily accessible to major transportation facilid~. · Policy 3;3: Allow development Hklde areas ~ t,.~~ ~ ..-.----~,~.:,.,,..~ .... ,~,.,~,,,,L-~ ..--~. ~, better preserve the natural terrain and. open character of the City. Policy 3.4: In d~igaing hillside development, give parti~lar attention to maximizing vi~v opportunities, naintmh,in~ daager~ of geologic and soil hazaxda, miaim.izing adverse visual i_m_paet on sm'to,ding arena, ensuring compatibility with the natural environment, to thc maximum cxtcnI poss~lc, and rcco~nai?¢ other General Plan policics. Policy 3.~: Hillside devclopmem should be designed to follow natural contoura, where possible, :md to minirni?e the mount of land alteration. The location and design of structures mad acne,s should maximize the natural appearance of th: txiLlaidc.arca~. Development of ~olztcd arena wb. ic.~ can only be reached by going through stcep terrain should be d~eot:xaged. Policy 3.6;: Regulate development in identifiable hazardous area~ or in areas that are cnviromnental~¥ scmifive. Policy. 3.7: Encourage thc preservation ~nd enhancement of public vistas, particularly those sccn from public places. 10.54 F~OH, i ID, ?~ P~CE · Policy 8.8: Maintain and improve, where nccessm3', the City's irffrastructure and fadlides. DEVELOPMENT OtARAC"IY.R IN EKST TUSTIN East Tusdn will provide the majority of new residential development wi!hi__n thc plannin,g area. The planned community approach for development of the area can achieve ~ balance between urban use of land and maintevanee of thc rmtural environment. B7 GOAL 9: Provide for a planned community in East Tustin compatible with the brad use charaeter~tic$ of the local area and ~ensltive to the natural environment. Policy 9.1: Ensure the compatibility of development in East Tustin adjacent to existing developed areas. Policy 9~2: Provide for supporting ~d uses in East including neighborhood commercial centers, park and recreational facilities, and schools, to serve the residential community. Policy 9,3: Continue development phasing which provides incremental growth that is coordinated with the existing adjacent development, infrastructure arid market opporumifies. Policy 9.4: Enforce the East Tustin Hillside District Guidelines to preserve thc natural terrain of Tusfin's undeveloped h~lkides. Policy 9.5z Require graded slopes to undergo permanent re-vegetation in a timely manner to minimize chance of erosion mad siltation. Encourage the use of drought-tolerant and fire resistant plant materials. Policy 9,6: Retain natural landscape to the maximum ex,.ent possible: and incorporate pi2ntigg in uew development area.~ compatible ~r;th the charm:for and quality of the nature2 surrounding enxdronment. Policy 9.7: Encourage '~' c ....__v¢lopmen' in hillside ~m-e~ ~mizergrading impacts mad/or re~:~i~natural features 20 S'EPTE~S F~ ~ CONSENT CALENDAR 1-17-94 I · . . 4. APPROVAL OF MINUTES- JANUARY 3, 1994 REGULAR MEETING Recommendation: Approve the City Council Minutes of January 3, 1994. . APPROVAL OF DEMANDS AND RATIFICATION OF PAYROLL Recommendation: Approve Demands in the amount of $877,394.50 and ratify Payroll in the amount of $308,107.74. REJECTION OF CLAIM NO. 93-53- CLAIMANT, SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA GAS CO.; DATE OF LOSS, 9/14/93; DATE FILED WITH CITY, 11/5/93 Recommendation: Reject subject claim for property damage in the amount of $554.71 as recommended by the City Attorney. . REJECTION OF CLAIM NO. 93-52- CLAIMANT, UC VAN NGUYEN; DATE OF LOSS, 10/27/93; DATE FILED WITH CITY, 11/3/93 Recommendation: Reject subject claim for property damage in the amount of $1,136.00 as recommended by the City Attorney. · RESOLUTION NO. 94-9 - A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA, MODIFYING THE DESIGNATED POSITIONS CONTAINED IN THE CONFLICT OF INTEREST CODES OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN Recommendation: Adopt Resolution 94-9 modifying the Designated Positions (Appendix A) contained in the City's Conflict of Interest Codes as recommended by the Office of the City Clerk. AWARD OF CONTRACT FOR ANNUAL ASPHALT CONCRETE PAVEMENT REPAIR PROGRAM Recommendation: Award subject contract to All American Asphalt in the amount of $199,900.00 as recommended by the Public Works Department/Engineering Division. RESOLUTION NO. 94-16 - A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS FOR TRAFFIC SIGNAL MODIFICATION AT RED HILL AVENUE AND IRVINE BOULEVARD Recommendation: Adopt Resolution No. 94-16 approving plans and specifications and authorizing the advertisement for bids for the modification of the traffic signal at the intersection of Red Hill Avenue and Irvine Boulevard as recommended by the Public Works Department/Engineering Division. RESOLUTION NO. 94-15 - A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT NO. 93-7 Recommendation: Adopt Resolution No. 94-15 approving Lot Line Adjustment No. 93-7 as recommended by the Public Works Department/Engineering Division. Consent Calendar Page 2, 1-17-94 . 10. 11. 12. RESOLUTION NO. 94-17 - A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS FOR SIDEWALK, CURB & GUTTER, AND INTERLOCKING PAVER REPAIR PROJECT 1993-94 FY Recommendation: Adopt Resolution No. 94-17 approving plans and specifications for subject project and directing the City Clerk to advertise for bids as recommended by the Public Works Department/Engineering Division. COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT NO. D93-179 WITH THE COUNTY OF ORANGE TO PROVIDE FOR THE RESURFACING OF NEWPORT AVENUE Recommendation: Authorize the Mayor to sign and the City Clerk to attest to the subject Cooperative Agreement as recommended by the Public works Department/Engineering Division. COUNTY OF ORANGE AGREEMENT D93-142 Recommendation: Approve Agreement No. D93-142 with the County of Orange Environmental Management AgenCy as recommended by the Public Works Department/Engineering Division. RENEWAL OF CONTRACT FOR TREE TRIMMING SERVICES Recommendation: Renew the contract for contract tree trimming with West Coast Arborists in the amount of $198,666.00 including two (2) minor changes as recommended by the Public Works Department/Field Services Division.